Talk:Christadelphians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

'Please read this first'

A number of users seem to be using this page as a discussion forum. This page is for the purpose of discussing the content of the article on Christadelphians. Wikipedia has its own conventions on formatting. Please take the time to acquaint yourself with these, as it makes it a lot easier to follow discussions. I have rearranged the talk page, archiving some old discussion, moving some to user pages, and re-formatting some parts.

Some recommendations:

• Do set up a wikipedia account and sign in whenever you edit. This ensures there is no confusion about who is saying what. You can use a handle, e.g. RJB.
• Do end your comments on the talk page with four tildes (~) so that it is immediately obvious which user you are.
• Do indent with a semi-colon if you are replying to another user's comment.
• Do use private email (if possible) or user talk pages if you wish to discuss an issue between yourself and another user that does not involve others
• Do use two equal signs (=) to start a new section
• Don't use this page for discussing issues not relating directly to the article
• Don't use personal names if users are using handles.

Perhaps we can have less threats about 'reporting people for breaches of rules' and more effort to follow wiki convention.RJB 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• /Archive 1: up to end of 2004
• /Archive 2: 2005
• /Archive 3: December 2005-January 2006
• /Archive 4: February 2006
• /Archive 5: February - December 2006
• /Archive 6: December 2006 - April 2007

Discussion between KEM/Ecclesiastic removed to their respective user talkpages. RJB 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion between Ekklesiastic/Kevin removed to Ekklesiastic's talkpage RJB 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Critical Links 2 Peace churches 3 Semi protection requested 4 POV - horrible imbalance 5 Article would benefit from in-line citations 6 Editing problems 7 Beliefs edit 8 Requested move 8.1 Discussion 9 Move 10 Berean Christadelphians 11 Documenting Small Groups 12 Conscientious Objectors 13 Vandalism 14 Beliefs about the extent of the Kingdom 15 Christadelphian Worship 16 The term "Christadelphian" 17 Recent edit 18 Criticism?

[edit] Critical Links

I added two critical links, but both were removed and no reason was given. External links on controversial topics are to be balanced out. Currently it is considerably lopsided. See the Wiki article on the subject.

Furthermore, several links to the same site are not allowed: [1]. The rebuttals to CARM are just that.

Frankly, this page is anything but NPOV. It's time for a clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Looks like they're back up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello 66.191.17.168,

Sorry about the confusion - I moved the links you added to the top of the critical website section to make the section easier to navigate: sorry it confused things. I have removed the multiple links to the same website and linked to an appropriate linking page within the site instead; thanks for pointing it out.

Yours, --Woofboy 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks better now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Following this guideline, I've removed some links from the critical website section because they are links to forums. I also removed a link that didn't mention Christadelphians. For balance, I've added again the CARM links that were removed. And I have also re-included the links to some rebuttals. --Woofboy 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Inherit-the-Kingdom listed under critical websites? Unlike the others in that section it is written by a Christadelphian, and it isn't critical of the Christadelphians (it just disagrees with the mainstream Christadelphian view). Surely the link belongs in the "Christadelphian Websites" section. Not having it there implies that it isn't a Christadelphian website (and the author is by extension not a Christadelphian), which is not a judgement Wikipedia should be making. Perhaps having a section on Chrisdtadelphians and homosexuality would be more appropriate? I could write this. Exdelph 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)exdelph

Hi Exadelph.

inherit-the-kingdom is in the critical websites section because it is counter to Christadelphian beliefs. Christadelphians, from their understanding of the Bible, have always been counter to homosexuality, so if someone came along encouraging homosexuality then this person wouldn't be a Christadelphian - they may be very similar to Christadelphians in a lot of their beliefs, but not in this belief. Perhaps it would help if we viewed this from the point of view of a doctrine like the Trinity: Christadelphians have always been counter to the Trinity; if someone taught that the trinity was true then they would be outside Christadelphian beliefs - it's similar with homosexuality here: encouraging homosexuality is outside Christadelphian beliefs; it is against Christadelphian beliefs. This is what puts inherit-the-kingdom in the critical website section (it is critical of Christadelphian beliefs to do with homosexuality).

Thanks for the concern. Yours, --Woofboy 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Woofboy, in my experience a reasonable minority of Christadelphians are not opposed to homosexual relationships, and the existence of Inherit-The-Kingdom is clear evidence of this. As far as I know, none of the traditional statements of faith mention this at all, so one's position on homosexuality can hardly be taken as a defining doctrine of the Christadelphian faith. Many of the different Christadelphian fellowships listed under the links section have mutually incompatible beliefs (which is why they form distinct fellowships). It doesn't make sense to include fellowship X and fellowship Y as "Christadelphian" when they have non-mainstream-Christadelphian beliefs, but to exclude Inherit-the-Kingdom because it has non-mainstream-Christadelphian beliefs.

Your point about the trinity is a good one - but the Trinity is implicitly addressed in the statements of faith, and explicitly rejected in the doctrines to be rejected, so Wikipedia can take this as a defining Christadelphian belief.

It might be more appropriate to have a section on current controversy within the Christadelphians, which would include homosexuality and the marriage/divorce issue. The section on homosexuality would obviously refer to Inherit-the-Kingdom, but unless this issue is actually addressed in the various statements of faith, it isn't Wikipedias place to say that Inherit-the-Kingdom isn't Christadelphian when it claims it is.

Unless there are any serious objections, I will write a short section on current Christadelphian controversy and will update the links as appropriate.Exdelph 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick (related) question: what objective criteria are used to decide if a website is Christadelphian?Exdelph 12:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Exadelph. As far as I can remember, the traditional statements of faith don't mention things like murder or theft (or any other specific sins), either, but these are all sin that Christadelphians, from their understanding of the Bible, are opposed to. To encourage theft, murder, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. is against the things that Christadelphians have always stood for. If someone were to do any of these things then they would not be Christadelphians - they could be very similar to Christadelphians in lot of other beliefs, but they would not be Christadelphians. Thus inherit-the-kingdom is critical/in opposition to Christadelphian beliefs. Yours, --Woofboy 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't theft, murder, adultery and fornication all mentioned in the Commandments of Christ, which are as much a part of the SoF as the Doctrines to be Rejected are? They were in my old ecclesia.

This is drifting off-topic though. What are the objective criteria that are used within Wikipedia to determine if a site or other source is "Christadelphian" or "non-Christadelphian"? As the Christadelphians are a non-hierarchical group the only "authority" that can be appealed to are the Statements of Faith, at least in an encyclopedia context. I don't want to refer to inappropriate sources in my section on controversy within the Christadelphian community. The two areas I'm going to write about are divorce and remarriage, and homosexuality. Any suggestions for other areas? Exdelph 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality contravenes the Commandments of Christ, namely 50. Things not to be named, still less practiced, among saints: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, drunkenness, covetousness, wrath, strife, sedition, hatred, emulation, boasting, vain glory, envy, jesting, foolish talking. (Eph. 5:3-4; Gal. 5:19-21). Examine these in a modern translation (like the NET) along with 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-11, Romans 1. Now go onto #52, #61, #81-85, then #95. - Cdelph 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

CoC 50 does not mention homosexuality, although it does mention general sexual immorality. There is nothing that `proves' all homosexual activity is sexual immoral (I've read the quotes in a modern translation). The other passages you mention are also discussed on Inherit The Kingdom, where a Christadelphian claims they do "not oppose all same-sex relationships" - so we are back to square one. I will take all of these points into consideration when I write the section on current controversy.Exdelph 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An Ex-Christadelphian. The reason he was disfellowship was for this reason, as he mentions on his Xanga account. He will remain out of fellowship until he renounces his currently held beliefs and actions. Cdelph 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cdelph, that Xanga post says s/he isn't sure why s/he left the community, not that s/he was disfellowshipped for being gayExdelph 06:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a first draft of my controversies section to User page. I propose that this section is added to the main Christadelphians page between Evangelism and Further Reading, and the homosexuality links are removed from the Websites section. I found the divorce/remarriage section difficult to write. Suggestions and edits are welcome (especially with citations!)

There are no "Current Controversies" over homosexuality in the Christadelphian body. What we have is one loud mouthed ex-Christadelphian trying to pass himself off as a Christadelphian and that there are a lot of Christadelphians that accept his teaching on the subject. Cdelph 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the two websites I mention in my draft is de facto evidence of the controversy, further suported by the lack of mention of the issue in the Statements of Faith.Exdelph 06:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that many Christadelphians will be uncomfortable with what I have written, but I feel this new section gives a fair account of these issues in the Christadelphian community.Exdelph 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Divorce & Remarriage, fine. Homosexuality, no. Anyone who is an active homosexual, or who promotes homosexuality is placed out of fellowship if unrepentant. Period. There is no controversy on this subject. Cdelph 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true, Exdelph, there is no current controversy over homosexuality within the Christadelphian community. Of course, it might be difficult for you to tell because you yourself are actually an exdelph, so it might be hard to gauge, from outside, what is happening within the community.

One of the websites you mention is defending the Christadelphian view on a topic - every Christadelphian website that defends the Christadelphian view does not equal a "controversy"; it just equals a defence of the Christadelphian view. And the other website you referred to is from one person pushing their view (one person pushing their view does not make a controversy), who is an ex-Christadelphian, for that matter (so isn't even a controversy coming from the Christadelphian community). The addition you are proposing would not be an accurate representation. Thanks for the effort, though. Yours, --Woofboy 08:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The webmaster for Inherit-the-Kingdom says s/he is Christadelphian, and that s/he gets messages of support from Christadelphians. Do you have any evidence that s/he isn't Christadelphian or is lying about the support? I know of two gay Christadelphian blogs as well, one of which has comments from other Christadelphians broadly supportive of the gay PoV. It looks like there is a controversy, and I maintain that the links in my proposed addition support that.

Oooo... two whole blogs!!!! Come on!! There are 50+ thousand Christadelphians. You get 77,000+ hits when you type Christadelphians into Google, and all you can come up with is two?? And neither in fellowship, BTW (ie. hence they are no longer Christadelphians!!!). Give it a rest Exdelph. Two does not a controversy make. Cdelph 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I still have Christadelphian friends, and I got an email this morning from one of them about the homosexuality controversy within the Christadelphians, and it was something I witnessed first hand before I left, so I think it is there, even if most Christadelphians would prefer it not to be.

If there is no objective evidence that my contribution is wrong I will add it.Exdelph 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My proposed contribution also makes the situation a lot clearer than the current links Exdelph 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this today, and I really don't want to get into a wikiwar over this, so I'm leaving this discussion without adding my contribution. It will still be in the history of my user page if anyone wants it. Exdelph 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. BTW, why are you an Ex Christadelphian? You wouldn't be one of the two mentioned above would you? Cdelph 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I agree with Scrooge2's removal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal, mostly, though, because the rebuttal is already contained in the main i-t-k website as is, so doesn't need to be posted twice. --Woofboy 08:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Cdelph 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace churches

I've replaced the Also See link to Peace churches with a link to Conscientious objection because this is more of a term associated with Christadelphians.

[edit] Semi protection requested

here. We don't need random IPs from Europe edit warring to insert homophobic POV screeds. Register or play by the rules. - Denny 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish! What a peculiar statement labeling something as a phobia is! We are neither allergic to gays nor fear them. However, the Bible teaches very clearly that it is WRONG! Thus your views and I might homosexual views are irrelevant, God's law is supreme.. --unsigned comment (Samtheboy ^(t/c) 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately for you, this IS an encyclopaedia, and therefore the information on it must remain neutral (whether you agree with it or not!) --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have dropped the protection to semiprotection for now. Please encourage the ips to come discuss at this page. -- ReyBrujo 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the main article recently but I will do so regarding this matter. My take on it is that the page should be allowed to state something along the lines of "Christadelphians believe that homosexuality is wrong and a sin" but the emphasis should be on the CHRISTADELPHIANS BELIEVE, rather than writing something like "homosexuality is wrong" and leaving it at that. If it made so we are not allowed to write our beliefs then the article will not be complete. However what would equally be wrong is an unencyclopedic slur against homosexuals which neither God nor Christ wants. Cls14 13:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have had a try at re-writing the offending section. I am a Christadelphian but I am also a dedicated Wikipedia user on all types of subjects. If you do want to change anything I have written about it PLEASE do not delete it outright straightaway. This is not because I don't want people deleting my work, as this is Wikipedia and there is no MY work. Deleting it however shows a lack of faith in the system and will just wind people up. So please if you do not agree with anything in the small section I have written report it to my user page and on here. Then we can discuss it properly and come to an agreement. Thanks! Cls14 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV - horrible imbalance

This article reads like it advocates, supports, or endorses this group's fringe views. The article needs heavy re-writing to not sound like a brochure or advocation of their views. We don't support or advertise like that... we just report on what reliable sources say about them and their views. - Denny 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This should be an article ABOUT the group, not by it. Is the Walrus page written by a Walrus? pjh3000

Whilst I agree with you in practise, in reality this is impossible. I'm sure that if a Walrus could edit a wiki page, it would change plenty of things written about it. If you want to have a stab at making a Christadelphian page, feel free and post it in a sandbox or as a subpage on your user page or of this talk page. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written (or added npov qualifiers) much of the article, and as soon as the protection comes off, I will upload it. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget there are 55000 Delphs a fair few who will also want a say in this page when it is open for editing so be prepared for changes to whatever you come up with! So please do not think you can elect yourself represent us all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.193.108 (talk) 22:21, April 2, 2007

Of course. Keep in mind however that all edits/contributions to Wikipedia must rely on our sourcing policies (i.e. any and all material must be sourced to a reliable source). Wikipedia does not publish any original thought, or original research, only what attributable experts and sources say in media that meet our reliable sources. We also do not interpret them as we want--we can only say what RS say about subjects. Read WP:ATT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V. Keep in mind also that any editors who anonymously edit and "edit war" against policies may be restricted of their ability to edit anonymously. If that happens (again) the article will be semi-protected. You can always register then to edit. - Denny 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cut down several bits that were extraneous and removed unsourced material. Please feel free to comment on it but please source all information you add. Obviously I'm not making myself a representative for all Christadelphians, but I am being bold --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting debate. Will read the main article to checked out how it has been NPOV'd. Cls14 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article would benefit from in-line citations

I believe that this article would be greatly improved if editors familiar with the Chruch's teachings were to include inline citations to their sources whenever they describe a fundemental belief of the Church or when stating an important fact about the Church, it's formation or its history. Inline citations are much easier for readers to deal with then a list of links or a long Further Reading list.LiPollis 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. I've given this a try, though I realise that the footnotes need some work in order to reference properly. I've also done a bold re-write, removing a few pieces of repeated or peripheral information and re-jigging a lot of other bits. RJB 14:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the inline reference to Michale Ashtons booklet on homosexuality, as it implied that it was a response to Inherit the Kingdom, when it was actually published several years before that site went live.Exdelph 07:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Have made modification to fellowships - Dawn are separate from other fellowships as are the others already mentioned. Have also put 'some' re fellowships primarily in the English speaking world because Dawn at least and I think Berean and Unamended also do have members in various other countries though I stand to be corrected on that comment if incorrect. --Elpis 21:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow - what an amazing amount of work in such a short period of time! I am impressed by the dedication shown here. The references included are very helpful. Thanks for making this a priority. I see so many other religious sect articles getting bogged down in senseless debate making change and improvement impossible. It's refreshing to see an article make such a step forward.LiPollis 00:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, LiPollis, Elpis, Samtheboy, and Woofboy. I've done some work on the references, so I'll leave it a bit now for others to play with! BTW, I took out most of the 'they believe' phrases from the 'Belief' section. I guess these were added to make it NPOV, but it made it a bit clunky and it seems kind of obvious that a beliefs section will be a summary of subjective (?) statements rather than verifiable facts. RJB 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing problems

Why can't this article by edited? Vanguard144

It can. It was (and may still be?) semi-protected which means that new users and anonymous users. If it is (I'll check in a minute) I'll add the tag for it as there isn't one currently. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is - I'm going to request removal of semi-protection as this page really doesn't need permanent semi-protection. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection is off now, please act courteously and think of others! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Samtheboy. How can I modify the reference section to correct a web address? Vanguard144

Just click the edit button on the appropriate section and correct the error. Please be aware that anyone can edit a page so don't worry if your edit is further changed. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Samtheboy, but when I click on the edit button against "References" there is no information to correct. Can you tell me what to do? Thanks. Vanguard144

The references section is automatically generated. To add references to that section all you need to do is add a reference in the article in the correct location. To do this use the tags <ref> your text here </ref> and it will appear in the text. For more information see Wikipedia:Citing_sources --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Samtheboy. Vanguard144

[edit] Beliefs edit

Removed the 'developed by the roman catholic organization' edit as it is not accurate. Belief in the immorality of the soul pre-dates Christianity, and Trinitarianism and mainstream views of the Holy Spirit developed within Christianity before there was an identifiable Roman Catholic system. This is evidenced by the presence of these views in the Orthodox communities that have never been part of the Roman Catholic Church. RJB 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed two other additions that were incorrect/unnecessary. 1) Birmingham Central ecclesia is not named after a train stop - there is no train stop called Birmingham Central. It's probably just called that because it's in the centre of Birmingham. 2) There is no such thing as the CMPA fellowship. The CMPA is an organisation within Central fellowship. It is already stated in the preceding paragraph that the 2002 Hymnbook is published by the CMPA so another reference is unnecessary. RJB 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Christadelphianism is the complete name of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.91.76 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berean Christadelphians

The Berean separatist group has beliefs which are so far removed from those of the mainstream Christadelphian body that they merit a separate section in this article (for preference a completely separate article, so as to distinguish them from those from whom they withdrew, though I understand some may not agree with this). Their unique beliefs and practices render them radically different from the mainstream Christadelphian body, and I would like this distinction to be made clear. It would be extremely unfortunate if people associated this tiny schism with the normative Christadelphian community. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you Taiwan boi, have you got any text prepared? If so, I'd add it in around the same section as the part about Dawn Christadelphians. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently drafting something, and I'll get it up here later. For example, the Berean belief that 'sin' is actually a physical substance, and the belief that Jesus earned the wages of sin. These are so far removed from normative Christadelphian doctrine that they warrant identification as such. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, these are the Berean beliefs I'd like to see mentioned:

• That sin is a physical substance which is the cause of moral transgression, disease and death
• That babies die because they are made of this physical substance which is sin (and so inherit the wages of sin)
• That although the Bible uses the word 'sin' in two different senses, it always refers to only one thing and not two separate things
• That sin and the cause of sin are both one and the same
• That God treats both sin and the cause of sin in the same way
• That Jesus, through his miraculous birth and divine parentage, was enabled to resist sin to an extent normal human beings are incapable
• That Jesus, though he could be tempted, was not tempted as we are and could not sin
• That Jesus earned the wages of sin
• That John Thomas was raised up by God to restore the Truth to the earth, and was chosen by God because of his unique fitness to the task
• That God requires a sacrifice for 'sinful nature', and that Christ therefore had to make a sacrifice both for his sinful nature and for the sinful nature of humanity
• That human nature is physically defiled by sin even before personal transgression has taken place
• That even without personal transgression, man is an abomination unto His Creator and has need for redemption through the shedding of blood
• That those who do not value the writings of the 'Pioneers' are on their way back to the apostasy
• That the true body of believers is to be identified by how closely the adhere to the teachings of the 'Pioneers'
• That the 'Pioneers' should be the first reference for any interpretation of Scripture, and are authoritative in their interpretation of Scripture
• That 'We are Christadelphians because we believe the truth was rightly divided by our early brethren'

There might be others I think of later. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my proposed edit so far, to go in the part of the article where the Bereans are introduced:

Over time the Bereans have developed a culture and a set of doctrines which differentiate them radically from mainstream Christadelphians. Some of these doctrines are shared with the Unamended fellowship (but not the Central fellowship), particularly beliefs on the atonement and the nature of the flesh. Some of these doctrines constitute beliefs which the original Bereans held, whilst others are the development of original beliefs. A number of these beliefs are not held by any other Christadelphian fellowship, which the Bereans take as indicative that they alone hold the correct understanding of the gospel. The following is a list of the beliefs which differentiate the Bereans radically from mainstream Christadelphians:

• That sin is a physical substance which is the cause of moral transgression, disease and death
• That babies die because they are made of this physical substance which is sin (and so inherit the wages of sin)
• That although the Bible uses the word 'sin' in two different senses, it always refers to only one thing and not two separate things
• That sin and the cause of sin are both one and the same
• That God treats both sin and the cause of sin in the same way
• That Jesus, through his miraculous birth and divine parentage, was enabled to resist sin to an extent normal human beings are incapable
• That Jesus, though he could be tempted, was not tempted as we are and could not sin since 'his proneness was to doing the Father's will not prone to sin'
• That Jesus earned the wages of sin
• That John Thomas was raised up by God to restore the Truth to the earth, and was chosen by God because of his unique fitness to the task
• That God requires a sacrifice for 'sinful nature', and that Christ therefore had to make a sacrifice both for his sinful nature and for the sinful nature of humanity
• That human nature is physically defiled by sin even before personal transgression has taken place
• That even without personal transgression, man is an abomination unto His Creator and has need for redemption through the shedding of blood
• That those who do not value the writings of the 'Pioneers' are on their way back to the apostasy
• That the true body of believers is to be identified by how closely the adhere to the teachings of the 'Pioneers'
• That the 'Pioneers' should be the first reference for any interpretation of Scripture, and are authoritative in their interpretation of Scripture
• That 'We are Christadelphians because we believe the truth was rightly divided by our early brethren'

The Berean attitude to the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts is almost unique, though shared by some in the Unamended fellowship, and a very few in the Central fellowship. They believe that the Bible should be interpreted according to the writings of these two early Christadelphians (to whom they refer as 'the Pioneers'), and that all Scripture must be harmonized with the interpretations in these writings. Whilst denying that they believe either man was inspired, they do profess the belief that both men were raised up by God, and that John Thomas in particular was specifically chosen by God as being unique among men on the earth in his day.

Many Bereans refer to John Thomas as 'Doctor Thomas' in preference to 'Brother Thomas' (for reasons which are unclear), and he is described as 'the equivalent to Einstein in religious matters'. Among Bereans it is believed that 'to get away from Dr. Thomas is to get away from the Bible, for the Truth is with him always'. Bereans also doubt that the Bible alone is sufficient to teach the gospel, believing that the writings of either John Thomas or Robert Roberts are necessary for a correct understanding of the Scriptures, or at least some Christadelphian writing ('Is it possible for an individual to come to a knowledge of the Truth independent of Dr. Thomas' (or Christadelphian) expositions? Is the Bible all that is necessary?'). The writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts are considered authoritative expositions in the Berean fellowship, and Bereans will often quote them in discussion of Biblical issues instead of quoting the Bible.

The high regard for John Thomas and Robert Roberts leads many Bereans to reject as inadequate most Christadelphian exposition which was written after both men died. Some Berean authors are considered to have written valuable works (especially Rene Growcott), but expositions produced by authors other than 'the Pioneers' are generally dismissed as valueless ('Admittedly, I've read the odd non-pioneer book such as Parables of the Messiah by John Carter and then thought, what a waste of time that was and go straight back to Nazareth Revisited etc'). Bereans are wary of discussions of the Bible alone without reference to the works of 'the Pioneers', and believe that 'To say "you really need to be getting back to the Bible" is a smokescreen to error'. The 'Pioneer works' are used as the measure of orthodoxy, since it is believed that 'The difference between truth and error' is identifiable by 'the difference in attitudes towards the pioneer works'.

Bereans typically use a method of Biblical interpretation which is highly anagogical, with a heavy emphasis on typology and conjectural exposition. This is the method used commonly by early Christian expositors such as Origen and Augustine, and Berean exposition often resembles that of Origen in its appeal to anagogue and typology. Literal events described in the Bible are commonly declared to be typological of later events, and there is much speculation over the identity of the 'anti-type'. Discussions of this kind of exposition sometimes take place on online forums in a 'Mars Hill' format, in which conjectural exposition is proposed and encouraged. Conclusions are generally accepted without challenge, and rarely disputed. It is considered unnecessary to provide evidence for such conjectures, since this method of exposition is itself considered 'Scriptural', and is assumed to produce accurate results.

I have more direct quotes and references to add. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a concern should be not to turn the article into an article with more info about the Berean Christadelphians than the usual beliefs of Christadelphians as that defeats part of the purpose of this. --Woofboy (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me, each of the main fellowships would have their own article. Do you think that's possible in this case? --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as due to Berean Christadelphians being a far less noteable organisation to the Central Christadelphians, I would imagine that the article would come under an AfD fairly quickly. The Dawn Christadelphian page has been deleted on several occasions, and as far as my mind serves, the Berean fellowship is even smaller. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it goes in this article under 'Christadelphian Schisms'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the above (slightly edited), to a new section entitled 'Schisms', under the subtitle 'The Berean Schism'. I have yet to add the time/date/source information to the references to the quotes from Bereans made on online discussion forums. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Berean section is unbalanced. It is the largest section in the entire article and yet it represents a very small minority of Christadelphians. Can this be edited down to a smaller size? Wintrlnd (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's the largest? It's only the largest at present. There's nothing stopping other sections being added or expanded. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and took out all but your first paragraph, after that it no longer met the Wiki standards of neutral point of view and becomes way to long for the purposes of the Christadelphian article. Wintrlnd (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least have discussed it first, or identified why you believe it doesn't meet NPOV? And as to what is too long and what isn't, that's not your decision to make. I have reverted the edit until you explain yourself. You seem to have ignored that I substantiated all key statements with direct quotes from Berean sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the NPOV question, the references are all from one individual from an online debate forum that are neither verifiable nor a reliable source. The section also contains subjective language such as “differentiate the Bereans radically from mainstream Christadelphians”.

In regards to the size, I believe it falls into the category of undue weight for a minority position. What if we gave this much attention to every schism within Christdalphia (clean flesh, Andrewism, etc.)? The article would become unbalanced and no longer a Christadelphian encyclopedia entry, but rather a brief introduction to the Christadelphians followed by a long detailed exposition on their minor schism groups.

However, if your set on keeping this section in here, it will need: 1. verifiable references to their beliefs from authoritave sources (perhaps to their own additions to the BASF) and 2. removal of subjective language. You might also want to mention that a majority of the Bereans rejoined the Central fellowship in the 1950’s-60’s reunion efforts. I will leave it untouched and up to debate. Wintrlnd (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the references, they are taken from several individual Bereans, on two different forums (one Berean, the other non-Berean), over at least 6 months. A number of them were written by the editor of the Berean 'Bible Journal', which is the Berean publication representative of Berean beliefs, and the editor represented these statements of his as standard Berean teaching. These statements are also in complete conformity with other statements made in 'official' Berean publications such as their 'Bible Journal', standard works like 'The Purifying Of The Heavenly', the Berean Website maintained by the editor of their 'Bible Journal', and the self-described 'Official Berean Christadelphians Website'. I have to ask why you consider these quotes 'unreliable'. Some of them cannot be accessed by the public, since the forum from which they were taken is open to Christadelphians only, but that doesn't change the fact that they were made. Not every reference in Wikipedia is available to the public, and they don't have to be. I'll work on providing additional references which are accessible, for your satisfaction.

As for language such as 'differentiate the Bereans radically from mainstream Christadephians', that is not in the least subjective. That is a simple fact. Not only that, but it's a fact with which Bereans readily agree ('This page will contain a history of the Christadelphians as it pertains to the Berean fellowship, along with specific doctrines which separate us from other Christadelphian groups.'). The Bereans separated specifically because of the differences they perceived between the main body and their own beliefs, and they continue to describe those differences in the strongest possible terms ('Brethren who believed the truth as laid down by the pioneers of the Christadelphian movement separated from Central', 'so corrupted the Central body that the last vestige of solid truth in Central, those represented by the Logos magazine, now have come face to face with the corrupting influences of the past'). Mainstream Christadelphian publications and Websites teaching standard beliefs within Central are described as 'non-Christadelphian' and 'pseudo-Christadelphian' by Bereans. You would be hard pressed to find a better example of the Berean belief that their views are radically different to those of the main body.

In regards to the size, this is not merely a schismatic belief like Andrewism or clean flesh, it is an entire fellowship (and I don't have any problem including the Dawn, Unamended, and Old Paths fellowships in this article either). The fact that it is far smaller now than it once was doesn't change the fact that it is a fellowship and historically has been one of the most significant fellowships. Not only that, but even today it has a presence on the Internet which is inversely proportional to its size, due to the number of Berean Websites and sponsored Google links. Searches for 'Christadelphians' on Google will invariably produce Berean Websites and sponsored links.

As for the Berean reunion, that is already mentioned in the main article, but I could repeat it in this section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting Small Groups

I note with interest that the Strangite schism of the Latter Day Saints enjoys an extensive and detailed article all to itself, despite the fact that 'Current membership figures vary between 50 and 300 persons, depending upon the source consulted'. Even at best this is significantly less than the number of members in the Berean schism. But wait, the United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ schism of the Latter Day Saints 'is estimated at between 100 to 200', which is half again. I'm sure I could find other examples. I really have to question why the Berean schism shouldn't have an article of its own, when smaller schisms belonging to other denominations do. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find verifiable independent sources (i.e. not on a forum or a small in-house published book) then by all means start a new article. Currently you have only provided quotes from a forums and haven't even provided the links. Forums do not count as independent sources which are needed for proof of notability, but only serve as secondary sources (and even then you need to provide access to forums which don't require signing up for for them to be allowed). In all honesty, as there have been no links to what you have written on the Bereans so far, even that should not be allowed if we're being picky! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't provided links yet. I've already mentioned that I'm going to provide them where possible. A direct statement by a Berean or a Berean publication is not a secondary source, it's a primary source. Throughout this entire article Christadelphian Websites and publications are cited and quoted as sources for what Christadelphians believe, so I don't see why the Bereans should be treated any differently. Not only that, but the article as it stands quotes both Christadelphian forums and in-house published books. I really don't understand why the Bereans have to be treated so specially. What's the reason? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a number of direct quotes from two official Berean publications, in support of the description of their doctrines. I have quoted from 'The Doctrine Of Fellowship', which contains the Berean's official statement on fellowship, and I have quoted from 'The Purifying of the Heavenly', which contains the Berean's official statement on the nature of man, the atonement, and the process of redemption. Quoting from these two works is quoting the official Berean position. I will have more to add from both of these works, as well as the official Berean magazine 'The Bible Journal', later. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a number of other direct quotes from 'The Purifying of the Heavenly', 'The Bible Journal', and from the Berean article 'Simplified Atonement', which is an adaptation of Frank Jannaway's work 'God’s Way Of Atonement', which declares the Berean position. These are all authoritative sources for Berean beliefs. I will add further quotes later. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually putting a PROD on the united church of the latter day saints for that reason now. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 09:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why. I don't understand that at all. It makes no sense to me. I thought this place was supposed to be an information resource. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an information resource, but only to a certain extent. If we recorded every thing that could possibly exist under the sun, then Wiki could not function. With regards to quotes from Bereans, these are actually secondary sources as they are original research --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it can't record everything under the sun, but having said that I haven't seen any evidence that there's a 'knowledge limit' on Wikipedia. It's clear that they have more storage than they need, and always will. But that's beside the point. The point here is not whether the information should be included, but where it should be included. I've not seen anything in Wikipedia that schisms from denominations should not be recorded on Wikipedia, and it is clear that the established practice is to record them, most commonly on pages other than the main article, though apparently the Bereans are supposed to be an exception to this.

There is also constant confusion over the Wikipedia definition of 'original research'. When I quote a Christadelphian publication as a source of Christadelphian beliefs, I am not carrying out 'original research'. When I quote a Berean publication as a source of Berean beliefs, that is not 'original research'.

You're using the term 'secondary source' in a sense which is contrary to the normative sense in the information industry. The term 'secondary source' in the information industry means 'a source which is quoting a primary source', and that is in fact how the Wiki article to which you linked describes it. This means that a quoted statement from a Berean is a primary source for what Bereans believe, as is a Berean publication. These are not secondary sources. Secondary sources would be what a non-Berean said about Berean beliefs, or what a non-Berean publication said about Berean beliefs. I do take the point about accessibility however.

I have to say that as an information professional working in the industry I do find Wikipedia appallingly incompetent in the main, largely because it permits the wholesale editing of articles by non-professionals who are not required to adhere to industry standards, and who are empowered by arbitrary standards which have no place in a supposedly NPOV knowledgebase striving for quality (that isn't a personal comment regarding you by the way). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Statement by a Berean Christadelphian on an online discussion forum" is not a proper reference in my opinion, and should be removed or substantiated with a proper citation. If the statements cannot be properly referenced they should be removed. 58.107.136.196 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not properly referenced, yet. I'm getting around to including the references. I can provide dates, times, and in most cases direct links which the public can read for themselves. And why are you still anonymous? --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How is "Taiwan Boi" any less anonymous than a series of numbers? Taiwan Girl (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know that, then I suggest you read the relevant section of the Wikipedia FAQ (Why create an account?). Within Wikipedia, anonymous edits are defined as edits made without a registered username. Your earlier posts were made without a registered username, so only your IP address was recorded. As the Wikipedia FAQ explains, editing under a username helps to display good faith, which you aren't. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the Wikipedia guideline on Good faith, especially the section under the heading Accusing others of bad faith:

"Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith.

Your accusation is therefore inflammatory, is a form of personal attack, and in the words of the guideline is itself "not assuming good faith". Your attempt elsewhere in this discussion to reveal my identity is also contrary to Wiki guidelines and is contrary to good etiquette. The reference to Wikipedia FAQ which you cited specifically says "we welcome anonymous contributions" and "you are actually more anonymous (though more pseudonymous) logged in than you are as an "anonymous" editor". Your implication that I somehow contravened a Wikipedia policy or guideline on good faith was therefore in error and could itself be considered to be in bad faith. Taiwan Girl (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed all this on my Talk page (where you cross-posted it). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the Berean section to a new Berean Christadelphians article. Please continue to work on providing references and wikifying the article there. RiJB (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (formerly RJB, who forgot his password)

RJB, I'm heartily in favour of you moving this section to a new article, but you've cut out a lot of what I originally wrote despite the fact that it was heavily documented. Was there a reason for this? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RJB, I don't I cut out anything - just cut and pasted and made a minor modification. It may have been subsequent editors who made changes. Feel free to restore any cuts I made as they were made in error. RiJB (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conscientious Objectors

The section identifying Christadelphians as conscientious objectors quotes as a reference (#19), personal reflections by Robert Roberts on political events of his day which say absolutely nothing about conscientious objection, and certainly nothing about Christadelphian conscientious objection. It also contains a misleading gloss on Robert Roberts' words to make some of them appear as if they apply only to Christadelphians, when clearly that was not his intention. It isn't even properly referenced, so it is completely unverifiable for the average reader. It is misleading at worst, totally irrelevant at best, and should be removed. I have no idea why it has been permitted to stay in the article, and will remove it myself unless someone else does or unless it can be justified. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An earlier version of this section said "Christadelphians are conscientious objectors (but not pacifists, saying they would use physical force if told to God)". The reference (19) to which you object was cited as evidence for the statement that "Christadelphians are ... not pacifists". However, as these words were lated deleted by another editor the reference became linked to the statement that "Christadelphians are conscientious objectors" and therefore make less sense. The reference has now been edited to restore the original sense and is relevant to the article as it explains how Christadelphians can be conscientious objectors although not pacifists. The quotations have also now been referenced and the original sources can be checked to confirm that they are not "a misleading gloss".58.107.136.196 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, an anonymous editor. That alone is enough to incline me to delete your edits. The very fact that you originally concealed the source of the quotation demonstrates you didn't want anyone investigating it. The gloss you interpolated is further evidence of an agenda driven edit. The 'class' referred to by Roberts is 'those who have learnt to place the sanctity of divine law first', not 'Christadelphians'. The word 'Christadelphians' is an agenda driven gloss which is misleading. It is not part of the original quote. I note the emotively charged term 'slaughter' has also been used in the footnote, further evidence of a personal agenda, and certainly not NPOV.

So at the end of the day, we have a personal reflection by Robert Roberts, with no indication that this is established Christadephian teaching. Not only that but the quotation from Roberts was interpolated with a misleading gloss, placed in a NPOV context, its source concealed, and the entire edit obviously agenda driven. I am removing it. Try harder next time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to include an honest explanation of why Christadelphians describe themselves as conscientious objectors rather than pacifists, then you could have used as a source the work by brother Watkins already cited ([2]). I suggest you do so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the reference to remove the word "slaughter" which you apparently find offensive (although it was a word used by Roberts himself in the immediate context, although not part of the quotation), and restored the rest of the reference which is relevant to the article. The original lack of a citation was an oversight and there was no agenda. The 'interpolation' of the word "Christadelphian" was not an "agenda driven gloss". The previous quotation demonstrated that this was Roberts' meaning ("Christadelphian operations will then be transferred from the arena of debate to that of military coercion"). 58.107.136.196 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that Twelve Lectures was one of the most influential books in the growth of Christadelphianism (possibly behind Elpis Israel) and a comment in its preface is more than "a personal reflection by Robert Roberts, with no indication that this is established Christadephian teaching." If this comment was in any way contrary to "established Christadelphian teaching" then it would have been refuted at some time since 1869. However, I am unaware of any Christadelphian schism, debate or controversy over this issue. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that comments made by an influential Christadelphian in a book which was possibly one of the most influential in the development of the denomination, and which went uncontested, would have contributed to the formation of Christadelphian dogma and therefore represents "established Christadephian teaching". Roberts was undoubtedly a more influential person within the development of Christadelphianism than Watkins (for example, a biography of Roberts forms part of the Wikipedia series of articles on Christadelphianism) and a citation of his views is therefore relevant as appropriate source materials. 58.107.136.196 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The influence of 'Twelve Lectures' as an exposition of Revelation is irrelevant in this context. You have provided no evidence that it was formative of Christadelphian doctrine on conscientious objection. First of all the quote in question is from the preface, and is manifestly the personal reflection of the author. It is neither the subject or the aim of the work. Secondly, you will not find 'Twelve Lectures' quoted or cited as a work explaining the Christadelphian position on conscientious objection, or used to represent it. This is hardly surprising since that is not the subject or aim of the work. So you're appealing to a work as authoritative on a subject for which it was not written, and concerning which it is not cited or quoted as authoritative in the community. Thirdly, it is confusing the issue to say 'If this comment was in any way contrary to "established Christadelphian teaching" then it would have been refuted at some time since 1869'. Whilst Robert's comment is not necessarily incompatible with established Christadelphian teaching, the fact is that it is not itself established Christadelphian teaching. Fourthly, standard Christadelphian works specifically on the subject of conscientious objection (which you chose to avoid), make no reference to Roberts' comment, and do not repeat this idea. I have already given an example. You chose to avoid a standard Christadelphian work specifically on the subject of conscientious objection, and cherry pick a quote from the preface of a book on an entirely different subject. I suspect you not only chose the quote for its 'shock value', but also because you couldn't find any such statements in standard Christadelphian works on conscientious objection. You cannot find this statement represented in Christadelphian works on the subject of conscientious objection as standard Christadelphian teaching, so your claim that 'It is therefore reasonable to conclude' that it 'represents "established Christadephian teaching"' is completely invalid.

Your claim that the lack of references for both quotes was an oversight is unlikely to be true given your refusal to act in good faith, and the fact that the quotes were left completely without references during the whole time that they were discussed earlier. Although the word 'slaughter' was used by Roberts, you didn't use the word in the quotation, you included it outside the quotation as a personal comment on the incident to which he referred.

With regard to your interpolated gloss, you are trying to dodge the issue. The issue under question is the meaning of the phrase 'this very class'. You interpolated the word 'Christadelphians' to make it appear that Roberts was restricting the phrase 'this very class' to Christadelphians. Yet the immediate context of 'this very class' is the beginning of the statement, from which it is clear that 'this very class' is 'those who have learned to place the sanctity of divine law first'. It is shamefully deceptive to claim that the quotation from a completely different book is the context of the phrase 'this very class'. There is no doubt that Roberts' comment in 'Twelve Lectures' made it clear that he believed Christadelphians would be involved in these 'operations'. That is not under dispute. What is under dispute is the meaning of his phrase 'this very class', and the very sentence from which it is taken identifies that class as 'those who have learned to place the sanctity of divine law first', not 'Christadelphians'.

For all these reasons, and given your refusal to act in good faith, I am reverting to the very generous edit I made earlier, which was almost gratuitously magnanimous and for which you should be exceedingly grateful. I suggest you find an authoritative Christadelphian work specifically on conscietious objection to support the new footnote. If you want to provide a quote from a proper Christadelphian source identifying the Christadelphian distinction between pacifism and conscientious objection, you may use the work by Watkins to which I have already referred, and which is already cited in the main article. This will at least show some measure of good faith on your part. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Roberts exposition of Revelation was called Thirteen Lectures. His book Twelve Lectures was renamed Christendom Astray, one of the most influential books in the development of Christadelphianism and Christadelphian dogma. Your lengthy criticism of my comment is based on misinformation. You should check your historical facts before dismissing the comments of someone who clearly has a better grasp of Christadelphian history and writings than you do. Your comment that "Your claim that the lack of references for both quotes was an oversight is unlikely to be true" amounts to calling me a liar. My omission of the source documents in the reference was a oversight which I have corrected. From Roberts writings (including Twelve Lectures, or Christendom Astray), it's clear that he considered Christadelphians to be the the "class" of people "who have learned to place the sanctity of divine law first". My interpolation was an explanatory comment which linked to the preceeding reference where Christadelphians were clearly identified by Roberts as the "class" of people who would be recruited by Christ to exercise military coercion in the subjugation of the Gentiles. Your criticisms are historically inaccurate, amount to ad hominem, and are unfounded. I am reverting your edit. Taiwan Girl (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah Steve, Steve, Steve, always a new name, always the same behaviour. As usual you attempt to represent one minor error as invalidating an entire argument which is not in the least dependent on the error. Yes I confused 'Twelve Lectures' with 'Thirteen Lectures'. My original point still stands, and is not based on misinformation. Roberts' work 'Twelve Lectures', even if it was ' one of the most influential books in the development of Christadelphianism and Christadelphian dogma', was not a work on conscientious objection. So here's my argument again, which you haven't even addressed.

You have provided no evidence that 'Twelve Lectures' was formative of Christadelphian doctrine on conscientious objection. First of all the quote in question is from the preface, and is manifestly the personal reflection of the author. It is neither the subject or the aim of the work. Secondly, you will not find 'Twelve Lectures' quoted or cited as a work explaining the Christadelphian position on conscientious objection, or used to represent it. This is hardly surprising since that is not the subject or aim of the work. So you're appealing to a work as authoritative on a subject for which it was not written, and concerning which it is not cited or quoted as authoritative in the community. Thirdly, it is confusing the issue to say 'If this comment was in any way contrary to "established Christadelphian teaching" then it would have been refuted at some time since 1869'. Whilst Robert's comment is not necessarily incompatible with established Christadelphian teaching, the fact is that it is not itself established Christadelphian teaching. Fourthly, standard Christadelphian works specifically on the subject of conscientious objection (which you chose to avoid), make no reference to Roberts' comment, and do not repeat this idea. I have already given an example. You chose to avoid a standard Christadelphian work specifically on the subject of conscientious objection, and cherry pick a quote from the preface of a book on an entirely different subject. I suspect you not only chose the quote for its 'shock value', but also because you couldn't find any such statements in standard Christadelphian works on conscientious objection. You cannot find this statement represented in Christadelphian works on the subject of conscientious objection as standard Christadelphian teaching, so your claim that 'It is therefore reasonable to conclude' that it 'represents "established Christadephian teaching"' is completely invalid.

I suggest you find an authoritative Christadelphian work specifically on conscientious objection to support the new footnote. If you want to provide a quote from a proper Christadelphian source identifying the Christadelphian distinction between pacifism and conscientious objection, you may use the work by Watkins to which I have already referred, and which is already cited in the main article. This will at least show some measure of good faith on your part.

You still haven't addressed my argument regarding the phrase 'this very class', and once more you are attempting to avoid the issue under discussion. That Roberts considered Christadelphians to belong to 'this very class' (as members of the class), is not under dispute. What is under dispute is the meaning of his phrase 'this very class', and the very sentence from which it is taken identifies that class as 'those who have learned to place the sanctity of divine law first', not 'Christadelphians'. You have tried to represent Roberts as defining this class exclusively as Christadelphians. Your attempt to use a quote from an entirely different book as the 'context' of the statement in the article in which the phrase 'this very class' appears was completely illegitimate and certainly not in good faith.

I don't care if you think I'm calling you a liar or not (though I didn't, I just don't believe your story), you're still not acting in good faith. You've been offered the opportunity to substantiate your preferred edit using an authoritative Christadelphian source specifically on conscientious objection which identifies the Christadelphian distinction between pacifism and conscientious objection, and such a work has even been suggested to you. That you refuse to use such as source, which is non-controversial, is a demonstration of bad faith. So is your refusal to use a username. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah Taiwan Boi, Taiwan Boi, Taiwan Boi. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Taiwan Girl (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you have to say in reply (and of course, you really can't answer me), then my edit certainly stands. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can answer, but I won't as I see no point in being diverted from the real issues. I know you expect me to be exceedingly grateful for your gratuitous magnanimity (because you've told me so) but you'll have to excuse my ingratitude this time. You are obviously having trouble accepting a quotation from a standard Christadelphian work (Christendom Astray), perhaps because you find the author's bluntness to be embarrassing. However, if you believe that Robert Roberts' statements on two separate occasions do not represent "standard Christadelphian teaching" then perhaps you could explain (a) when Christadelphians changed their teaching about this; (b) how the change came about; and (c) what actually changed. Alternately, if you believe that there was in fact no change in Christadelphain dogma on this point, then you should provide references which demonstrate that Roberts' teaching was regarded as heterodox and was challenged by contemporaneous Christadelphians. Of course, I would expect your answers to these questions to be properly referenced. Until you do so then I will regard the quotations from Roberts as representative of standard Christadelphian teaching. Taiwan Girl (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To date you've avoided answering me every time. You've repeatedly tried to shift the discussion to issues which are not under dispute. You do that because you have no answers. You should be grateful - very grateful - for my generosity. I've been very fair, very reasonable. Again you refer to Christendom Astray as a 'standard Christadelphian work', attempting to avoid the point under discussion. It is not a standard Christadelphian work on the subject addressed in the disputed section of the article, which is whether or not Christadelphians will take up arms at the return of Christ. Not only that, but the part you want to quote isn't even from one of the 'lectures', it's a personal observation of the author, in the preface of all things, and when we do get to the subject of conscientious objection in the actual lectures, we find no mention of Christadelphians taking up arms at the return of Christ.

You illegitimately request me to prove 'when Christadelphians changed their teaching about this', when there is no evidence that they ever held this view as standard dogma in the first place (and nor have you been able to find any, or you would have presented it by now). It has been enough for me to appeal directly to specific Christadelphian works on the subject of conscientious objection, which neither cite nor quote Roberts' words, nor say what Roberts said. I've even invited you to go through the work on conscientious objection which is cited authoritatively in this very article, but you have refused. That very fact proves you're not acting in good faith.

I don't have to provide any evidence that Roberts personal comment was regarded as heterodox. As I said, it is confusing the issue to say 'If this comment was in any way contrary to "established Christadelphian teaching" then it would have been refuted at some time since 1869'. Whilst Robert's comment is not necessarily incompatible with established Christadelphian teaching, the fact is that it is not itself established Christadelphian dogma. On the contrary, you have to prove that it is standard Christadelphian dogma. You can't do this, which is why you're unable to quote from any standard Christadelphian work on conscientious objection which refers to this quote in the way you want to use it, or which says anything like it.

I note that you fail to mention that the comment you insist on quoting, whilst it appears in the 1862 preface of 'Twelve Lectures', does not appear in the 1884 preface of 'Christedendom Astray'. Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the content, which wouldn't surprise me (it looks like you never made it past the preface of the 1862 edition, and you probably weren't aware of the differences between that and the later 'Christendom Astray'; but I can only teach you so much in one day). I need only this to illustrate that it was a personal comment of Roberts' on the current events of the day, and not illustrative of established Christadelphian dogma. If you want to represent this as established Christadelphian dogma, and ask 'when Christadelphians changed their teaching about this', you could start by explaining why Roberts left this comment out of Christendom Astray if he was (as you claim), establishing or at the very least expounding standard Christadelphian dogma on the subject. Who changed it? If I were to take your question seriously (which it doesn't deserve sine it's predicated on a false premise), I may answer 'Why, Roberts himself did'.

I note that you are also omitting to quote what Roberts does actually say on conscientious objection in the one lecture on which he mentions the subject specifically. In Lecture 18 of Christendom Astray we read this:

They do not vote; they do not ask the suffrages of his supporters; they do not aspire to Cæsar’s honours or emoluments; they do not bear arms. They are sojourners in Cæsar’s realms during the short time God may appoint for their probation; and as such, they sustain a passive and non-resisting attitude, bent only upon earning Christ’s approbation at his coming, by their obedience to his commandments during his absence.

Robert Roberts. (1984; 2002). Christendom Astray from the Bible (428). Logos Publications.

Emphasis mine. Absolutely nothing there about taking up the sword at Christ's return. Goodness, how curious! Allegedly an established Christadelphian dogma on the subject of conscientious objection (according to you), and yet it is completely absent from the one section addressing conscientious objection!

So once again you are refusing to use a standard authoritative Christadelphian work specifically on the subject of conscientious objection (which is completely undisputed, so there's no reason for you not to use it), attempting instead to use a personal comment from the preface of a book rather than the content of the lectures, and omitting to quote from the one small paragraph in the entire collection of lectures which actually does address conscientious objection specifically. This is acting in very bad faith. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

'Taiwan Girl', your last edit constitutes vandalism. You provided no evidence that 'many Christadelphians' refer to John Thomas as 'Doctor Thomas', and the only references you gave are those I have already addressed in the Berean article. Your deliberate insertion of that material despite having been corrected over it previously constitutes vandalism. In future you will discuss proposed edits (other than grammatical and spellng errors), in this Talk page, like other people do. You are not an exception to the rules of Wikipedia. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi, your repeated deletions of my edits constitutes vandalism. My edit was substantiated by a reference to more than 12,000 uses of the term "Dr Thomas" or "the Doctor" in The Christadelphian, under several editors. I do discuss changes on talk pages when material is disputed, but there is no requirement under Wikipedia policies or guidelnes to discuss the addition of new material before edits are made, and I note that you frequently do this yourself. Taiwan Girl (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Girl, your edits are irrelevant to the article and are only placed there to cause friction. Stop. Cdelph (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cdelph, you couldn't possibly know my motives so please don't attrubute any to me. Taiwan Girl (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your '12,000 uses' and showed that you were misrepresenting them. The vast majority were from 80 years ago, certainly not representative of current Christadelphian practice. My edits don't constitute vandalism because I am reverting unsubstantiated claims which you keep trying to interpolate despite not providing any evidence for them.

I have discussed the addition of new material to this article extensively with others (see the Talk page), and the same goes for the Berean article. I do not make major edits without prior discussion or explanation. Nor do I make them in flagrant disregard for the other editors of these articles, as you do. You are not even attempting to cooperate, and cooperation is certainly a requirement of Wikipedia. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs about the extent of the Kingdom

Hello. I recently removed a sentence from the Beliefs of the article because I felt it didn't add anything to the readers understanding of Christadelphian beliefs. The sentence (and the preceeding one) went like this: -

Christadelphians believe that the Kingdom will be centred upon Israel but Jesus Christ will also reign over all the other nations on the earth. Some believe that the Kingdom itself is limited to the land of Israel promised to Abraham and ruled over in the past by David, with a worldwide empire.

The difference between those two sentences is minimal; the first sentence is written in such a way that it can include idea expressed in the second - the idea of an empire can be included in the words 'Christ will also reign over the other nations' (just as the Birtish Empire was centred in the British Isles but also ruled over the other countries under its control). This is my reason for deleting the second sentence (it doesn't add anything to the reader, but makes the paragraph harder to unpack). However, the second sentence has recently been added back in. Perhaps we could discuss this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woofboy (talk • contribs) 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you refer to the archived discussions on this topic on this page(2005) you will see why Christadelphians today have so much trouble agreeing on a form of words for this doctrine. Dr Thomas and Robert Roberts taught clearly that the Kingdom of God was to be Israel restored (the paradise restored) and the nations his empire during the Milllenium (outside the paradise), but this is not what most people calling themeselves Christadelphians today now believe. As was pointed out in 2005 (see archive)Quote

"Kingdom of God I have changed the words "centered on the land of Israel" to "in the land of Israel".

The Kingdom of God will be in Israel and nowhere else.

That's not what the Bible teaches. I've changed this to "which will be centred around the promised land of Israel but fill the whole Earth". This is what Christadelphians believe.

I have put this back to the future kingdom of God being in Israel - what you have written is first principle error. The Bible clearly teaches that the kingdom will be restored to Israel."

Most Christadelphians today believe and teach a territorial worldwide Kingdom, but when pushed like to fudge the issue for the sake of the few who can point out that this is not what they used to believe.(talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed before. It can be found in Archive 5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christadelphians/Archive_5#The_location_of_the_future_kingdom_of_God Cdelph (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Old Paths Fellowship believes that the future Kingdom of God will exist in the land of Israel for 1000 years and will have a separate empire. Do any other Christadelphians also believe this? benaiah_12@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.157.84.144 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christadelphian Worship

The Praise the Lord is mentioned in the Worship Section of the Christadelphianism Article. The article states that Praise the Lord contains "contemporary worship songs which are consistent with Christadelphian theology". I don't necessarily believe this to be correct, for a few songs/hymns in the book are not in agreement with the BASF. Could this be edited? Jond89 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited to show that this was the intention of the book, without making any judgment on whether it was successful RiJB (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Christadelphian"

Could it be explained where Brother Thomas got the word Christadelphian from in the History Section? I see that it has been explained at the top of the article that it is from the Greek 'brothers in Christ', but no mention of Colossians 1 vs. 2?--Jond89 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Jond89, since no one has any objection, feel free to go ahead. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

I have reverted a recent edit which was made without explanation by an anonymous editor. No explanation was given for the edit, and it added nothing significant to the article. If the anonymous editor would like to see their edit included in this article, they can login with a username and explain the rationale for their edit here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

Should there be a criticism section here? In the lead the Christadelphians are referred to as Christian, but there is no mention that most evangelical and conservative Christians would call this a cult, especially due to its antitrinitarian slant. I think something should be said about this. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's reference to that in the Beliefs section. --Woofboy (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)