About This Website

Purpose

This website is for Christadelphians and promotes the original historic Christadelphian beliefs and practices on significant issues that affect the brotherhood today. These include;

The Atonement
Fellowship
The Christianisation of Christadelphia.
Theistic Evolution

Correct Use of Christadelphian Quotes

This website features the consistent exposition of Scripture on these topics from respected Christadelphian writers predominantly from the first 100 years of “The Christadelphian” magazine. These writers include John Thomas, Robert Roberts, C. C. Walker, John Carter, Islip Collyer, W. F. Barling, Henry Sully, W. H. Boulton, G. F. Lake and W. J. Young.

These writers are not quoted as an authority in themselves but as the historic exposition of Scripture by Christadelphians as they were originally understood from the beginning. The Scriptures are the ultimate authority of Truth and all the writers we quote had a conviction that they must “prove all things” from the Scriptures. Their understanding of Scripture forms the foundation principles of the Christadelphian faith.

The value in examining quotes from these writers is to hear their exposition of Scripture and understand the Truth of its teachings. As John Carter said when quoting John Thomas, “Our concern is to get the teaching of the Scriptures; this, we believe, is faithfully given in the extracts quoted.” (The Christadelphian, March 1938)

We have provided a comprehensive volume of quotes from these writers to demonstrate the consistency of their general teachings. This is how John Carter used quotes from John Thomas and Robert Roberts. Full articles have been provided rather than extracts so that the proper context of what is being written can be examined.

In particular, John Thomas and Robert Roberts have been quoted selectively or out of context to support views that are inconsistent with the general teachings of their writings as a whole. If we are going to quote writers we must quote what they meant accurately and not put our own interpretation on them.

In 1947, when the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias in America imposed a false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. by misrepresenting the views of bro John Thomas in selectively quoting an article he wrote in 1855 “Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall”, bro John Carter corrected them by providing a series of extracts from the writings of bro John Thomas before, at the time, and after the article they quoted to illustrate his general teaching by which the words in this quote must be understood.

“With regard to the extract quoted from Dr. Thomas in support of the Buffalo interpretation of the Statement, we have given them several citations from his works written before, at the time, and after the extract, which give the general teaching of Dr. Thomas in harmony with which his words in their quotation must be understood.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

They also misrepresented the views of bro Robert Roberts in imposing their false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. by selectively quoting an article he wrote in 1869 “The Relation of Jesus to the law of Sin and Death” despite the clarification he made about this article later in 1877. Bro John Carter’s comment about the misuse of this quote is “A man has a right to explain what he meant and to admit the obscurity in his terms; but if we want to quote him, we must quote what he says he meant.”

Bro John Carter illustrated the true interpretation of the B.A.S.F. by quoting a selection of writings from both bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts which illustrated the general teaching of their writings.

“We have also added several citations from other writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts; and have invited the two ecclesias to say if they accept the Clauses of the Statement as meaning the same as the teaching in the extracts quoted to them. The interpretation which is being imposed upon the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith by the Philadelphia circular is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

As John Carter observed, “in every controversy for the last eighty years, both sides have quoted Dr. Thomas, and in the 1890’s Bro. Roberts’ earlier writings were quoted against himself despite his denial of the inferences which were drawn from his earlier writings.” (The Christadelphian, November 1958).

The website articles analyse the Scriptural exposition of these writers on various matters in the context of the historical foundations of the Christadelphian faith. While the articles by these writers speak for themselves, our articles provide links and connections to give a context of the background they were written in and how they shaped Christadelphian history.

The Scriptural basis for the Christadelphian faith has been forged through various controversies where the test of “proving all things” from the Scriptures separated truth from error.

The Scriptural exposition in the writings of early respected Christadelphians provides us with a litmus test to discern between truth and error. If an idea is presented that contradicts the understanding of Scripture as historically expounded by early Christadelphians it must at least be viewed with suspicion and rejected if it cannot be reconciled. As Islip Collyer wrote in “A Review of the Past”.

“From the present vantage-point of time, we may review the old controversies in a calm and judicial spirit, and perhaps see truth in stronger light as the result of those dismal errors. It is sad to contemplate them, nevertheless. …

There is one lesson we ought to learn without fail. If we ever feel inclined to revive any theory of the past, or if we think that we have found a new element of truth with the honours of discovery all our own let us examine it very thoroughly, and ascertain exactly where it is leading us before we proclaim to others. …

By all means examine the old controversies if you are interested in them, but see that you have fully mastered them before you begin to express opinions of a kind likely to rekindle the old fires.

My conviction is that although a clearer understanding of some points may have been gained through painful controversy, our general conclusion must be that our predecessors wrought so well that our work is merely to build on the foundations they laid.” (The Christadelphian, September 1914)