“Correct Use of Christadelphian Quotes”

A History of Christadelphian Exposition

This website features the consistent exposition of Scripture on these topics from respected Christadelphian writers predominently from the first 100 years of “The Christadelphian” magazine. These writers include brethren 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. 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. This was bro John Carter’s purpose in quoting bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

“In The Christadelphian of December last we reprinted some words written by brother Roberts on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.” This was done to set forth once more the teaching of the Bible on a subject upon which there has always been some confusion of thought. The subject is at the heart of most religious controversies, and this is true in connection with the history of the Truth in the last days. The synopsis by brother Roberts was plainly written and well supported by Scripture, and was chosen for these reasons. But we are now exhorted by correspondents, who apparently do not agree with this synopsis, to go back to Dr. Thomas. But a series of propositions which are demonstrated by Scripture quotations takes us back to the final authority on the matter. All that is true in the writings of Dr. Thomas is based on the Word of God, and he would be the first to say, Prove all things by the Scriptures. But what has he to say on the nature of man and Christ’s relationship to that nature? In Elpis Israel he says …

It is possible that having now quoted Dr. Thomas someone will write to say he wrote something else which differs or appears to differ from what we read in Elpis Israel. It may or may not be so. But the issue is not whether he wrote on one occasion that which contradicted what he had written elsewhere. Our concern is to get the teaching of the Scriptures; this, we believe, is faithfully given in the extracts quoted.” (The Christadelphian, March 1938)

Representing Christadelphian Expositors Accurately

When quoting bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts above, bro John Carter had to contend with those who quoted bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts against each other and against themselves. But his purpose in quoting them was for their exposition of Scripture which he emphasised is “the final authority on the matter”.

As bro 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).

Bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts have been quoted selectively and out of context to support views that are inconsistent with the general teachings of their writings as a whole. This is disingenuous. If we are going to quote them we must quote what they meant accurately and not misrepresent them.

For example, 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)

These ecclesia's 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 continued misuse of this quote is;

“In the disputations on this subject there has been reference to an article by bro. Roberts in 1869. This article contains some ambiguous expressions, and on more than one occasion “those of a contrary mind” have quoted it. In searching for something else, we have come across an explanation of his meaning in The Christadelphian, 1877, page 471. 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.” (The Christadelphian, November 1944)

Bro John Carter used a selection of bro Robert Robert’s writings to demonstrate what he meant in his article of 1869 and to illustrate his consistent general teaching.

“We have withheld Intelligence, but have written these ecclesias giving bro. Roberts’ own explanation in 1877 (reproduced in The Christadelphian, Nov., 1944, page 127) of the article of 1869, from which it is evident a meaning is being attached to his words quoted in the circular that he did not intend. Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found inThe Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons),27 (Disease), and 28 (Death);The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

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

This is how bro John Carter used quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts, and it is for this reason that we have provided a comprehensive volume of quotes from Christadelphian writers to accurately demonstrate their consistent general teachings. Full articles have been provided rather than extracts so that the proper context of what they wrote can be examined and compared with their other writings.

The website articles written by Ian Clark 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 website articles provide links and connections to give a context of the background they were written in and how they shaped Christadelphian history and set out the foundation principles of the Christadelphian faith.

Maintaining the Foundations of Christadelphian Faith

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 ultimately be rejected if it cannot be reconciled with the tried and proven understanding of Scripture of our early brethren. 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)