i myself am a christadelphian (16 years of age) and im not sure where uve got all this stuff from!
what is going on in ure article of the Christadelphians bing a cult?
i mean no offence when i say that the verses that u quote for backing up the three way godhead are read in the wrong context.
im not sure why u quote these as they seem to have four points too them not three (heart, soul, mind and strength.) surely that must mean everthing! it would be a bit daft if they mentioned loving with anything else like ure two hands and legs would it?
i am certainly open for discussion in an effort to find the truth (although im pretty convinced that what the 'CD's have to offer is very convincing.
31st July, 2004 - TCE replies:
thank you for taking the time to contact us.
We are not offended easily and hope not to offend you either - except by pointing you to the cross and true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Regarding your questions point by point:
We have defined a cult from an orthodox Christian viewpoint at
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page55.html and gave more detail of the errors expressed by the Christadelphians when they tried to define a cult
(at http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page62.html )
If you read these pages you will see that the Christadelphians certainly do fulfil the definitions of a cult.
Furthermore, how do you believe the Christadelphians define a cult? What do you think of their views of those who believe in the doctrines of the Protestant faith, such as those expressed by their spokesman in Cardiff on our page 62ff.?
Are you quoting from our website in your statement concerning 'heart, soul, mind and strength' with regard to your reference to 'backing up the three way godhead.' Can you be more specific and give a page reference as well as clarifying your statement concerning the 'godhead' to which you refer?
If you can clarify these points we will happily discuss important issues at length.
In Christ Jesus
31st July, 2004 - Tim replies:
yeah that sounds very nice of u. im always up for discussion.
erm the definition u had for a quote goes as follows:
The word cult is from the Latin word cultus - to worship, or show reverence to something - but specifically describes people who base their beliefs on the world view of an isolated leadership which always denies the central doctrines of Christianity as taught from the Bible. All of these groups - and many others - present a "different gospel" from the historical gospel
preached by the apostles (Galatians 1v6-9)......Do not be taken in by any counterfeit! If you are already studying with any of these groups - or others who exhibit the same "marks of the cults" - we advise you to contact us for more details and conclusive proof of any facts we quote.
im not sure why Christadelphians r labelled as bing this as we believe what our doctrin is based upon is the apostle's original message. The trinity for example was first started in 325AD at Nicea, roughly 300 years after Christ's asention.
i dont think that that would b in the first aposles message.
i havent read all of ure site and discussion of Christadelphians but not all that is reported is true of the whole of Christadelphia. I'm not sure what ure getting at with John Thomas... i would say he was any more than a man who understood the scriptures, for it is Jesus that we are greatful for, for revealing the secrets hidden since the begining.
and im not sure what u meant by:
How can one state "....to realise how helpless our position would be..." without making it clear that Bible sufficiency is not enough!
im positive that not a view held by the CDs. the bible is just what we need! its all that we were given by God!
anyway i'd like to hear what uve got to say and any scripture that would back up the differences between ure faith and mine would b cool
6th August, 2004 - TCE replies:
thank you for replying so promptly.
After you quoted our cult definition from the tract you wrote:
im not sure why Christadelphians r labelled as bing this as we believe what our doctrin is based upon is the apostle's original message.
TCE: it is one thing to claim your 'doctrine is based upon the apostles original message', but quite another to prove this to be true. We have proved (on our pages:
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page62.html ff.) the connection between the unique teachings of Dr John Thomas (and his successors) and the current teachings of the Christadelphians and have shown that this fulfils the definition of a cult as stated: 'The word cult … specifically describes people who base their beliefs on the world view of an isolated leadership which always denies the central doctrines of Christianity as taught from the Bible.'
You wrote: i havent read all of ure site and discussion of Christadelphians but not all that is reported is true of the whole of Christadelphia.
TCE: as we have pointed out to other Christadelphians who mailed us, there are invariably break-away groups from every religious movement and we know that the same is true of the 'Christadelphians'. We have based all of our writings on the 'Christadelphians' on three main points of reference:
The teachings of the 'Christadelphians' in the Cardiff area (ref.
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page62.html ), as expressed at the meeting detailed and in conversations and correspondence over the years. We will probably expand the information on the website with regards to these interactions some time in the future.
The teachings and arguments expressed in the books and booklets circulated by the Cardiff 'Christadelphians' (published by Lightstand, Films, Videos and Publishing for the Christadelphians, 10 Oxhayes Close, Balsall Common, West Midlands, CV7 7PS, UK; and 'Preparing for Baptism - a guide for the instruction of those seeking baptism into Christ' by Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 17 Braemar Road, Torrens Park, South Australia, 5062);
Books written by the founder of the 'Christadelphians' (e.g. Dr John Thomas' 'Phanerosis') and those considered authoritative (e.g. Robert Roberts' work and Harry Tennant's 'Christadelphians - What they Believe and Preach';
If any of the 'Christadelphian' groups you consider bona fide, or otherwise, teach doctrines at variance with these authorities you may care to do them a service by detailing these differences. It is our experience that major/central doctrines of most religious groups do not vary extensively and we have no reason to suppose that these 'Christadelphian' groups are an exception. If you wish to prove otherwise then we will print any reply from you (uncorrected) on our pages, limiting you only to the number of pages presently designated to the subject of the 'Christadelphians' and asking that you carefully document any statements you make from the official publications of the group to which you refer. We do, of course, reserve the right to comment on anything you care to write to us (see conditions under which we accept e-mails:
It would also lay groundwork for any discussion that may follow. We are particularly concerned for the eternal future of Christadelphians who believe the views promulgated in these quoted sources and therefore have an un-Scriptural understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ, His atonement, grace (versus works and 'works' baptism), and the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
You also wrote: 'I'm not sure what ure getting at with John Thomas... I would say he was any more than a man who understood the scriptures, for it is Jesus that we are greatful for, for revealing the secrets hidden since the beginning.'
TCE: we know the position that Christadelphians afford Jesus in their theology, but this is far short of the Biblical position which shows clearly that He claimed equality with the Father, but did not claim to be the Father or an emanation from the Father. We have also made it clear that the Christadelphians give John Thomas a position which, again, perfectly exemplifies the definition of a cult leader - see:
Go back to the references about Christadelphian John Thomas' work on their non-Biblical doctrine of "God-manifestation" and note that it says: 'he did not find his problems already worked out, neither were the difficulties he encountered already solved and only waiting to be 're-hashed up.'.....hard study and careful investigation were required before he could, in the lucid way he did, 'open up the Scriptures' to enquirers after the way of life....'
We [TCE] repeat - it is impossible to prove that anyone ever believed exactly what the CDs believe today and therefore they are saying that the gates of Hades did prevail against Christ's church - but 'Trinitarians' can prove their beliefs right back to the Bible.
You wrote: 'The trinity for example was first started in 325AD at Nicea, roughly 300 years after Christ's asention....i dont think that that would b in the first aposles message.
TCE: Your statement here is incorrect and obviously unproveable and we will happily explain the teaching of the 'Triune' God from Scripture - starting from basics. Again, we have already written something concerning the 'Trinity' at
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page64.html You should also notice that we have already shown that the fact that the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible is as irrelevant as the fact that the term 'God-manifestation' does not appear in the Bible. What is important is whether the teaching is found there and this is why we wrote:
'It is a pity that the CDs cannot see that summarising 'what we believe the Bible says' in such a way is perfectly acceptable in order to summarize doctrines such as the Trinity - which they don't believe and say isn't in the Bible - or 'God-manifestation' which they believe in, although it isn't in the Bible!'
'But Palmer's real aim is to introduce the definition of CD by throwing in a couple of Bible quotations, using the term 'brethren' (Gk. adelphoi), and then concluding - 'it's quite a Scriptural phrase, isn't it?' Well, no, it isn't actually, Stephen - it isn't found in Scripture at all. (Later, note his views on the word 'Trinity' which is not found in the Bible).'
You wrote: 'and im not sure what u meant by:
How can one state "....to realise how helpless our position would be..."
without making it clear that Bible sufficiency is not enough!
im positive that not a view held by the CDs. the bible is just what we need!
its all that we were given by God!
TCE: Again, we have clearly made our points concerning the view that the early Christadelphians held of Thomas' work at:
I suggest you re-read our proof that Christadelphians rely on extra-Biblical writings [see the authorities quoted above] to explain what they believe the Bible really teaches, since it would be difficult to make it any plainer than it already appears there.
We look forward to your replies to these points and are particularly concerned with the most important aspect of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ - our position as sinners before the judgment seat of Christ and our salvation in Him.
Sincerely in the Saviour God, the Lord Jesus Christ
18th August, 2004 - Tim replies:
hey there dave,
first i must appologise for this late reply as ive been on holiday (and will be going away next week as well)
the christadelphians do not base their entire beliefs upon Brother John Thomas and in no way is he a leader, he just had a great understanding for the scriptures (as many bretheren have today.)
he is certainly not the leader in the Christadelphians. we have no leader except Christ. i would like to stress that heavily.
"TCE: Your statement here is incorrect and obviously unprovable and we will happily explain the teaching of the 'Triune' God from Scripture - starting from basic"
i am certain that the is no first record of the trinity (be it in the Bible or the Apostles Creed)
The trinity is a man made device which has advanced over time.
"also notice that we have already shown that the fact that the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible is as irrelevant as the fact that the term 'God-manifestation' does not appear in the Bible. "
i would look at
John 17.6 (Jesus manifesting his name through himself)
1John1.2 clearly shows that the word was with God and was manifested in the flesh (and God was the word in John 1.)
so i think u will find that what u said about God's manifestation is incorrect (but what u said about the trinity not being in the bible is right)
Brethren is a sriptural phrase Dave.
rom8.29 clearly showing that Christ will b the firstborn among many brethren
(and which also shows that Christ was foreknew. Not actually alive with God
before his birth. But if he was the so were we, because we are 'predestined' in vs 30.
so im not sure why u didnt think brethren was a scriptural phrase because there is many more.
Concerning the trinity, i have composed a list of Biblica references that disprove the Trinity and should hopefully explain so verses that Trinitarians
Some trinitarians asks why could Jesus then forgive sins? Check out John20.22-23. (It is the power of the holy spirit that forgives sins)
John14.28 clearly stating that they differ and God is by far greater.
James1.13 Jesus was tempted by the devil, but God clearly can never be.
John1 is a frequently used Chapter for trinitarian doctrin so i'll give my views on that
what do i believe is the word? i believe the word is the 'plan' or even more simply the 'word'
If God was always the word then how come the word has a begining in vs1 . No God made the word and God was the word or plan.
All references to 'He' or 'Him' could just as easily be translated 'it'.
vs 4 in him was life and the light of men. The holy spirit gives life and understanding in darkness.
vs 6 is an interesting vs. However you read it, John came from God. (in the original Greek its say 'a man sent from beside God) How then is there a belief in Christ being alive before he was born? because if you believe that, then you must believe in John living in Heave before he was born. and Jeremiah (in Jeremiah 1.5)
and in vs 14. The word became flesh. It became soemthing else. (Jesus)
and John 3.13 is an interesting verse if u believe in Heaven going.
Romans8.3 - He sent his own son not himself in the likeness of sinful flesh. (so Jesus is described as being God's son even before he was made into flesh!)
Eph1.4 we were also predestined before the foundations of the World
i hae a few more references if u care to discuss again.