Category Archives: BASF & CCA

The history of the BASF

Is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation (as we prefer) able to be reconciled to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) which is the most commonly used statement of faith for Christadelphians?

Christadelphians historically recognise the statement of faith is a product of the time, human rather than inspired and should not be read at a word for word level (eg see here).  However, in response to Christadelphians accepting the reality of evolution, some have promoted new and narrow ways of reading the statement of faith to try and exclude evolutionary creation.  (Many of the same ecclesias a long time ago added specific additions to their Doctrines to Be Rejected to exclude evolution – thereby demonstrating that the BASF etc IS NOT of itself sufficient to exclude “theistic evolution” as they call it). Continue reading


How to read fellowship statements

Foundation Clause

Obviously I believe the Scripture doesn’t rule out EC.  The argument is made that EC is inconsistent with the BASF.  On one hand this is clearly less significant than being inconsistent with Scripture, however the BASF is an important document underpinning our fellowship.  As Brethren Carter & Cooper noted “To decry a Statement as man-made and to speak of the Bible as alone sufficient reveals a marked failure to perceive the problems of ecclesial life and its duties[1]

It is a useful definition of our faith as Bro Roberts commented on the value of a statement of faith saying

So long as it is understood that the written definition is not an authority, but merely the written expression of our identical convictions, there is not only no disadvantage, but the reverse, in reducing the faith to a form that shuts the door against misunderstanding[2] Continue reading

A response to the IEAC Creation Statement

In late 2015, a group of ecclesias in South Australia (mainly those affiliated with The Lampstand Magazine) issued a statement trying to restrict how our various statement of faith documents should/could be understood.  The following blog comprehensively demonstrates the edicts flaws.  Very unfortunate that the rebuttal has been ignored by the various arranging groups it was provided to.

A dangerous inconsistency and false charge

In endeavouring to argue against EC, brethren (for it is mainly brethren) can readily express extremes which are inconsistent with both their position and the position of our community more generally.  A classic example is the relationship between science and Scripture and then extrapolating this into commentary about the inspiration of Scripture.  It is true enough that there is a relationship with inspiration, as is set out above.  However these balance is lost in debate and comments such as below are made: Continue reading