Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 7

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

There was a reference to www.gay-christadelphians-a-response.co.uk but not to www.inherit-the-kingdom.org. I have added a reference to the latter. I've also changed the wording slightly to make it clear that the former is the work of one man, not as a representative of the community - see question 9 on http://www.gay-christadelphians-a-response.co.uk/questionsandanswers.html. I understand the response was a bit more widespread that just that site, but I don't have any other resources to hand. Should this section also reference www.gaychristadelphiannetwork.org and www.growingupchristadelphian.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.41.219 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Christadelphians → Christadelphianism — Article should be named after the denomination itself, rather than the people who follow the denomination. —–Dream out loud (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Weak Support - The article is as much (if not more) about the belief not the people, having read Woofboy's comments I feel that there is no real policy on the naming scheme for sects. As there is already a redirect from Christadelphianism to Christadelphian, and if the move goes ahead it will be the opposite, I cannot really see any need for this move, however as the subject of the article is more about the faith than the people, I'd still say a weak support. --Samtheboy (t/c) 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've just been reviewing the use of Christadelphians vs Christadelphianism in other (online) encyclopaedias and, although no encyclopaedia has an entry for Christadelphianism, the Columbia Encyclopedia, The Canadian Encyclopedia and Encarta all have entries for Christadelphians (not Christadelphianism); this would be evidence in favour of keeping the status quo. Neither does Wikipedia's naming conventions (as far as I can see) require, or even suggest, a change from Christadelphians to Christadelphianism, which is further evidence in favour of the status quo. And thirdly, Wikipedia itself has an article for Jehovah's Witnesses (not Jehovah's Witnessesism), which would further suggest that Christadelphians is a suitable name for the article about Christadelphians. --Woofboy 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Same reasons as Woofboy. --Taiwan boi 16:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I interpret Wiki's naming convention guidelines to say that this site is primarily for a general audience -- i.e. "optimized for readers over editors" -- with the purpose being the linking of resources. It seems apparent that the majority of references (as already stated) refers to the group as Christadelphians; website searches are most successful using the same name. TwoPutt 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment – If not moved to Christadelphianism, the article should at least be moved to Christadelphian because articles about types of people should be singular, not plural (ex: Jew, not Jews). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dream out loud (talk • contribs) 22:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Does that mean the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' article will be moved to 'Jehovah's Witness'? --Taiwan boi 05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, I edited this section yesterday without posting here first. Could this have another rephrase? It sounds as if it is consistent? Jond89

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)

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)

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)

Peace Church

Currently there is a Wiki article about Peace Churches. However, there is no reference to the Christadelphians. If there is anyone familiar with their theology on the topic, I would encourage him/her to add a section to the aforementioned article. Thank you. 71.92.157.186 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality Links

This page mentions both the anti and pro gay Christadelphian documents, but it only references the anti ones. It is important for balance that both points of view are referenced. For the record, I tend to believe that the pro gay position is not recognised by the majority of Christadelphians, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a Christadelphian web-site.

It is also important to distinguish between "the community" doing something, which is extremely rare, and members of the community saying something that the majority probably agree with. This is why I changed the paragraph to say that Inherit the Kingdom was opposed by members of the community as opposed to the community.

If you think the references to Inherit the Kingdom and the Gay Christadelpian Network should be removed, please discuss it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.41.219 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions would be respected more if they weren't the unsigned edits of someone with a personal agenda, who only contributes to the section of the article which addresses that agenda. Please read the article:

• 'Most Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers.[31][32]'

That provides two citations demonstrating that 'Most Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers'. Given that you are fully aware that 'the pro gay position is not recognised by the majority of Christadelphians', there is nothing to discuss here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Taiwan boi, the viewpoint of one website by an anonymous person is hardly worth mentioning on an article for an entire religious denomination.Wintrlnd (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made another contribution to the article in a different section. I didn't create the section on homosexuailty, I simply added a couple of links to illustrate a side of the argument that wasn't addressed. The section on homosexuality was present for a several months (at least) before I corrected it: it is not the viewpoint of one anonymous person. I am restoring my edits. If you want to remove them, please provide objective proof that the Christadelphian position or positions on homosexuality is not worth discussing in this article. Given the multiple websites on this subject, on both sides of the argument, I believe this should be worth the few sentences it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.41.219 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Was Inherit the Kingdom opposed by "the community" or by "members of the community"? The burden of proof for "the community" is quite high: you need to show that the community acted as a coherent whole, and the references provided (two articles in a Christadelphian magazine and one personal website) do not illustrate this. The section "Schisms and reunion efforts" illustrates that there are deep divisions in the Christadelphian community, so you would expect when the community acted as a whole there would be better evidence, such as an addition to the Doctrines to be Rejected that a majority or significant minority of ecclesias agreed to. There is no doubt that the authors of the references cited are members of the community, so I believe "members of the community" is a much more sound statement.

Are Inherit the Kingdom and the Gay Christadelphian Network "Christadelphian" sites? They do seem to be, and the Gay Christadelphian Network argues that it doesn't promote any doctrine contrary to the BASF or Christadelphian tradition - see http://www.gaychristadelphiannetwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=27 What are the objective criteria that can be used on Wikipedia to determine if a site is "Christadelphian"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.41.219 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So people aren't uncomfortable about me being anon, I've created an account Justmyip (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The websites you keep adding are made by one person who is anonymous. As I mentioned earlier, this does not warrant inclusion into an article for an entire religious denomination. If you check the articles for other denominations, you will see that they show differences of opinion only when it is somewhat significant or at least a small group of people. It seems to me that whoever keeps adding this, is trying to use the Christadelphian wiki article to plug their site. Wintrlnd (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of homosexuality is relevant to other Christian denominations, including the Anglicans, at the moment. It is relevant to the Christadelphians, and was mentioned in this article for some time before I edited it; it is still present in the most recent version of the article. It is worth mentioning, and if it is mentioned it must be mentioned in a balanced way, which includes references to both sides of the argument. None of my edits have implied that the pro gay position is anything more than a minority view. We are talking about a couple of sentences in a long article that mention the existence of a minority point of view.

Chris Maddocks' site openly admits to being by one person, yet it was accepted as being evidence of the reaction by the community for a long time. Simply because a site or document is by one person does not make it an inappropriate reference. What evidence is there that Inherit the Kingdom and the Gay Christadelphian Network is written/run by the same person, and why is it relevant that they are anonymous? The booklet "The Bible Our Guide" is anonymous, at least in any of the incarnations I have seen, yet it is often cited as a Christadelphian document.

Are Inherit the Kingdom and the Gay Christadelphian Network Christadelphian sites? From a neutral point of view, they certainly seem to be. If you are going to remove these links, please provide evidence that they are not Christadelphian sites and do not represent a Christadelphian position, even an unpopular one.

I am restoring my edits. Please do not remove them without discussing it here first. Justmyip (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your link to your networking site. It has no business on an article about the Christadelphians. I am the third person on here to do so. You continue to put this on here and yet cannot justify your position. The websites that mention homosexuality is wrong are written by Michael Ashton (the editor of The Christadelphian) and another brother Chris Maddocks, who puts his name on his website so we can know for sure it is a view held by a Christadelphian and his website has contribs from several other Christos who put their name on it. The websites you give are contoversial anonymous sites, there is no way to verify if these are Christadelphians or if it is only one Christadelphian making several sites. Until you can provide verifiable evidence, the article stays as it is.Wintrlnd (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you mention the Anglican issue, in the Anglican church it is a controversial issue with several churchs and pastors openly split on the issue, it is not just one website by an unknown individual. The burden of proof is on you to show why this should be included.Wintrlnd (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one pro-gay Christadelphian website, so it is not just "one unknown individual" One of those sites in particular argues that the beliefs are full consistent with Christadelophian doctrine - see the Gay Christadelphian Network link above. The page mentions the/a Christadelphian position on homosexuality (marriage limited to heterosexual believers) and has a link to an anti-gay document. For the sake of balance the opposing view must be included. If you don't think the pro-gay sites are Christadelphian, you need some proof that they are not, despite what they claim.

Why does it matter that the individual or individuals behind them are "unknown"?Justmyip (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested protection for this page. It is clearly biased to have links to anti-gay documents but not pro-gay documents when both exist.Justmyip (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this needs protection. However, it is you who continues to put a link on here that three other people have removed. Yet you refuse to justify how one anonymous site warrants being on this site. You might also want to check the archives where this issue was discussed last year.Wintrlnd (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wintrind, I have clearly provided two different pro-gay Christadelphian sites, not just one. Can you explain why the reference to Michael Ashton's booklet, which is opposed to homosexuality, is worthy of being included, while the opposing sites are not? These sites claim to be Christadelphian and I can see no reason why they are not, despite the fact that most Christadelphians probably disagree with them.

The earlier discussion ended because the proposer of the expanded section didn't want to get involved in a long edit war, not because conscecus was achieved.

I maintain that the issue of homosexuality is relevant to the Christadelphian page, and that because a minority view exists it should be mentioned. Please explain why Inherit the Kingdom and the Gay Christadelphian Network are not Christadelphian sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmyip (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You may maintain that, but that does not make it true. To help you inderstand why I have removed your link and will continue to do so here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's guidelines for sources and content, (All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.)Wintrlnd (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Until you can give a citation to a published and reliable source, there is no justification for adding this into the article.Wintrlnd (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Justmyip, see WP:NOTE to see why your view is not receiving more space in the article. See in particular 'Significant coverage', 'Reliable', Sources', 'Independent of the subject', and 'Presumed'. This is not about whether 'Inherit the Kingdom' and the 'Gay Christadelphian Network' are Christadelphian sites (though since both are completely anonymous there is no way to prove that they are). It's about WP:NOTE. Personally I wouldn't have any objection to these links being included, but I didn't write WP:NOTE. The links provided which describe the majority view of the community are valid because they actually meet WP:NOTE. You have already acknowledged that this is the majority view of the community, so continued demands for evidence that it is the majority view of the community are spurious. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The majority view on homosexuality is mentioned and referenced. To include a mention of (and reference to) the minority view there are two criteria that must be met: the minority view must be a Christadelphian view, and the minority view must not be a fringe view.

Are the sites "Christadelphian"? They both claim they are - see "About me" on http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org/faq.html and http://www.gaychristadelphiannetwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=27 I think, for Wikipedia purposes, we have to acknowledge these sites as Christadelphian: they both adhere to the formal standards that Christadelphians are expected to meet. It is perhaps unfortunate the the B(A|U)SF and Commandments of Christ don't mention homosexuality, but that's not an issue for Wikipedia.

Are these sites a minority view or are they a fringe view? There have been responses to Inherit the Kingdom published in the Christadelphian magazine. Surely this is clear evidence that it is not a fringe view: a serious journal would not spend time discussing a fringe view. The appearance of the Gay Christadelphian Network suggests that there is more than one Christadelphian that believes you can be gay and Christadelphian. I don't know how many users there are of that site, but the blog that it started from, http://www.xanga.com/gaychristadelphian/ has several users that support the pro-gay point of view.

You are begging the question. Articles in The Christadelphian Magazine have appeared on a huge range of subjects, including some of the most obscure and barely visible fellowships and controversies. A mention in The Christadelphian is not an indication of whether or not it is a fringe view. Two Websites and 'several users' out of more than 50,000 Christadelphians, is 'fringe' by anyone's definition. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Inherit the Kingdom is anonymous. The reasons for this are discussed in an interview with the person behind it: http://www.xanga.com/gaychristadelphian/594583573/webmaster-or-webmistress-of-inherit-the-kingdom.html Even if we had a name for the person behind it, we couldn't verify if they belonged to a Christadelphian ecclesia. In any case, expecting people with controversial views to be easily identifiable is a dangerous precedent.

It's not a 'dangerous precedent'. It's a matter of verification. Look around and you will see that the vast majority of Christadelphian Websites holding controversial views are not anonymous. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to oppressive regimes is often done via anonymous publication. We shouldn't reject sources that opposed, say, Stalin just because there is no name attached. Sources opposing majority views in small denominations should be held to the same standards as sources opposing anything else.

Please don't change the subject to 'Opposition to oppressive regime'. That is not relevant to the topic at hand. What's relevant is verifiability, specifically WP:V. Anonymous, selfpublished sources cannot pass WP:V. They cannot therefore be included here. If you have a problem with that, then you can go and complain to Wikipedia about 'oppressive regimes', we don't make the rules here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the Christadelphians, how does a name make something verifiable? If I gave you my name you would find it impossible to verify that I am Christadelphian, yet I could pass the membership interview at any ecclesia. Justmyip (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand how a name helps verifiability, then you need to read WP:V. Please do so. If you gave me your name and I found it impossible to verify that you are a Christadelphian, then something would be very wrong indeed. At the very least it would mean it would not be possible to verify any of your statements as coming from a Christadelphian, which is the issue at hand. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states "Most Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers" with two references to mainstream sources. I'd suggest adding a reference to Inherit the Kingdom with no further comment, at least until there is significant development.Justmyip (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that people who hold the views represented by ItK are accepted as Christadelphians by the community. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Justmyip, this is meant as an encyclopedic entry of the majority and significant minority views of a denomination. I’ve read several blogs and web pages by individuals who claim to be Christadelphian and hold views contrary to the mainstream views that we don’t put on here since they represent just a fringe view. The person (persons ?) who run Inheritthekingdom and Gaynetwork don’t make the definition of significant minority.

You are right that homosexuality is not mentioned in the statement of faith. There are lots of behaviors and practices that we could list (prostitution, premarital sex, etc.) that the Christadelphians believe are immoral and unacceptable, that are not mentioned in the statements of faith. Every print Christadelphian publication , major website, and ecclesial site firmly states the views that homosexuality is wrong when mentioned. There has not been, to date, a significant minority in the community that has come forth in opposition to this like in other denominations such as the Anglicans.

I would recommend looking up Christian Denominations on Wiki and looking through other denomination’s articles as a good guide on what constitutes majority and significant minority positions.Wintrlnd (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How big does a minority have to become before it is a significant minority? The activity on the Gay Christadelphian blog and the Gay Christadelphian network suggests that the "gay Christadelphian" group is comparable size to some of the factions mentioned at the end of the article.

Really? What does 'suggests' mean? Do you have specific statistics, or are you just guessing? Of the tiny splinter groups referred to in the end of the article, none are mentioned by name, and details of their views are not given either, because they are so insignificant. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we mention any group by name. (Actually, I'm not aware of any named gay Christadelphian group.) The views of the gay Christadelphians are already mentioned ("Most Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers" therefore some do not believe that) I'm suggesting that we include a reference to back up that statement.

I am not suggesting we mention any group by name either. I'm simply pointing out that these other groups are being treated in exactly the same way as those who believe that active homosexual relationships are valid. They're not getting any more mention than your views are. They're not named, and their beliefs aren't referred to either. You're right that the statement 'Most Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers' needs correction. It should read 'Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers'. There is no evidence that other beliefs on this issue are accepted as part of the Christadelphian faith. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to statistics, the Gay Christadelphian blog has (or had - it appears to be defunct) three or four regular posters who were gay and Christadelphian. That's not much, but when you consider how few regular posters it had, it is a significant proportion. Even assuming it is a biased sample (which it definitely is) this makes the number pro-gay posters on that blog within an order of magnitude of the smaller divisions that are mentioned in the article.

Is that all? Three or four posters? That's almost non-existent. I thought you were going to at least come out with a number like 50 or 100. You acknowledge that this is a biased sample, and this is certainly not 'within an order of magnitude of the smaller divisions which are mentioned in the article'. There's a huge difference between 'three or four' people and 50 people. That's a difference in order of magnitude of more than ten. As mentioned previously, the beliefs of groups which are around 50 members are not described here, nor are the groups identified. Why? Because 50 people out of 50,000 (taking the lowest number for our community, though the statistics indicate we're closer to 70,000), is 0.1%. That's fringe by anyone's definition. But wait, your 'three or four' people is 1/10th of that size. So you've been able to find evidence that 0.01% of Christadelphians are gay and Christadelphian. You cannot describe such a value as anything but insignificant.

How many people need to believe something for it to be a significant minority?Justmyip (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot more than 'three or four posters'. A lot more than 0.01%. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did the Christadelphian write an article about Inherit the Kingdom if it is a fringe group? It doesn't usually cover fringe groups, even to refute them.Justmyip (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. The number of Christadelphians who believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are currently available is absolutely tiny, but that view gets a mention in The Christadelphian more than once. It does not, however, get a mention in this article. This is not a case of double standads. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are enough Christadelphians who believe that Holy Spirit Gifts are currently available that the Christadelphian mentions them several times then they should be mentioned in this article. Although the number may be tiny, the denomination as a whole is tiny, so it takes very few people to be a significant minority.Justmyip (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. As explained before, a mention in The Christadelphian is not equivalent to being a significant minority. If we included here all the fringe and minority ideas mentioned in The Christadelphian, the article would end up being 50 pages long. The criteria for inclusion are Wikipedia's criteria, and I do not believe that they include 'A mention in The Christadelphian' among their criteria. The fact is, an acceptance of active homosexual relationships is not a view which is accepted by our community, just as the present day possession of the Holy Spirit gifts is not a view which is accepted by our community. That doesn't stop a tiny proportion of members believing it, but it is not a belief representative of our community. This is in stark contrast to differences over whether the flood was local or global, both of which are widespread beliefs in our community, and both of which are recognized as being consistent with our understanding of first principles. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another thought. If the article is going to say "Most Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage between baptised believers" we need a source to illustrate that some Christadelphians disagree with this. Justmyip (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bible Companion

The link provided as a reference for "most Christadelphians use the Bible Companion to help them systematically read the Bible each year" does not prove that *most* Christadelphians use the Bible Companion. I'll see what I can do to improve the sentence: maybe "The Bible Companion can be used by Christadelphians to read the Bible each year." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.41.219 (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"...is used by many..."? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 05:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage and Family Life

The article states that marriage and family life are important for Christadelphians. I agree this is the case, but think that there is much more about this that could be written, even if we steer clear of the divorce and remarriage debate. Justmyip (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for including this information. See WP:NOTE. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article would benefit from an explanation of what "family life" means to Christadelphians, particularly for Christadelphians who have no relatives who are also in the church. Anybody have any good links or sources?Justmyip (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, there has to be a reason for including this information. See WP:NOTE. How about what 'family life' means to Christadelphian couples without children, or what 'family life' means to Christadelphians who have lost their families? There's a huge range of subject matter we could include in the article, but unless it is consistent with WP:NOTE, it doesn't belong here. We cannot simply throw into this article anything we like. It's not supposed to be an advertisement for the Christadelphian faith, or a presentation of all the Christadelphian views on X, Y and Z. It's supposed to be an informative article on the Christadelphian denomination. Despite what you might want to see in the article, or what I might want, or what anyone else might want, this is Wikipedia and there are strict polices and guidelines which determine what can and what cannot be included. Please see WP:NOTE for a good start. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to become involved in the debate, I would point out that WP:NOTE - the notability guidelines - are used to help decide whether a topic should have an article. They explicitly do not govern article content. The two most important policies concerning article content are verifiability and neutral point of view. CIreland (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree they're not specifically intended to guide article content. But they are a good start, as I pointed out. Article content which doesn't meet WP:NOTE will almost always be found to constitute WP:COAT, or a breach of WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, or WP:NPOV. Including information which does not meet these criteria diminishes the overall article's alignment with WP:NOTE. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing I don't like about the bare phrase "family life" is it isn't clear. Coming from a Christadelphian background, I understand exactly what "family life is important to Christadelphians" means, but I don't think a non-Christadelphian friend from another country would.

Saying "marriage is important" isn't clear either. It could mean that all Christadelphians are expected to get married, although that isn't the case. Justmyip (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beeb gives a somewhat clearer picture, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/christadelphians_6.shtml Something to that effect perhaps. There are also good references on the Christadelphian Caring Network site http://www.caringnetwork.ca/Practical_Help_Index.htm Wintrlnd (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the Beeb stuff. Maybe the "family life is important" sentence should be spun into a paragraph like that?

"Most" in practices

The word "most" is used in several places in the practices section, such as "Most ecclesias are involved in evangelism in the form of public lectures on Bible teaching". This makes me feel uncomfortable. I've belonged to three ecclesias, and been associated with a fourth, and all but one of those did use public lectures. That is a very small sample. Should this section have most of the mosts removed? Are there statistics for how heavily the different preaching practices are used? For example, the Christadelphian Web Directory lists 81 UK sites, http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/directory/links.asp?cat=3 . If there are less than 168 ecclesias, then this page would be proof that most ecclesias use web sites.Justmyip (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of Websites does not prove that the ecclesias using Websites don't also use public lectures. Check The Christadelphian Magazine and you'll see that lectures are still being used very widely in our community, certainly enough to justify the description 'most'. A note could be included indicating that other forms of evangelism are also popular, such as the Internet and seminars. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, there is a mention of "other forms of evengelism", e.g. internet and seminars, etc.) --Woofboy (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that the use of websites proves that ecclesias don't use lectures. I was giving an example of evidence for the phrase "most ecclesias use websites", which I know isn't used in the article.Justmyip (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in part with Justmyip that 'most' is not a good word to be using; without some sort of reference to what sort of percentage 'most' refers to and the source for that percentage, 'most' sounds more than a little like a weasel word, and that's in any context. 'Some' or 'A number of', is the best that can be done without some sort of source for statistics on what is being described, or perhaps if were a reliable source which makes the claim of 'most' then it could be cited with reference of course. However I'd have to disagree with the second point which necessitates counting web-sites and drawing a conclusion, as this clearly falls under the wikipedian definition of original research, but then so does looking in the Christadelphian magazine and drawing a conclusion from whatever is written there as Taiwan Boi proposes.Number36 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of 'most' (or some equivalent) is [P.S.: evidently was thought] necessary because outside Scripture (or the doctrinal framework of the Statement of Faith derived from it) there is no rule or authority which mandates a particular practice or method of preaching. Such a practice or method may therefore be used by practically all ecclesias or individuals in (a) fellowship, with only a few exceptions because of special circumstances; or it may be typically used but not universal; or it may be preferred by a slender majority. All of these are unarguably covered by 'most'. Leaving the topic of strict verifiability to those more experienced in Wiki-etiquette, might I suggest the terms 'typically', 'generally', 'often', 'frequently' etc., if the repeated use of 'most' is deemed clumsy? Terms such as these may carry some idea of actual prevalence in the absence of published and reviewed statistics, but perhaps I may be straying from the verifiable to the merely veritable. FredGP (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the relevant question here though is, in the absence of published and reviewed statistics what is the basis for any assertion qualified by 'most' or any of the other synonymous terms you suggest? While it could reasonably be said to loosely describe the circumstances you suggest, without those circumstances being cited and verified then we're still in exactly the same place in regards to the basis of 'most'. Verifiability is absolutely necessary for inclusion on wikipedia, check out WP:V. Also published statistics aren't the only way to reference an inclusion of 'most', as I mentioned earlier a reliable source which makes an assertion of 'most' would also be an appropriate source. Properly referenced of course.Number36 (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please bear with me... I have the feeling that this molehill is well on its way to becoming a significant geographical feature... In these cases we're dealing with descriptions of practices visible (and advertised) to the public. From the nutshell of WP:V Material challenged or likely to be challenged ... must be attributed to a reliable, published source.. I doubt there is reason to challenge what is described. That these practices are typical of Christadelphian preaching activities can be verified without the need for specialist sources or knowledge.

The original question in this heading is whether the 'most' qualifier is in fact necessary, as the practices described are so nearly universally adopted that it is superfluous to repeatedly include the exceptional.FredGP (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It has already been challenged though, so the question of whether it's likely to be challenged is rather moot. Firstly by the originator of this section in regards to a specific claim, and secondly by myself since 'most' appears to be a weasel word; it asserts something without verification or sources and is unnecessarily vague, see what WP:AWW says about 'most' under variations for instance. But as you have asserted this is easy to verify, then it should be no trouble at all to do so ;). I don't think this molehill is in any danger of being treated as a mountain myself, I hardly regard it as a huge issue, but that doesn't mean the molehills aren't messing up the lawn. A bit of patting down certainly won't hurt and the article will be the better for it. So far nobody has attempted to provide any basis for the assertion of 'most', in general or for any specific case, beyond that it should just be apparent, and I don't really think that's a suitable basis.Number36 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. I already pointed out that there's plenty of evidence for the assertion of 'most'. Check The Christadelphian Magazine and you'll see that lectures are still being used very widely in our community, certainly enough to justify the description 'most'. Check ecclesial Websites and you'll see the same. But as I have argued, the word 'typically' could be used instead of 'most', since this is virtually universal practice. Of course this entire argument over the word 'most' is a thinly disguised tip of a wedge intending to try and revise the content of the article which addresses Christadelphian views on homosexuality, so don't think I'm unaware that everything written in this section is smoke and mirrors. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

er... I'm sorry? Who on earth said anything about Christadelphian views on homosexuality? Please see WP:AGF, and don't go making assumptions about the motivations of others, let alone treating your assumptions as sufficient reason to dismiss perfectly valid and totally unrelated points. Actually back on topic, I've already addressed your assertion that 'most' can be derived from the magazine you mentioned. Drawing a conclusion from that, or any other source, where the method used to draw the conclusion is based on interpreting the source material in the manner you describe, would be original research WP:NOR. If the assertion of 'most' is significant and widely accepted, it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source which notes it as so, or better yet accurate statistics or a reliable estimation; if it isn't significant then it can hardly be important enough to note here. Please also read the links to wikipedia guidelines I provided above, the word 'most' is specifically cautioned against for exactly the reasons I've outlined here in WP:AWW. Look if you can verify it, then verify it, but don't expect people to trust that it should just be self-evidently true, this isn't a valid argument and from the very first part of WP:V; The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.Number36 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone mentioned anything about Christadelphian views on homosexuality, except earlier in the discussion. Please see the previous discussion to understand the issue. I'm not making assumptions about the motivations of others, I'm observing facts. Nor am I saying that my assumptions are 'sufficient reason to dismiss perfectly valid and totally unrelated points'. The whole 'most' issue has already been done to death. Please read the previous discussion, or you're wasting people's time. The 'most' can indeed be verified by the magazine to which I mentioned. That does not mean that the magazine has to be used in the article, as I have already pointed out. Doing that would be WP:OR, but there's no need to. I am not expecting 'people to trust that it should just be self-evidently true', any more than people are expected to trust that it is self-evidently true that most Christians believe the Bible is the word of God (a claim which does not need to be verified, as it is self-evident). I understand the difference between verifiability and truth, but you don't understand the actual topic of the discussion here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

17th September edits

My first thought was to revert these edits - firstly, because much of the material added seemed more appropriate for the John Thomas article, secondly because significant content relating to early years has been removed and thirdly because the article is now somewhat messed up (there are no longer three sections as the text states). Second thought was to leave the new stuff and add back the lost material... consensus? FredGP (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been considerably messed about with, and unfortunately we're going to have to spend a lot of time tidying it up. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think subsequent edits have buried the Sep 17th ones anyway. Reading through the whole article during my quick dust around the other evening (apologies - my revision hit a conflict and I missed some typos I'd spotted first time on the second pass - thanks to those who picked them up) made me think there's now quite a lot of duplicated material between the History and Organisation sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredGP (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As things stand, I think the History section is now better focussed and the "Suggest Merge with John Thomas" flag I added is no longer required. Anyone disagree?FredGP (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge-to flag removed.FredGP (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical novelty

This section needs revision:

'One of the arguments that have always been set against the Christadelphian movement is the incredible nature of the claim of John Thomas and Roberts Roberts to have rediscovered scriptural truth. It implied the true Christian doctrines were lost since very the very early days of Christianity despite well-meaning men and sincere Christians. Attempts have since been made to try to establish a history of people with similar beliefs, particularly notable being Alan Eyre with two books 'The Brethren in Christ' and 'The Protesters' in which they found evidence to show many many of their beliefs had been previous believed. In particular these are found within the Radical Reformation, particularly among the Socinians and other early Unitarians.'

Firstly, neither Thomas nor Roberts believed that they had uniquely rediscovered the lost gospel. Indeed, both men believed that the gospel had never truly been fully lost (certainly not 'lost since very the very early days of Christianity'), and that it had always been held by different groups throughout the centuries. Neither claimed that they had rediscovered what all others had failed to understand 'since very the very early days of Christianity'.

Secondly, the books by Alan Eyre are presented here as if they are some kind of 'official' response to a 'problem' for Christadelphians. But the 'problem' does not exist, and Eyre's books were both written as an independent member of the community.

Thirdly, if Eyre's books are going to be referred to then two points should also be made about them. The first is that they were thoroughly critiqued by Ruth McHaffie's work 'Finding Founders and Facing Facts' (2001), which demonstrated deep flaws in Eyre's research and conclusions. The second is that as a result of McHaffie's work the Australian publisher of Eyre's two books ceased to publish them, and they are now infrequently referred to in the community.

Finally, the section needs a revision of its syntax and grammar in order to read more smoothly. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've put some quotes which show that Robert Roberts and contemporaries believed that John Thomas had discovered the true doctines from having been lost since the first centuries in the article. In fact Robert Roberts gives a desciption in the Life of John Thomas of how his particular independent thinking and inability to be affected by friend or foe gave him the unique capability of doing that. I've tried to tidy up the wording and I hope that I did a fair job.--81.96.196.186 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address either of my two points. Firstly, neither Thomas nor Roberts believed that they had uniquely rediscovered the lost gospel. Indeed, both men believed that the gospel had never truly been fully lost (certainly not 'lost since very the very early days of Christianity'), and that it had always been held by different groups throughout the centuries. Neither claimed that they had rediscovered what all others had failed to understand 'since very the very early days of Christianity'.

Let's look at your quotes:

• 'Subtitle for the book 'Dr Thomas his Life and Work' by Robert Roberts written in 1873: 'A biography illustrative of the process by which the system of truth revealed in the Bible has been recovered in modern times': This speaks of a process of the recovery of truth, but doesn't attribute that recovery solely to Thomas.
• 'Christendom Astray, Robert Roberts, written 1862, Lecture 1: 'Do you mean to say, asks the incredulous enquirer, that the Bible has been studied by men of learning for eighteen centuries without being understood? and that the thousands of ministers set apart for the very purpose of ministering in its holy pages are all mistaken?' He then goes on to suggest that social conditioning, self interest by the clergy and an incomplete reformation prevented its rediscovery.': You convey the impression that Roberts answers 'Yes' to this question, and then goes on to justify the answer. In fact Roberts does not answer 'Yes' to this question. Rather, he makes it clear that the answer is by no means as simple as 'yes' or 'no' (' A moment's reflection ought to induce moderation and patience in the consideration of these questions'), and goes on to explain why. Not only that, but he next points out that it was generally agreed among Protestants that the truth of the gospel had been largely obscured or even lost for centuries during the Roman Catholic era ('Here then is a long period unanimously disposed of with a verdict in which all Protestants, at least, will agree, viz., "Truth almost absent from the earth though the Bible was in the hands of the teachers."')
• 'In an article 'A Glance at The History and Mystery of Christadelphianism', a contemporary of John Thomas, David King, from the Restoration Movement 1881, argues that a complete losing of truth would have been unlikely.': A comment expressing David King's opinion is irrelevant to what Thomas or Roberts believed. The relevant section of the article wasn't even quoted.

Now let's look at direct quotes from works by Thomas and Roberts. Firstly Thomas, who believed that there existed throughout the whole of the Christian era a body of true believers. He describes them in 'Eureka', volume 2, chapter 11, section 2:1:

• 'They testified to "the truth as it is in Jesus," in opposition to "every high thing that exalteth itself against the Deity's knowledge;" consequently, they were conspicuous in testifying against the catholic worshipping of the daemonials and idols; and all the other abominations they encountered in the Court of the Gentiles.'

• 'An arrangement of this sort was absolutely necessary for the preservation and protection of the One Body, witnessing for the truth against "the worshipping of the daemonials and idols," in the midst of the nations, and "before the God of the earth;" the weapons of whose warfare were civil disabilities, and the infernal tortures of anti-heretical crusaders and inquisitions.'

Again in 'Eureka', volume 2, chapter 11, section 2:2:

• 'Thus, the history of the ages and the generations of the unmeasured Court is in strict harmony with this prophecy of the witnesses. For a period considerably over a thousand years after Rome renounced its old gods for the ghosts, dry bones, and fables of the catholic superstition, the Spirit had provided himself with Two Witnessing Classes, to whose custody he providentially committed the truth, and its judicial vindication by fire and sword.'

Now Roberts, 'Thirteen Lectures On The Apocalypse', page 98:

• 'Though the apostles died, their work continued, and the generation of believers that went to the grave with them were succeeded by other believers who maintained the integral structure of the temple of God, founded in Europe. True, the work was marred and corrupted by the apostasy of the mass: still, a real work -- a real temple, existed, consisting of the remnant of true believers preserved by God as His witnesses in the midst of the prevailing corruption.'

It's clear that neither man believed the truth had been utterly lost until the 19th century. I don't find your quotes to be adequate for the use to which you put them. Two of them have been misrepresented, one of them is irrelevant, and in no way have you even mentioned the fact that both Thomas and Roberts believed that the gospel had never truly been fully lost (certainly not 'lost since very the very early days of Christianity'), and that it had always been held by different groups throughout the centuries. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

I've reinstituted the quotes taking on board the points that you have raised, because they do validly show that it was a criticism that people raised at the time. At the same time I concede from your quotes they believed that other people did have the gospel. Although your own proof shows they believed it was a marred belief that people had. I altered the wording from the gospel to the true doctrines to reflect they made a distinction between 'true believers' and a fully recovered true doctrines too. I agree that Robert Roberts words could be used to explain an impartial reformation had occurred and it wasn't lost totally, at least in a saving sense because there were true believers. I do find your quote from a Eureka a little ambiguous in that we have a reference to 'an arrangement of this sort' without knowing what is referred to and also the 'thirteen lectures to the apocalyse' don't really show what is meant by the two witnessing classes and in what sense they witnessed. In that sense the large analogies of the founders don't lend themselves to unambiguous proofs. --81.96.196.186 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm content with those edits. As for the Eureka quote, details of 'the arrangement' aren't necessary (I could provide more context for the quote, but it would result in a very large paragraph). What's important is that the quote identifies Thomas' belief that there existed for more than 1,000 years of Christian history 'One Body, witnessing for the truth', 'Two Witnessing Classes, to whose custody he providentially committed the truth'. So the quote provides unambiguous evidence that Thomas believed in the continued existence of witnesses for the truth. The quote from Roberts in 'Thirteen Lectures' says explicitly that 'Though the apostles died, their work continued, and the generation of believers that went to the grave with them were succeeded by other believers who maintained the integral structure of the temple of God, founded in Europe', a group of people who are called 'true believers'. Thus the quote identifies the fact that 'true believers' existed throughout the Christian era. Whatever else Roberts thought of them, he identifies them as 'true believers'. That's not in any way ambiguous. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Organisational Structure

I am writing this in response to Taiwan boi since my editing of the section about organisation led to a claim that it was partisan. I'm not quite totally sure what is meant by that, but I would like to discuss a few other factors which are relevant to how the organisational structure works. It was suggested when my edit was deleted that large edits should be first discussed and that is what I am now seeking to do here.

I would like to say that I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate being guided through the process a little at times. I have to say that I have my doubts about the whole concept, although I think it is a bold and potentially useful idea. My concern lies in the fact that I don't believe truth is ultimately decided concensually and the accuracy of the process would be determined by the rules and the way that moderation of achieved through perfect logic and reasoning. I would like to say that I am a firm believer in the value of truth and due to my association both within and outside the Christadelphian body and as both a friend and a critic I seek to be fair at all times. In that sense I think we can all be a little biased and therefore a certain amount of battling would be a necesaary part of gaining a fair balance in an article formed consensually. Both belief and disbelief, being a member or not being, experience and non experience can all give us biases.

The aspects which I feel should be included within the article to make it more accurate are these:

1) the relevance of the baptismal interview. A Christadelphian interview is way more in-depth that most Christian churches, which primnarily focus on faith in Jesus and repentance. The intention is to ensure that a potential convert believes the unique historical doctrines of the Christadelphian body. By so doing it is a form of control and is a strcuture. That can be portrayed as a positive or as a negative thing, as a form of preservation of truth or as a form of cultlike behaviour. Nevertheless it still is a way that the structure is maintained.

2) The threat of disfellowship if one has doubts and questions anything. The two aspects of a strong interview and censorship of views do form the way that the structure is maintained. It is for that reason that some dissentors started the magazine 'the Endeavor'. It was because they did not feel they could openly discuss things.

3) It is only fair to say that this structure is more fluid than it was in the past. And the reason for that is that each ecclesia being autonomous makes its own decisions upon how much it applies the Statement of Faith. Without a central structure andn leadership it is inevitable the structure will alter unless very intense doctrinal rigidity and adhesion to Statements of Faith is applied.

I guess what I'm trying to show is that the Christadelphian body has a theoretical structure based upon the BASF, but in practice it is evolving as an organisation. There are differences of approaches. You get ecclesias which are very much into studying the works of the pioneers and you get ones which sing Praise the Lord and you get ones which believe we need the Holy Spirit. And you people like Duncan Heaster who are accepted by some ecclesias and not by others because of questions over approach.

4) Another factor has been the fact that the Christadelphian body has historically believed all other churches are apostate. That can be shown by the former title of the Christadelphian, statements in Christendom Astray and Elpis Israel and from former talks and debates. It has maintained structure by leading to a high emphasis on doctrine and hence on the need for a heightened belief at baptism and a strong use of disfellowship. This is a relevant feature of the Christadelphian body and structure. Again this fear of apostacy through wrong knowledge may be a totally right one to have. It may be a negative feature. But ultimately this is a encyclopedia, not a pr face of the Christadelphians. Accuracy requires it is mentioned and it's relevance to structure explained.--81.96.196.186 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first things first:

• Wikipedia is not a place where truth is established by consensus. It is a place where reliable sources are supposed to be used by responsible editors who take the time to make careful and reliable edits.
• Wikipedia is not a place for placing a slant on an article such that it reflects our own perspective of the subject. That is called WP:POV editing. It doesn't matter if you think that your own perspective is particularly informed by having been 'in and out' of the subject, what matters is reliable sources and responsible editing.
• You should really create a Wikipedia ID, sign in with it, and then edit. See here for many good reasons why. Until you do so, people are far more likely to treat your edits as partisan, especially if you don't have any well established record of editing a range of other articles.
• Thus far you've made a series of anonymous edits without any discussion, and reverted them several times without discussion, even after being asked to discuss them. Those edits have included factual errors which were first completely unreferenced, and then inadequately referenced. This is not a good start for you.
• You've made it clear that the purpose of your edits is to present a point of view which you consider is insufficiently represented in the article. You'll have to explain further why that point of view is relevant, and how you intend to substantiate it.

Now to specifics:

• You haven't explained here the necessity for your particular view of Christadelphian baptism to be included. You haven't even compared it to other mainstream Christian groups (for example, Lutherans typically take people through weeks of pre-baptism training, and do not acknowledge baptisms which were not performed within the doctrinal context of their doctrinal confessions). You certainly haven't demonstrated that it is any more or less of a 'control' than baptisms which take place in other denominations.
• Your talk 'The threat of disfellowship if one has doubts and questions anything' is hopelessly parochial. It is hardly representative of the Christadelphian community. I've lived in the community for over 30 years, I've lived in at least a dozen different ecclesias, and I've experienced a very wide crossection of our community as a result of years of travel in three continents and eight different countries, and I know for a fact how doubts and questions are typically treated. Many of them are even aired in Christadelphian periodicals, youth weekends, and various discussion groups. Of course you don't supply any references for your statement, and your passing mention the Endeavour group only identifies you as a partisan. The Endeavour group didn't leave because they were threatened with disfellowship for doubts or questions. Indeed, their doubts and questions were aired repeatedly in The Christadelphian magazine, and discussed openly by many brethren and sisters. They left because they were not permitted to teach dogmatically views which they didn't consider matters of doubt or question. Ironically it was their dogmatism which caused them to leave, not the 'threat of disfellowship' for 'doubts and questions'.
• You need to explain further what you mean in point 3. Adherence to any statement of faith in the community is entirely voluntary, and you fail to explain how Christadelphian community adhesion as a product of commonly held beliefs is any different to community adhesion as a product of commonly held beliefs in any other Christian denomination. By the way, one of your many factual errors is that Duncan Heaster is 'accepted by some ecclesias and not by others because of questions over approach'. His situation has nothing to do with 'approach'. The diversity within the community despite a commonly held statement of faith and common practices is already mentioned in this article. This can certainly be expanded, but with appropriate descriptions (not use of hate terms such as 'logos ecclesias').
• In point 4 you equivocate. Whilst historically Christadelphians have believed that the churches are apostate, they have not historically believed that all Christians are apostate. Not only that, but historically even some churches (such as the Church of the Blessed Hope), have been viewed as non-apostate. You haven't provided any evidence that the community 'has maintained structure by leading to a high emphasis on doctrine and hence on the need for a heightened belief at baptism and a strong use of disfellowship' (and even the term 'strong use of disfellowship' is clearly subjective'), or of 'fear of apostacy through wrong knowledge'. It's ironic that you've had to acknowledge the rich diversity of our community despite a commonly held statement of faith and common practices (and despite your claims of 'threats of disfellowship' for 'doubts and questions'. In fact our community is one of the most diverse and variegated of any Christian denomination, and that is very largely due not only to the autonomous nature of our congregations, but also to the incredible tolerance of a very broad range of practices, 'house rules', and personal interpretations within our community. We're a benchmark for tolerance and no mistake. It's just incredible how tolerant we are, especially in comparison to the institutionalized churches. I'm always amazed by it. Compare us with Hillsong for example, and gasp at the difference (ok that's not entirely fair, they're an extreme example of a rigid Fundamentalist control structure enforced by fear and ostracism).

Put simply, you sound like a very old English ex-Christadelphian who is still associated in some way with the unfortunately out of date, long irrelevant, and now utterly tiny Endeavour movement, and who has an axe to grind. That may not be what you are, and in your words 'That can be portrayed as a positive or as a negative thing', but that's what you sound like. You'll get further if you don't sound like that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my recent edits. That's what Wikipedia material should look like. References from reliable sources, NPOV, and dispassionate statements of fact. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and experience with Wikipedia. I appreciate the time you have taken to give me advice and I'll try to learn from what you have written. I do think eventually it does come down to consensse, because it's very difficult to truly through supplying individual quotes. Te context and authority of the quotes end up being big issues and each time it can be taken back other steps. For instance most of the doctrines have quotes from various Christadelphian books and pamphlets, but since the body is autonomous none can be said to be authoritative. Even if accepted in a widespread manner, that would need to be proven. And if the body is changing with time it could only ever represent one particular place and time. The view of Michael Ashton for instance holds no particular authority in an autonomous community. And a view in the Central wouldn't necessarily represent the view of someone in the Berean for instance and it cannot automatically be said that the majority represents what a true Christadelphian is. Is it the majority or historical adherence for instance which determines who is or is not a true Christadelphian?? It's not as simple as it sounds to prove everything using quotes. What is and who determines what a reliable and authoritative source is??

The purpose of my edits is not to present a point of view. It is to help aid the accuracy of the article. You are judging things from your own set of biases and to some extent that is inevitable. That why you need a balance of views for the whole Wikipedia idea to work if it is possible and it hasn't been around long enough to be sure that it does indeed do that. It is still an idea in its infancy.

I disagree that there is scope within the Christadelphian body to question things past certain boundaries which are fairly limited. The way you are allowed to question is like this: 'of course we don't believe this, but I have difficulties understand this passage'. That's not questioning, that's allowing your thoughts to be subservient. In a movement that allowed questioning you wouldn't have to be very carefully diplomatic and you could do it without threat of disfellowshipping. You could say 'to be honest I find this doesn't add up'. Now of course other churches may be equally supressive of allowing independence of thought when interpreting the Bible, but we're not writing an article on the Lutherans or the Hillsong.

There is a belief that Christadelphians have 'the Truth' and there is a fear of doctrinal apostacy enetering in and many of the talks aim directly at proving that to a degree above which many churches do as can be seen on lecture titles. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it is the way things are and the belief systsem is a large part of how the structure is maintained. I am not a part of Endeavour by the way and never have been. I just mentioned that to show how people feel they have to secretly discuss things, which is valid. A system with a testing of correct doctrine before baptism and disfellowship for wrong views creates by its nature a closed system that doesn't allow questioning. I'm surprised that you cannot see that to be honest. It's still relevant to how the structure is maintained and pehaps you could write those factors in using better wording than me.

It needs some clarification before saying that a statement of faith is entirely voluntary. Technically it is not, although practically it isn't enforced to the letter always. For instance the constitution of my previous ecclesia says, 'we are a Christadelphian ecclesia, accepting and professing the doctrines and precepts of the "One Faith" as defined (positively and negatively) in the annexed Statement of Faith and epitomy of the Commandments of Christ'. No opt out clause there. Further it says 'we recognise as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts and in fellowship with BIRMINGHAM CENTRAL ECCLESIA'. And this is the pattern set out by Robert Roberts in his guide and it isn't exceptional. If it's entirely voluntary, then the whole method of disfellowship for wrong doctrine is entirely arbitrary in nature. That's why of course some bodies like the Bereans focus on the pioneers and Statements of Faith more, to maintain historical consistency with the original positions. I think you may be right and the acceptable right doctrines have been simplified to a set of core doctrines and the history of what led to the statements of faith and their detail has been forgotten in much of Central. I have also heard it said at Bible Schools before the breaking of bread that it is open to those who accept the BASF and that is still the technically position of most eccelesias and the body.

The community is not unqiuely tolerant and varied. It is very much tradition bound as shown by your own wording that the structures follow common practices that have altered little since the 19th century. It is every much as institutionalised as many other parts of Christianity. It isn't full of free thinking independent minds. It is full of social conditioning.

Anyway, you've had your POV here and I've had mine. But it comes down to I need to provide more evidence, so my question is what sort of evidence would youi consider satisfactory. An opinion from an ex you would consider partisan or baised. An opinion from someone else you would probably consider not in the know. How could the structure be proven to be partly mainatained by a strong belief in correct doctrine, the nature of an involved baptismal interview and a strong practice of disfellowshipping those who question or dissent?? And how can quotes from Christadelphian sources for that matter be considered non partisan?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.196.186 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to sign and I guess I'd better get registeres too--81.96.196.186 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fellowship on the basis of an agreed set of basic doctrines is, I'm afraid, a necessity in the present age. The BASF is not a full statement of God's Truth, nor could any humanly devised document be so. The very reason for the amendment to the original shows this to be so. When it was drawn up, it was thought to cover all the essential elements of true Biblical teaching. Then a question arose which wasn't covered by the SF, which many thought important enough to be a matter of fellowship. The majority (in Britain anyway) favoured an addition to the SF to state the accepted position, which was made. Members were free to meet on the basis of the BASF, or else to reject the amendment and to meet on the unamended basis - whether they disagreed with the content of the amendment, or simply with the fact that the SF had been amended at all. Likewise, quoting from the constitution of my own ecclesia "We recognize as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship, all who have been immersed (by whomsover) after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts." Acceptance of the fundamental doctrines and precepts is a matter of personal choice. If someone, from personal conviction, believes that the epitome of doctrines in SF are wrong, then they are free to do so - but by this they put themselves out of fellowship with those who assent to them.

The Old Testament contains many warnings and exhortations to Israel to turn their hearts to God and keep themselves separate from the practices - religious or otherwise - of the nations around them. The mixing of the worship of Asherah with that of the One God brought particular calamity upon the Israel and Judah. Paul warns us that "...all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (1Co10:11, NKJV) Elsewhere there is ample scriptural instruction to maintain fellowship only with those of like belief and of commendable conduct. These are the grounds for a distinguishing between those "in fellowship" and those who are not.

Merely questioning doctrines is hardly discouraged - indeed a significant thrust of Christadelphian preaching is to demonstrate why we believe what we do, and why it matters. If, however, someone believes and/or teaches a doctrine incompatible with those (few) set out in the SF, that is a different matter.

Disagreeing with "the way things are done" - non-doctrinal matters, such as the order of meetings or the appointment of serving brethren maybe - is not a matter for disfellowship, unless the individual goes about it in an un-Christ-like way. It is stated in the article that intra-ecclesial matters are usually handled on a democratic basis - again quoting from my own ecclesia's constitution "We mutually engage to submit to the order and arrangements preferred by the greater number.". If someone wants to change "things", then there is a process by which to do this, so long as the majority are in favour. The individual also has the freedom to transfer to another ecclesia, should their arrangements be more suitable. If the individual chooses to disassociate themselves from the body, either by long absence from the breaking of bread (or by informing the arranging brethren that they no longer wish to be in fellowship), or by fellowshipping those with incompatible doctrinal beliefs, then they have placed themselves out of fellowship.

(For the benefit of the majority of readers, it should be clarified that formal disfellowship extends only to a barring of participation in the breaking of bread and in ecclesial duties and decision making. It does not imply shunning either at meetings or outside. - perhaps this point should be mentioned in the article?). FredGP (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Fred GP,

You have proven by your statements here that there is no freedom to question. Your statements show that you believe that you need a statement of faith to maintain your seperateness from the world and other churches who are Babylonian in nature. If someone does question the statement of faith you have shown that you belive it is right to disfellowship them because 'that is the only way of doing things in the present age'. Therefore the points that I made were not partisan, but accurate in nature. Disfellowship is used as a tool to maintain the structure and the emphasis is one of high seperation in doctrinal terms and the induction process is through baptismal interviews to ensure doctrinal conformity. In terms of the article because it is suppposed to be neutral in nature and not a POV that does need mentioning. Are you honesty saying when you say that there is a freedom to question that if someone spoke up and said they no longer felt the devil(for instance) was simply a a manifestation of human nature you would allow them to stay. No, you would question them and try to persuade them that indeed it was and if they were adamantly unconvinced by all that pressure you would move towards disfellowshipping them. So if anyone has doubts they can't express them because they know that process will start.

Whether not adhering to Christadelphian doctrines in all its aspects is Babylonish is a very mute point in reality. To assume the body is somehow infallible at interpreting the Bible could be said to be a little arrogant. And to suggest God validates statements of faith a little presumptive, even if that very human process has been carried out since the early days of the catholic church. If essential doctrines aren't encompassed in the statement of faith then it is schismatic in nature. In the truest sense the body of Christ is not a human but a divine organisation. There is one head which is Christ and entry is not via a denomination. It is a little presumptive to set the bounds of the body of Christ when Christ not us is the head. Fellowship in scriptural terms is called 'the fellowship of the Spirit' because the connection is a divine one. It is not 'the fellowship of the BASF'. The question is one of authority and no one is an infallible interpreter of the Bible. Not the Pope, not the Christadelphians and no other denomination either. God is the authority.

As an organisation the Christadelphians do not believe in encouraging questioning. They believe in trying to conform people to their way of thinking. Sure they say read the Bible for youself, but in practice they don't believe in a person following the Bible alone unless they come to the same conformed mindset. And again that is controlled through baptismal interviews and by a structure that does not allow any difference to be able to be formed. That of course may be right from your POV, I accept that, but let's not pretend that isn't the way it works.

In scriptural terms of course the first century ecclesia wan't democratic either. It was led by God and by his Spirit. There were elders and leaders. And social conditioning in the OT worked against acceptance of the prophets and strong messages of repentance and non worldliness. So democratic assent isn't the same thing as allowing questioning, There can be humanistic reasons too why the majority doesn't always do or follow the right paths. And that spirit is also a Babylonish spirit. And to a worldly congregation straight Biblical principles can seem unChristlike, because of the nature of an end-time lukewarm church. Nothing is a straightforward as having a tightly controlled set of rules that maintains an archaic structure and the majority who may think they are the people with the perfect truths won't necessrary gain acceptance on that basis.

You are a believer in tradition and the Christadelphian ways. That doesn't mean that those are what God looks for and that true doctrines are the measure of a pure heart. As Christ said 'he knows his sheep and they know Him'. We cannot be the judge of another man's servant and no one or no organsitaion is infallible at interpreting the Bible. And in the final analysis the Bible doesn't save us anyway, it is Christ. He is the Saviour. --81.96.196.186 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou too, 81.96,196,186.

I'll try to avoid getting into a lengthy discussion here, so keeping the resonse as brief and to the point as I can.

Yes - Jesus is the Saviour and Judge. Christadelphians as individuals or as a body are not infallible and they cannot judge who will be accepted at the Judgement seat of Christ. The label "Christadelphian" does not confer favour. Faith is essential: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Heb 11:6, NKJV) The attitude of heart mind and spirit is what God seeks (e.g. Isa 57:15).

To be clear - I do not make any claims of infallibility for myself any other person, or the Christadelphian body, nor did I say that God had validated any SF. Please do not imply that I did.

Does the Bible save us? Only in that it is the God-breathed Word that teaches us of God, His will and His plan of salvation: "...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom 10:17, NKJV). Without the word, we cannot know of Christ. Without knowledge we cannot have faith. This is why Christadelphians place a strong emphasis on personal study of the scriptures, and why the belief that the Bible as God's word forms the Foundation Clause of the SF.

True spiritual fellowship is indeed between the individual believer and God through Christ. Practical fellowship involves the meeting together and working together of like-minded believers. Evidently an ecclesia could not (to use your example) support a brother preaching one week that the Devil is a manifestation of human nature, and the next week a different brother preaching that the Devil is an evil, immortal, God-defying demon who inhabits a fiery region under the earth. A line has to be drawn, and the SF is an attempt to define those essential doctrines (positive and negative) that the body as a whole has come to believe.

Each person is individually responsible to God and will stand before Christ in Judgement. If any comes to the conviction that the SF is wrong, then they are free to leave the body and pursue that belief. From the POV of the Christadelphian body, gaining a member is a joy and losing one is a grief. From a NPOV, what does it matter if we label one person "in fellowship" or that one "out of fellowship"? As you say, we cannot not determine whether that person is acceptable to God. All we do is preach the Gospel and argue our beliefs from the scriptures. If I sincerely believe the BUSF/BASF to be correct (in as far as it goes) according to scriptural teaching, then to act or preach otherwise would be sin. Similarly, if I sincerely believe it to be wrong, I should not want my preaching to be associated with a body that stands for things I think to be wrong. Such is the right of any member.

You speak of disfellowship as a "tool" for "controlling" members. I don't believe that to be NPOV. What I described in my earlier reply was a sincere and - as far as I can - NPOV description of what disfellowship means. In the majority of cases - to my knowledge - it is merely a recording of the fact that someone has either "resigned" by informing the ecclesia that they no longer wish to meet with them (or any other), or that they have simply ceased to attend the breaking of bread for a considerable time without a good reason. Sadder still are the remaining instances where individuals are positively disfellowshipped either for actively holding (I say again fundamental) doctrines, or unChristlike behaviour.

You are correct in saying that someone who comes to believe doctrines incompatible with the SF would be spoken to with a view to overcoming the disagreement (or other reason for ceasing to attend). In just the same way as someone who is not a member would be if they asked why we believe X or reject a belief in Y. If they remain convinced that the SF is wrong, then they have the right to believe that, but how can they still be in a state of practical fellowship with those they disagree with? Why would someone in this position wish to continue to be labelled with a name that stands for something else?

Am I to understand that you have had a different experience?

Nearly all denominations have some kind of creed or other document which serves as a definition of basic beliefs - creeds have been drawn up since the early days after Christ. The SF serves the same purpose. Would someone like me be allowed to don vestments and preach a sermon in an Anglican church? No, since for one thing I don't assent to all the 39 articles!

As to democracy, I agree that it is a poor substitute for Apostles and prophets acting under the direction of God's spirit. But can you suggest a better method "in the present age"? Would you suggest we blindly followed a fallible leader? We've already established that each member is individually responsible to God and is striving to follow the one head - Jesus. Ecclesial autonomy and collective decision making are practical and open means of government. The "archaic structure" was and is intended to model the way the first century church was organised, based on the NT scripture. Some would argue that the structure is (realtively speaking) modern in any case.

FredGP (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fred GP,

I absolutely agree with you that if you think the BASF/ BUSF set out true doctrines and are a valid basis of fellowship it would be a sin not to maintain them. However, if the body of Christ is larger than the confines of the BASF it is a schismatic division of the body of Christ. That's my point. My point in terms of the article is that it is a way that the structure is maintained and it works in accordance with the baptismal examination. The article as a neutral encyclopedia isn't coming at it from the aspect of whether it is a necessary way to maintain Gods truth and whether it does achieve that. That's a POV. I agree that the word 'tool' wouldn't be an appropriate word in the article (it's too emotive!!), although it's a valid expression in discussion. I think in pratice it sets out a statement of what the denomination believed, but is also used as a disciplinary tool to maintain the structure. I think it's intention is the one way, but it is also used in the other way and it was brought about for both purposes through a process of debate and schism after the death of John Thomas.

Whether we have the right to set up arbitrary bases of fellowship comes down to a question of whether or not we have divine authority. We may have a belief that we are correct interpreters of the Bible, for instance, but that doesn't mean that we actually are correct interpreters. And to have divine authority we have to not only think we are correct, we actually have to be correct. That means to exclude someone from fellowhsip we have to be very sure that what we are doing is what God intends us to do. After all, the basis upon which we judge others will be the basis upon which God will judge us.

Again it shows that there isn't scope to question anything within the Christadelphian body without risking being disfellowshipped. It isn't honest to say that there is except within a very narrow range of thinking. The fact this may apply to the Anglican church too isn't relevant, because this article isn't about the Anglican Church. As a point of interest John Thomas himself suggested in the introduction of Elpis Israel to burn all creeds including the 39 articles of the Anglican Church and to follow the Bible without any and he made the point that those who do that won't find favour with the churches. Making the point that people in his day weren't allowed to follow the Bible alone either. So you may be right about the Anglican Church too, although today they may be more flexible about the 39 articles and origins from what I read in the press.

Maybe there is a non partican way of explaining the strong doctrinal emphasis, the comprehensive baptismal interviews and the way that maintains the structure through keeping out what is seen as doctrinal error often described as Babylonian or apostate. I think that is valid, because the origins did come from a strong sense that error couldn't be countenanced and that sense prevails very strongly. To think outside the box of acceptable correct doctrinal positions does lead to disfellowship and this adherance to correct doctrine has kept the structure together. At the expence of the freedom to question and think I might add and the risk if openly done of being disfellowshipped. Again, from your POV this may be right and it would be sin to not disfellowship anyone who began to question and found it never added up to them fully, but who wanted to stay to bring others on in the spirit of 'prove all things', just wasn't ready to leave or didn't know where they should go to and didn't want to.

In answer to your question as to how else things could be arranged, I think you would have to conclude that God is running his body and he may not be the orginiator of the denominational approach that has formed since the Reformation and that the reformation never restored first century Christianity fully even in the Christadelphian body and even within Statements of Faith and the same spirit of proving all things needs to continue and physical exclusion isn't the way to answer those who have found previously set positions not fully answering their objections. To me that's what allowing questioning would be like. Without the apostles and Holy Spirit, then how could we be sure that we had finished the resotoration and it never still needed to continue to take your point up?? What Statements of Faith do is try to keep things at one particular moment in history and that's why groups which are very fervent about them like the Bereans put such a hugh emphasis on the interpretations of the Bible of the pioneers and the debates and reasons why the Statemenet of Faith was brought into existence.

In fact I believe this rigidity is breaking down within Central, albeit very slowly and not always in the right way and I tried to bring this balance out in the points that I raised. I think it leads to the present state where social conditioning and majority consensus outweigh an emphasis on truth or an entirely cohesive position and the body is in a rather dead and confused stance as a result, but again that's my POV and maybe it would be better if you wrote the wording in the article taking on board some of the points I have raised and then I could give you my assessment of that to prevent my POV coming across out of balance.

This initial belief in seperation from false doctrine was very intense by John Thomas. It's continuation to defined Statements of Faith through the later period of Robert Roberts did define the way the structure works and how it is organised. It is seen in the title subjects and emphasis on proving maintsream doctrines wrong through text-proofing, the process of disfellowshipping if people change views and a reluctance to openly question for that reason anything. The point of the article isn't to say whether this is right or wrong. It is to explain how the structure works. When you believe that most mainstream doctrine comes from 'the worship of Asherah' as you put it, then you are going to firmly not allow anyone who interpreted any passage that could look like a movement in that direction to you. That means that fear of apostacy is a factor like I mentioned.

In answering my description about someone who wasn't convinced by that devil was a manifestation of the flesh you also went immediately on the defensive and made a parody out of what many maintsream Chrsitians believe by making it a clear choice between the Christadelphian view and a devil that 'is an evil, immortal, God-defying demon who inhabits a fiery region under the earth'. Such quick judgments don't easily allow someone to question either, because it reduces the choice of possible interpretation far too rapidly and shows a quick movement to a defensive position. That again shows that questioning isn't allowed, because that is what would would happen to someone who raised an alternative position and that's part of how social conditioning works. First you have to listen and understand before you can can answer and defend.

When you talk about answering the disagreement you are moving towards proving the other person wrong before examining the possibility they might have moved towards a fuller understanding of truth than yourself. As a non infallible person we can only discuss with a person who has doubts from the persepctive that we ourselves might also be wrong. To disfellowship a person requires considerable certainty and self examination. We need to listen and understand their position and be aware of how we respond to what they say and if we react in any way defensively why that should be.

This is a very good discussion here at finding out how the structure does work by the way and as a Christadelphian you may be better qualified that myself at moderately putting the points I raise into the article without bias if you can understand where I am coming from without changing position.--81.96.196.186 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very bad discussion, which is exactly the kind of discussion Wikipedia policy forbids. The Talk page is not a forum for a discussion of the subject of the article. It is a page for discussion of the article's content and how to improve it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again - I'll give some thought to some words that we can agree on.

I must say, though, if my expression of the "mainstream" belief in the Devil sounds over the top, I had in mind a conversation I had a few months back with some work colleagues who had been discussing the Devil and the concept of Hell at the Christian fellowship where I work. I was surprised to find that that particular sample of modern, sincere evangelicals hold beliefs in line with what I wrote here. That doesn't mean that all non-CDs believe that. But yes, I was exagerating in order to make the point. FredGP (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you are sincere about that and will genuinely come back with words we can agree on. I find many Christadelphian don't do what they say they will do and I hope that you are an exception to that. And okay, you were exaggerating to make a point and your point was that you couldn't risk people having an unconventional view of what the devil might mean and certainly not a mainstream Christian one. To me that does show questioning isn't allowed and it leads to disfellowshipping because of a belief that non conventional views are apostate and from Asherah as you put it.

However there is no scriptural evidence that belief in a supernatural devil even puts one beyond the pale of salvation and I would challenge any Christadelphian to provide them. That however is not the issue here and you can believe whatever you want to believe. The issue here as an impartial encyclopedia is whether questioning is allowed and whether the Christadelphian body acts as a closed system brought up through strong baptismal interviews, social conditioning an disellowship.

You are saying questioning about the devil or any percieved movement towards mainstream Christian views on this matter would not be allowed. I agree with you and I think that applied to other doctrines too and even if a person doesn't move towards mainstream Christian views. There is little freedom to question and follow the Bible for oneself.

And to Taiwan boi I would say the same thing. You wanted to discuss this and so let's discuss it and come to an agreed understanding of how the structure works.--81.96.196.186 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Some housekeeping matters:

• Please register a profile and use it
• Please follow Wikipedia edit formatting protocol, including intending your edits (it makes it much easier for people to distinguish your words from those of others)
• Wikipedia is not a forum. This is not the place for you to air your personal views on the Christadelphian community (either in the article or in the Talk page).
• Please read WP:NOTE. If you want to include views on Christadelphian baptismal interviews or beliefs, they must meet WP:NOTE. That does not mean that they are simply notable from your own point of view.
• This leads to WP:RS. Any content in the article concerning Christadelphian baptismal interviews or beliefs must be provided from reliable source. Not your own ideas, not your own work. If the Christadelphian baptismal interview functions in some notable manner which is markedly different to the baptismal interview in sects such as the Lutherans, then this will certainly have been noted in reliable sources. You must quote those reliable sources. If

Thus far you're simply saying 'Christadelphians have a generally agreed on set of common beliefs, have a baptismal interview to ascertain that prospective members hold these beliefs, and do not fellowship those who don't hold those beliefs'. All of that is already in the article as a mundane description of the Christadelphian community. It's no different to the many other Christian sects which do exactly the same. If you want to include specifically notable views on the Christadelphian community, you need to quote them from reliable sources. Try looking at Bryan Wilson's 'Sects And Society', a sociological study of several Christian sects, including the Christadelphian community. You will find that contrary to your personal view, this sociologist identifies our community as having 'minimalist organization', 'informal patterns of authority', 'informal roles', and 'ad hoc informal leadership' (he mistakes the editorship of The Christadelphian Magazine as some kind of formal authority role, but that's easily corrected).

I hope you now understand the correct way to approach editing this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks taiwan boi,

I will read those links you have just given. I would suspect that the accuracy of Wikipedia and the articles would come down to the mechanics of how it is moderated and whether the rules work. Again I have my doubts about whether article is accurate simply because it is proof referenced. It depends upon so many things and factors. For instance what is the difference between the opinion of a sociologist who writes book and person who hasn't written a book. Would we or you suddenly be authoritative simply because we had written a book, like Bryan Wilson or Harry Tenant or any of the other quotes? Would not their works have to be critiqued and checked too by an infallible process. It comes down to a question of what makes truth authoritative. Is it the worldly expertise of the writer, experience or communal acceptance of the writer. There's lots of factors involved. Most Christians usually give the final authority to the Bible then of truth, but even then which of us in infallible and does proof referencing prove accurate their too?--81.96.196.186 (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you have refused to:

• Adhere to Wikipedia editing policies (again, please indent your edits)
• Read WP:NOTE (all your questions are answered there)
• Create a user profile and use it (again, please do so)

Please do so. Please understand also that Wikipedia is not 'moderated' in the conventional sense. Edits take place continually without any moderation whatever. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies to Wogiftm (81.96.196.186) for not coming back sooner, and to Taiwan boi for lack of indents.

Wogiftm - I'm trying to separate in my head your argument from the words you are using. I think we're agreed that Christadelphians maintain formal intra- and inter-ecclesial fellowship through acceptance of a SOF, which sets out the *basic* doctrinal framework of the denomination. Membership is open to those who have been baptised by immersion after understanding and accepting those core doctrines. The interview serves to ascertain the candidate's understanding of those doctrines. A person who has not yet understood and embraced those core doctrines is out-of-fellowship, and is not permitted to participate in the breaking of bread, duties or leadership of an ecclesia. The same applies should a member who is in-fellowship comes to the conclusion that they no longer believe those core doctrines.

We also agree that the terms "tool" and "control" are emotive and not NPOV.

Having re-read the article (and gone through the numerous changes made to it since I last logged in), I feel this is mostly covered already, though an explicit mention of the baptismal interview could be added to the paragraph beginning "Only baptised believers..." under Practices. I suggest this:

• "Only baptised believers are considered members of the ecclesia. Those wishing to be baptised are interviewed beforehand to ensure that they understand and assent to the basic doctrines set out in the Statement of Faith. However, many ecclesial and inter-ecclesial activities are open to non-members: children of members..."

Concerning disfellowship, the (now) current wording covers the matter adequately in my opinion. Personally, I feel "excommunication" is technically correct, but not truly NPOV as it carries an implication of condemnation and punishment that is not present in the case of Christadelphian disfellowship (see my earlier comments).

FredGP (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fred GP. I think my initial additions may have had a bit too much POV, but I'm not sure that your thoughts fully answer the points I was trying to fit in. I agree most of the elements are covered already in the article, but the area that I was trying to explain was more to do with organisation than anything else. For instance, yes the booklet by Robert Roberts did heavily influence the structure of things. But how does it do that? How does the democracy really work? And if it is by consent, how does the statements of faith and constitutions work with that. Is it consent or rule following and how does that affect those who question rules or doctrines? Is it a rigid or flexible structure? How does change happen or is it impossible? Is it consent to an open structure or consent to a closed one?

I see it as a very closed structure with a high emphasis on technical doctrines and with the early emphasis on correct doctrines and debates shaping the character quite strongly. There is a high intellectual demand and consent to beliefs needed to join and the high emphasis on seperation from the world leads to a high exit cost for those who leave. Perhaps what we need isn't so much more clarifying of organisation, but more on the character and emphasis of the body. The hard thing to get in Wikipedia is the right equilibrium isn't it, because proof-quoting does have limitations, doesn't it??

I can see your point about excommunication creating a certain word picture too, but there are a couple of reasons why I think it should remain. As you say it is technically correct and as such it links to an article which gives a useful comparison of how other churches (can I use the word??) discipline those who for whatever reason disobey or disgree with the structural setup of their religious organisations. It is also a word which is more widely understood. Disfellowshipping is like the word ecclesia, arranging brother, the emblems, 'from outside' and so forth. I suspect it would be better to clarify the process rather than remove the word excommunication.

I can see how it is possible to read a sense of punishment and condemnation into the way the word feels to you. It is certainly that way if we think of the Catholic church for instance and how they excommunicate. Unfortunately there is no easy way to exactly describe because many Christadelphian words are denominational jargon. A pastor creates a certain impression over minister or leader. A church over an ecclesia. A Christadelphian would object to the breaking of bread being described as communion. The test probably is to use the most neutral word and then follow it with a more exact explanation. I can see why you don't want the word, because it creates an impression in your mind of churches which use that word and you don't want the public associating their practices with your practices. Further clarification of the notable differences could solve that--Wogiftm (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this stuff represents your personal point of view, which you clearly want to include in the article. There's no reason to include your personal point of view in this article, and Wikipedia policy forbids this in any case. None of this can be included in the article unless it takes the form of third party references from reliable sources, and conforms to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTE without breaching WP:COAT. You've supplied no evidence that this material conforms to WP:NOTE, let alone WP:WEIGHT. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest using further explanation, but avoid words peculiar to the Christadelphian community and yet retain links so that people can see how other religious communities discipline. It is essential the same practice but done in a different way and using a different word to create a slightly different emphasis.

Blessings and grace,--Wogiftm (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wogiftm I am still opposed to using the phrase excommunication for the fact it is not a term Christadelphians use as well as being loaded with the connotation that non-Christadelphian groups put into it. A possible solution is, 'disfellowship' and very brief explanation. Wintrlnd (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't feel the Pelagianism thing has a place in this article. The article would sound weird if we added after every doctrine Christos believed, a reference to another group that had similiar beliefs. I also can't say I am convinced that Christos are entirely like the Pelagian beliefs either. It is sufficient to just state our beliefs in the Major Christadelphian beliefs section.Wintrlnd (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I know its not a Christadelphian word, but disfellowship is a word which is fairly denominational and the article on excommunication does explain many different variances including the JWS who use the word disfellowship too. Maybe an explanation using the word 'similar to excommunication' or something may be more appropriate with a caveat.

Wintrlnd's suggestion has my support. "Excommunication", though it technically means "to put out of communion" has too much historical and social baggage. Similarly "Extermination" technically means "to put beyond the border" - to banish from a country - but (according to the OED) from the mid-17th Century it began to acquire the modern meaning which is quite different.FredGP (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The link to Pelagianism is relevant because Christadelphians are almost alone in not believing in the sanctifying nature of God's Spirit and that we need strength from God's Spirit to be changed. That is how most Christians believe God's grace is given and the issues about overcoming sin without God's Spirit and the historical objections to it have some relevance here. I agree that Christos beliefs aren't entirely like the pelagian beliefs, because they believed many mainstream doctrines. In addition Christos hold a view of human nature that doesn't accept it is entirely good and is more Calvinistic in nature. But the aspect of not needing strength from God's Spirit to be changed is relevant. In fact if we believe human nature is bad and we don't need God's Spirit, then it is more difficult that those who believe it was good and didn't need it.

I see you have also put a reference to Christadephians into the Pelagianism article. The belief described there is not in line with Christadelphian beliefs. The means of salvation both for mankind in general and indivduals is provided and instigated by God through the work of Christ and the provision of the Scriptures (OT and NT) to bring us to Christ. The difference, I think, between the Christadelphian position and the mainstream churches is the mechanism by which God's grace and providence is administered. Christadelphians are similarly accused of a belief in salvation by works, because we believe that baptism is essential. Likewise, this accusation is a distortion of the real position.FredGP (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion of the Augstinian, Pelagian, Arminian and Calivinist positions, see the Article by H A Twelves "Calvinism and the Bible Doctrine of Predestination", The Christadelphian Vol 83 (1946) p162. This demonstrates that the Christadelphian position, though rejecting some Augustinian and Calivinist doctrines, is not Pelagianism.

Almost all of the people in the groups similar to Christadelphians didn't have all the Christadelphian beliefs either. For instance under Isaac Newton there is a whole section on his occultic beliefs. Many of the Anabatistic shared the belief in adult baptism, but also had mainstream Christian beliefs too. Many CDs often link themsleves with the losing side in the Arian controversy, but the Arians believed in the pre-existance of Christ as a being. I rememeber doing a search now that we have the internet on many people in Alan Eyres books and finding they did not by any means hold all CD beliefs and many were claimed as ancestors by the Hutterites and Amish.--Wogiftm (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment on Pelagianism was your own completely unreferenced comment. You didn't demonstrate that it meets either WP:NOTE or WP:WEIGHT, and you didn't supply it from a third party reliable source. So what if Christadelphian beliefs on the Spirit are similar to Pelagianism? How is that notable, and on what basis should it be included in the article? You also misrepresented the Christadelphian position in the process.

Disfellowship (or 'withdrawal of fellowship'), is not excommunication as commonly understood. The term 'disfellowship' should be used, with an internal link to the excommunication article which should contain an entry specifically on the Christadelphian withdrawal of fellowship.

As for 'all of the people in the groups similar to Christadelphians didn't have all the Christadelphian beliefs either', so what? I've already made specific reference to this in the article. By the way, Isaac Newton's 'occultic beliefs' have nothing to do with his religious beliefs, and don't change the fact that he shared mainstream Christadelphian beliefs. I don't know any Christadelphians who claim we are Arians, so saying 'Many CDs often link themsleves with the losing side in the Arian controversy' is irrelevant. We have consistently denied that we are Arians. I have already included in the article specific reference to Alan Eyre's work, as well as legitimate criticism of it, properly referenced, so I don't know what your issue with that is either. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pelagianism edit

This section is getting rather long and we seem to have changed subject a bit. To continue I have restored the link, because it is a notable feature of the Christadelphian body to deny the sanctifying work of God's Spirit. That is almost unique amongst Christians and it means that the means to become like Christ is totally different. The CD approach elevates the written word of scripture to having some kind of magical effect just through knowing, whereas most Christians believe we need strength from God's actual Holy Spirit. Wogiftm (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's WP:OR. That's your personal opinion. If you had been able to find any reliable sources which said this, I'm sure you would have posted them by now. But you haven't. You've simply kept including a sentence of your own creation, from your own personal opinion, without any third party references whatsoever. That's WP:OR. Did you see what I did just recently? I included a statement that Christadelphians place an emphasis in Bible study. In support of this statement I provided no less than four third party reliable sources, correctly referenced. That's not WP:OR, that's good editing. That's what you're supposed to do.

Ironically, in this case you claimed that this wasn't actually notable, when in fact I was able to prove it certainly is notable, finding third party references to it in reliable sources with ease. That's the difference between proper research and personal opinion. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer Fred GP yes, you are right that many Christians see Christadelphianism as legalism or faith through works. That is because they believe that by denying the sanctifying work of God's Spirit the ability to overcome comes through human strength. Many see baptism as a 'work' that is a command that should be obeyed, but does not save in itself. It is an outward witness of inner repentance in other words. I would refer you to doctrine to be rejected in the BASF no 24 which requires Christadelphians to reject the idea 'that the gospel alone will save without the obedience of Christ's commandments'. That works against the concept of salvation through grace and shows the 'work' basis of Christadelphian theology. Wogiftm (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the content of the article. This belongs on a forum. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I accurately describe the Christadelphian position, Taiwan Boi, and I'm interested to know why you don't think I do.Wogiftm (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your claim was that Christadelphians believe 'our free will combined with Biblical knowledge alone can create the mind/ character of God in us through the events of life'. Not only is that not true, it's contradicted by the very paragraph into which you inserted it ('which is developed in a believer by their reading of the Bible and trying to live by what it says during the events of their lives which God uses to help shape their character'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the article you referred to FredGP I don't have access to it, but I do have some understanding of the different systems referred to. It would be more useful, though, if you would get to the core point which you don't like about the comparison to Pelagianism than quoting an article I don't have, which is probably very circuitous in its reasoning and which I would not have the time to read.

Appreciate both of your thoughts and God bless, --Wogiftm (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Taiwan boi. I've restored the Pelagianism link, but removed the free will bit. To be honest that's a very complex area to discuss and it's probably better without it.--Wogiftm (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, for the good of us all, read the Wikipedia edit guidelines. Firstly your edit contained no third party reliable source describing Christadelphian beliefs as akin to Pelagianism. Secondly, the Wikilink you provided was simply to the Pelagianism article, which is certainly not a third party reliable source supporting the statement. Thirdly, Wikipedia articles are not permitted to use other Wikipedia articles as references. Among other things, this stops people deliberately inserting into one article information they want to use as a reference for another article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it. To be honest these articles are quite complex to get your head around. At least it is for me, because my thinking is more intuitive than rules based. You aren't allowed to use personal common sense or reasoning. Despite the fact that Pelagianism has the same belief in the non-need for the sanctifying work of God's Spirit it isn't allowed because I haven't quoted someone who is considered an expert who has made that link. Is that right??--Wogiftm (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to with 'intuitive' versus 'rules based'. These are non-complex guidelines which are highly intuitive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not conduct original research, they collate third party secondary and tertiary reliable sources. That's what encyclopedias do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it is intuitive that Wikipedia's content is encyclopedic in in form. That is intuitive. You don't need an 'expert', you need a third party reliable source or several (please note that a reliable source isn't always an expert, all you're doing is showing that despite me linking to WP:RS more than two dozen times you still haven't read it), demonstrating that any similarity between Christadelphian belief and Pelagianism is both notable and verifiable, and meets WEIGHT. But at present you might as well say that Catholicism and Satanism are related because they both hold to a belief in Satan. It's true that they both hold to a belief in Satan, but how is that notable, and why should it receive any WEIGHT? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

doctrines to be rejected

I wonder if some could sort out the statements of faith, because at the moment there are two versions of the BASF on Wikipedia and that is ridiculous. I altered one of them some time ago, because I found some inaccracies in it. For instance the one on the site said, 'We reject the doctrine - that those without knowledge - through personal choice, immaturity, or lack of mental capacity - will be saved whereas I understood that it actually is a rejection that "heathens", idiots, pagans, and very young children will be saved. The version on the site had also restructured the layout, presumably to clarify what he thought it should say. However a moderator considered the changes too large and created two versions if you look.

In fact I studied the wording on a whole series of statements of faith online and there were differences in almost every single one of them. I also compared them to historical ones, such as in a very early Guide to the Formation of Ecclesias and those of the Unamended and there is actually more amendments than one throughout the historical process.

I found numerous contradictions and inconsistencies and it seems many people have never read them fully even though they claim to be in fellowship on the basis of them. For instance I found my former ecclesial constitution had the Unamneded Clause even though everyone seemed to think they had an Amended One.

I have also found many sites had more limited statements of faith than the BASF on their sites, even though technically a person has to believe a lot more than that.

Some doctrines to be rejected also include police constables and there were notes this was somehow included in 1917. One site said that that both the BASF and the BUSF both 'represent valid statements of belief subject to the following clarifications regarding the clause that differentiates the two" and had an addendum. And I have been given to understand certain ecclesias in Austarlia have what is called the Cooper-Carter Addendum too.

Some missed out the doctrines to be rejected all together and others said they were essential. Obvious question 'which is true??'

As an aside one interesting thing I do wonder and which I haven't found a satisfactory answer yet for is this. In a democratic community, how can a statement of faith once considered sufficient be altered?? When these amendments happened did people vote on whether they wanted to change them or did they happen because of the efforts of a few dominant individuals setting out a position and pressuring other people and groups to go along with them?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.196.186 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're demonstrating clearly your lack of understanding as to how our community functions. The fact that you express surprise over the Cooper/Carter Addendum (which is over 50 years old), is particularly illustrative of your lack of understanding.

You criticize us for having a commonly used statement of faith, and then complain when you find that we don't all use the same statement of faith. You even try to change the statement of faith used by some ecclesias to what you think it should say.

The fact is that a range of SOFs are used in our community, since we are not bound exclusively to the BASF. We recognise the beliefs and baptism of any individual who holds to an understanding of the gospel which is the same as ours. That renders irrelevant your question 'how can a statement of faith once considered sufficient be altered?'. Different congregations within our community express their faith using statements which they consider represent their individual views most accurately. This doesn't stop them having fellowship with other congregations which express their faith using different statements. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand exactly how it works, taiwan boi having been brought up as a Christadelphian. And officially all ecclesias in Central are expected to agree with the BASF. And the wording that I altered on Wikpidea in the doctrines to be rejected was claiming to be the BASF and as you should know that isn't what the BASF says. The BASF came from a specific period in history and is distinguished by that from the BUSF or Unamended Statement of Faith and for the sake of one clause and the potential it left open for holding different views a whole division happened as is mentioned already on the site.

I do believe that the position is changing and that the importance attatched to Statements of Faith is diminishing (which I tried to express), but officially Central is still united by a common understanding called the BASF.

The wording of the BASF on Wikipedia, both positive and negative doctrines to be rejected are not the BASF if they are summarally altered by people or ecclesias. It is dishonest to say that they are.

Since ecclesias are autonomous the historical official positions cannot be maintained, because there is no central authority to do that. So with time individual ecclesias do except more limited core understandings than the BASF and hold different degrees of tolerance to deviance from, although there is a basis centrality of views which are not allowed to be questioned that are fairly represented in the article.

So yes, maybe historically the Central community was united by the BASF as a result of the debates and schisms that occurred, but today has altered and is moving away from that. Inevitablyin time that would mean the divergencies would get greater and the freedom of individual Biblical interpretation would grow with both potentially positive and negative results. But we aren't here to discuss whether the changes or structure is positive or negative, we are here to discuss how in practice the structure works.

And nine us can alter the wording of the BASF without voiding its ability to be the BASF even if to all intents and purposes it might be a valid Statement of Faith as far as the individual or ecclesia may be concerned.

I don't think I can be criticised for the inconsistencies in how the community works and that it's structure is a mix of Statements of Faith, unalterable core positions and tradition and that throughout the community these positions are maintained in a very arbitrary fashion. The truth is the historical positions are altering and have altered and the body is evolving in certain ways and in a broad sense it has moved from a reforming organisation with an emphasis on truth to an established church with traditions which cannot be questioned. Something which again I think I was accurate in trying to describe.--81.96.196.186 (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Once more:

• Please indent your edits
• Please register a username and use it
• Please understand that Wikipedia is not a forum (you should be discussing article content here, not the Christadelphian community; this is not the place for you to air your personal opinions on the community)

As I have already pointed out, all ecclesias agree to certain beliefs. They are expressed using a range of different statements of faith. Ecclesias are not bound to simply the BASF, they unite on the basis of a common understanding of the gospel, which includes that expressed in the BASF. It is incredible that you claim to have been a Christadelphian yet you are ignorant of this.

The precise wording of the BASF has been changed many times throughout history by various ecclesias, for various reasons (including updates to modern language from 19th century English), and this is entirely acceptable in the community. If you don't understand that this has taken place and why, I question exactly what experience you have ever had with the community. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that if the Bible is translated into another language then it is dishonest to say it's still the Bible. Of course it's still the Bible, it's just the English language translation of the Bible, or the French language translation of the Bible. Or it's the NIV, or the NET, or the ASV. So likewise, there are various forms of the BASF, dating to different eras and expressing the same statements in different wording, but they're still the BASF. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've got a user name and I've indented it and now to continue the discussion I think you've put a pr slant on in Taiwan boi. Once you alter the BASF what you have is a version of it and not the original. And that is the same as the Bible too. You have a translation not an original and it also puts in scope for interpretation as well. The reality is that Christadelphians are not united by a common understanding of the Bible, but are divided into various groupings holding to different statements of faith. Within Central that was (it may not be today fully) the BASF, within the Unamended its the BUSF, in Australia the Addendum was brought in to faciliate a Union as I understand it. A few years ago a proposed union between the Amended and Unamended put forward a NASU bridging document and the wording was very, very carefully considered and was considered important.--Wogiftm (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a PR slant, it's a fact. If you really don't believe that it's possible to express the same concepts using different words, then I would like to introduce you to the English language and the field of language translation. I can give you the address of a Bible translation email list which is used by professional Bible translators, and you can try to explain to them your idea about how the Bible isn't the Bible anymore once it has been translated. I'm sorry, but what you're saying just isn't remotely grounded in reality.

You are once more changing your tune. Previously you kept going on about how the Christadelphian community is a monolithic entity which requires absolute consent to a dogmatic statement of faith which ensures congregations maintain fellowship, and now you're claiming that the Christadelphian community isn't 'united by a common understanding of the Bible', and is instead 'divided into various groupings holding to different statements of faith'. The fact is that thousands of ecclesias throughout our community use various SOFs with various DTBRs, yet still retain worldwide fellowship with each other. The community just doesn't operate in the manner you've depicted in caricature.

The fact is that congregations in our community are united by a common understanding of the Bible, no matter how that understanding is expressed. If you want to try and claim otherwise in the article, you'll have to provide reliable sources which make the claim. But I know you can't do that. Once again, the purpose of this Talk page is to focus on article content, not to give you a public platform for your personal opinions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, you are expressing your opinions here. It's just that you don't agree with me in how the structure works. I never did say or have said that the body works rigidly to a statement of faith. If you look at the bits you edited from Wikpidia I made a distinction between the official position and the reality of how the Christadelphians operate. I also agreed there were core positions agreed upon by most CDs. This is not a forum for you either. The dogmatism of the Christadelphian body comes through an adhesion to tradition which does not allow questioning past certain acceptabilities. These traditions have supplanted the historical positions, but are not as broad as to allow questioning past a certain point. There is no consistent structure, many contradictions, however there are marked similarities and the way the structure is maintained is through a gradually altering structure of traditions.

This is not a matter of me expressing my opinions, this is a matter of me stating facts, in particular explaining to you why your material is inappropriate for this article according to Wikipedia policy. You have attempted to say on the one hand that beliefs within the community are rigidly enforced (through baptismal interviews and disfellowship), whilst acknowledging that in fact a diversity of belief and practice exists within the community. You can't have it both ways. This is why personal opinion is useless to Wikipedia, and why you need to use third party reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Bible most Christians agree the Bible is only accurate in the original languages and context and what we have is versions and translations, which imperfectly render the original and sometimes have interpretations too. That applies to versions of the statements of faith too and since we all read English it makes sense for Wikipedia to have the original, with a footnote to explain that different meetings have different versions of it and may try to reinterpret archaisms.

I may or may not be able to find quotes. That in itself does not prove or disprove anything. Things are true whether or not they can be texturally proven in the higher scheme of things. And ultimately God's truth is what counts not men's imperfect forms of compiling knowledge and his platform is what will finally count. Your implied challenge that to not find a quote means your position is true is a lie. Let God be true and every man a liar!!--Wogiftm (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the Bible, whilst most Christians agree that the Bible is only accurate in the original languages, I don't know any Christians who would support your claim that any translation of the Bible from the original languages cannot legitimately be called a Bible. Your definitions are simply inaccurate. I have no problem explaining the various developments and rewordings of the BASF, what I have a problem with is you claiming that once reworded it is no longer the BASF. That's simply untrue.

Whether you can find quotes does not prove or disprove any of your claims. But if you're unable to find quotes it does mean that you can't find third party reliable sources supporting your claims, and on Wikipedia we find that this usually means the claims are spurious. Things are certainly true whether or not they can be 'texurally proven'. But if your opinion of a subject is X, and you can't find any reliable third parties who share the same opinion (especially scholarly sources), it is very likely that your opinion is actually wrong (at the least it's clear that most people just don't see it your way). I have not made any explicit or implicit claim that your inability to find a quote means my position is true. I'm just noting that your inability to support your claim with any evidence means it's very unlikely to be accurate. This is exactly what Wikipedia editing policies are for, to sift out the chaff from the wheat, the self-motivated personal opinions from reliable, evidence based, NPOV factual statements. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your point on board, Taiwan boi. It can legitimately be decribed as a 'version' of the BASF, but my point still stands that it fails to be an original. I agree that you may be able to justify the changes made, but others may not and individual changes to the BASF are not consensual ones by the whole Christadelphian body. In that aspect it is worth remembering a whole division has occurred in the past over those who would accept a revised wording of one clause and those who would not. I think it would be more apt to only have an original and not a version and include clarifications if various archaisms or rewordings are thought more appropriate. The problem with changes is that all changes and indeed translations for that matter are to some degree interpretations. That has itself been part of Christadelphians arguments re the wordings in the Bible towards hell, the devil and other matters.

--Wogiftm (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about our community still using an 'original' BASF, so that's irrelevant. Why would it be better to have an 'original' if the 'original' is used far less frequently than a revised version? That's simply not properly representative. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your opinion that there are such things as reliable third sources I am very doubtful, even if this is the way Wikipedia operates and of course as such I need to comply with. The fact that a person is a scholar holds no authority with God and human knowledge and authority are no more than 'wordly wisdom' in God's eyes. Through repentance he gives people a new heart and makes them a new creation in a way that is 'foolishness' to the world. Both Daniel and Joseph were trained in the wisdom of the world of their times, which was that of Egypt and Babylon, yet today that knowledge has dissappeared and nostly discounted. We don't treat people by putting dung on their wounds or using incantations and we don't look to the stars for wisdom, yet in their days they were held as right. Much of the scholarly wisdom of today will in its turn be found similarly lacking and the humanistic base that is behind it will be revealed. --Wogiftm (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you are doubtful about the concept of reliable third party sources, is completely irrelevant. As you rightly note, that's the way Wikipedia works, and I have to adhere to it just as much as you do. The rest of what you wrote here belongs on a forum. It does not belong on this Talk page. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate you explaining why you believe you can read my heart and believe I am self-motivated. My aim in life is to serve the living God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. That is what I seek to do here as everywhere.--Wogiftm (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about reading your heart. This is about trees and fruit. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is about getting Wikipedia accurate and you don't know me or my personal life.--Wogiftm (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My assessment of your actions is what constitutes trees and fruit. To do that I don't need to know you or your personal life. I simply have to observe your continued resistance to Wikipedia policy, and your continued attempts to include your personal views in this article even against Wikipedia policy. I've spent a lot of good faith on you so far, and that hasn't been rewarded. It's important for me as a Wikipedia editor to assess your actions and determine whether or not they are in good faith, because if there's consistent evidence that they aren't then I have to take the issue to informal moderation. That is an important part of keeping Wikipedia accurate. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I am still learning how to use Wikipedia doesn't make me self-motivated, Taiwan boi. It also doesn't make me resistant or anything else you may think. And I'm not here to reward you or anything else. What you don't like really is someone having a different understanding than yourself. You cannot read anyone's heart and you do not know me or my life to know whether God's Spirit has brought forth fruit in me or not. In God's assessment his truth is what counts anyway, not Wikipedia and we were told to speak the truth 'in season and out of season'. In other words, when people want us to and when they do not.

I am not here to have you make false accusations against me, so let's keep to the discussion in hand. I am willing to work patiently with you in understanding the points further and you need to exercise more patience before making false accusations.--Wogiftm (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research in 'apostasy' section

I have removed the 'apostasy' section as it constituted original research. Please read the article on original research to understand what went wrong here. See in particular this section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the article, Taiwan Boi, and I cannot see how it can be original research when it is a well established, historical Christadelphian position. Please can you bring out the relevant points why you think it is so that I may better understand how to edit Wikipedia if I am wrong. How else if it is wrong can the lack of a history be explained??--Wogiftm (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me help. This is directly from the article to which I linked:

• 'Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position': What you included was your own arguments and ideas. You did not include published material. You did not include a published analysis. You did not include a synthesis of published material. You did not include published facts.
• 'Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors': You cited no secondary sources. You cited no tertiary sources. You cited no sources at all. That's called original research.
• 'Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles': Your material was unsourced, obtained from your personal experiences.

Is this clearer? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it even clearer, the quotes you provided from Roberts don't constitute proper research either. They are primary sources, so they constitute WP:OR. They are not proper references. I can't quote Christadelphian publications to substantiate my edit that Christadelphians place a strong emphasis on Bible study, I have to quote secondary or tertiary sources. In any case, as I pointed out, there's already a significant section on the Christadelphian belief in an apostasy, in its proper place, correctly referenced. What's wrong with that? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, Taiwan boi. It does help when you do this!! I still don't think it is original thought, because we were discussing the history of the Christadelphians and it was a strong historical belief there was an apostacy. And it still is in some quarters. Try reading the Bible Magazine, for instance. It isn't my beliefs and ideas. The quotes clearly showed that is what Christadelphians traditionally believed. The old title to the Christadelphian said something like 'in contrast to the errors of Catholic and Protestant Christendom' or something like that. It WAS the old Christadelphian position. Those are not unqiue ideas that I have somehow postulated into existance. And Elpis Israel and Christendom Astray are published works.

So how do you explain the lack of a history to ask the second question again??--Wogiftm (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the quotes I provided from WP:OR. It doesn't matter if you think this isn't 'original thought'. You have to abide by Wikipedia policy just like the rest of us. You don't seem to be reading the quotes I provided. Original research doesn't mean you made it up, or that it's simply your 'beliefs and ideas'. It means original research, research which you have carried out, as opposed to research carried out by a third party reliable source, specifically a secondary or tertiary source. I know full well that the Christadelphian community holds the standard Christian belief in a 'great apostasy' which took place in the early Christian era. I haven't said that's wrong. On the contrary, I've pointed out that this is already mentioned in the article, in the proper place, correctly referenced. But if I want to mention it myself in the article, I have to use third party secondary or tertiary reliable sources, not my own words or my own research. As for your second question, that's completely irrelevant to this Talk page. If you want to discuss that question, meet me on a forum and I'll be glad to. But Wikipedia is not a forum. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fellowships

I have attempted to consolidate most of the information on fellowships was under different sections, under one new section, titled (surprisingly...) 'Fellowships'. Please take a look and comment/edit. Thanks RiJB (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is generally better, but I find a contradiction in this phrase, 'While most of these have been considered to be non-fundamental, they have periodically resulted in divisions (and subsequent re-unions), and Christadelphians today consist of several distinct communities, known as fellowships.'

It seems odd to say the least that if they are considered non-fundamental people should have split over them. They were clearly fundamental enough for people to break fellowship with each other. For a huge number of people they clearly could not have been considered non-fundamental, but they felt strongly enough to divide often from friends, families and former brethren.

Maybe it would be truer to say that at the time the issues were considered fundamental, but today that view has been moderated and that reunions have taken place because the sin of schism has been more fully recognised.--Wogiftm (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not odd to say that they're considered non-fundamental but people have still split over them. That's a simple fact. I have clarified the fact that differences exist over issues which are not covered by the commonly accepted Statement of Faith, but that some divisions have resulted over issues which either are or are not covered by the commonly accepted Statement of Faith. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You've missed my point, Taiwan boi. My point is that they "were" considered fundamental. That's why the divisions ocurred. I agree they aren't fundamental to me or you, but the whole term is a value judgment and may be best avoided. I think some of what we are talking about is happening, because we are talking at cross purposes here. We are mixing up the present and the past when they were considered fundamental and in fairness they still are to certain people and groups within Christadelphia as looking at a series of web sites show. To me the only fundemental aspect would be if it prevented a person being in the body of Christ and affected salvation. And historically people believed these differences could if you look into it.

Having read it again I realised the restructuring brought some useful points into the organisation section, but what it unfortunately did was mix up history with it. So what I've done is to restore all the history points to the history section, whilst retaining anything of present relevance within the organisational section under fellowships. I've also restored the reunion aspects, so that it doesn't place an undue emphasis upon divisions. I accept that today many would see these issues as being non-fundamental and that is why reunions have occurred, although I would myself see the issues within the broader Christian divisions that have occurred, but that would be getting into forum material, wouldn't it??--Wogiftm (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable and not undesirable that historical information should be mixed with other sections (see the paragraph on worship), but I take your point. I was attempting to eradicate duplication and improve sequentiality, which I still think is an issue, if anyone has a solution... RiJB (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Disfellowshipping

I've softened the reference to excommunication by putting the word disfellowshipping first and then enclosing the words 'similar to excommunication' in brackets, so that readers don't automatically associate their impressions of exommunication with the practice of disfellowshipping. I believe that technically it could reasonably be called excommunication,just as reasonably a Christadelphian meeting is a church and breaking bread is a form of communion. What we are talking about is various word pictures associated with certain words which Christadelphians are not happy with.

I would refer people to the article on excommunication where I have put an intial entry in describing the Christadelphian practice of disfellowhipping after the one on Jehovah's Witnesses who use the same term due to similar historical connections.--Wogiftm (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't 'withdrawal' preferred in Christadelphia? A cursory look through 'The Christadelphian' indicated that the term 'disfellowship' isn't used.RiJB (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

John Thomas's baptisms

In the section The Restoration movement and John Thomas (up to 1871) it says "During this period of formulating his ideas he [John Thomas] was baptised three times".

Is this correct? I know of only two baptisms: the first by Walter Scott in 1832 and the second in 1847 (probably by John Tomline Walsh, according to Peter Hemingray John Thomas - His Friends and His Faith 2003 p.145).

Can anyone tell me about the third baptism? If not I think the article should be amended to say he was baptised twice. Ekklesiastic (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Christadelphian beliefs

The section named Major Christadelphian beliefs in the Statements of Faith:

1. the name of the section should be shorter, such as Christadelphian beliefs,
2. the text in the section seems to rely too much on that "Statements of Faith", and therefore mumbles, in real reality, Christadelphians is a Christianity related religion based on Jesus=Messiah beliefs, maybe Arian in its nature, but most certainly not Trinitarist, seemingly literalist, seemingly premillenial, possibly related to Millerites in its way to interpret the Bible as being some chronicle and source for prophetic predictions, the section should add such statements (if relevant citations can be found), and remove some current details, such as

This includes the belief that the coming Kingdom will be the restoration of God's first Kingdom of Israel, which was under David and Solomon.

which has very few theological implications outside the Christadelphian denomination itself. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)