J Carter on Adam’s nature

In taking the fruit in Eden Adam yielded to his own nature. If I said this literalist campaigners/heresy hunters would be up in arms. Yet John Carter – the crafter of the creedal additions heresy hunters rely on wrote it. Literalists make claims about Adam for which they have no Scriptural support, this leads to all sorts of contradictory statements. Here is Carter’s comments (made in the context of debate about the serpent be literal or not – can you imagine this discussion getting a free run today!?)

Dogmatism – The Believer Magazine

The Believer Magazine was an alternative Australian Christadelphian magazine in the 1970s which opposed the dogmatic assertions of Scriptural uncertainties by a South Australian power bloc and their threats of fellowship action against individuals and ecclesias.  History repeats.  Old man Adam was part of the debate.  Below is from Vol 2 page 2 in 1973.  Here’s part of the Editorial:

Islip Collyer on Evolution

“There are doubtless many believers in Evolution who would deny these propositions [the absence of a plan/design] and affirm their conviction, both in Creation and overruling Providence. They are not Darwinians, and perhaps we have no quarrel with them.” 

“These are beneficial when restricted to purely spiritual objects (i.e., let the brethren assemble anywhere from anywhere, and exhort, or worship, or have social intercourse together); but they become sources of evil if allowed to acquire a legislative character in the least degree. Ecclesial independence should be guarded with great jealousy, with the qualifications indicated in the foregoing sections. To form ‘unions’ or ‘societies’ of ecclesias, in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias, would be to lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history illustrates this.”

Roberts, R. (1989 edition). The Ecclesial Guide (pp. 31–32). Birmingham: The Christadelphian.

Shout out to the Interecclesial Advisory Committee (IEAC) in South Australia.  Created to run combined activities they have since branched out into doctrinal enforcement (eg via their “Reaffirmation Statement” – see here for comments!)

A Plain Man looks at Evolution

Bro Ken Drage was a member at Watford when the evolution controversy broke in the 1960s.  He has written an open letter addressing evolution and some of the history from the debate which centred around Bro Lovelock.  The impact of emotion and pressure from others is noteworthy – as is his observation that the 1960’s discussion were civilised though highly charged (such civility is lacking today!).  Bro Ken’s letter is reproduced in full below – it should be mandatory reading, so over to Ken…

Bigotry

The necessity of Adam’s failure

How could and why would God allow Adam to fail (or creative him such a way that such failure was inevitable)?  Surely sin and death were never part of God’s creative plan!  So say some as if their musings are authoritative or the only opinions ever held within our community.  Such is “very short-sighted” according to the 1894 Christadelphian Magazine article by Sis Mary Brabyn.  R Roberts published the article under the heading “the Apparent Failure of Freewill”.  Though a convinced literal creationist she articulated that Adam’s failure set the basis for a far more effective salvation of man than Adam’s mere obedience could achieve.  For in Adam’s failure, God’s mercy and love would be demonstrated and appreciated.

2009 CMag letter accepting EC

In December 2009, in response to an article on creation, a brother wrote to and was published in The Christadelphian Magazine saying (among other things), evolution challenges our interpretation of the bible (not the bible), a range of views needs to be accommodated and evolution is not atheism nor unfaithful.  The full letter is reproduced below:

Early Christadelphian approaches to the Bible

Our pioneers and earliest commentators believed we should study Scripture using the best scholarship in science, history, archaeology, textual criticism, lexicography, and Bible study, leaving us an excellent example. They used science and scholarship to combat doctrinal error,[1] [2] believing scientific facts always supports the Bible.[3] [4] [5] [6] They accepted the scientific evidence for the age of the earth[7] [8] [9] [10] and pre-Adamic human beings, [11] [12] [13]  despite rejecting evolution.[14] [15] They wrote articles arguing the Genesis flood was not global, [16] that the days of Genesis 1 were not necessarily literal,[17] that the Bible cannot be understood simply through literal interpretation,[18] [19] and that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.[20]  [21] [22] They supported the most modern Bible available (the Revised Version), and promoted Tischendorf’s New Testament, based on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, which they regarded as ‘the three most ancient original’ manuscripts.[23]

Wilfred Lambert on Genesis 1-3

Bro Wilfred Lambert was an outstanding Assyriologist with a gift for ancient languages.  He translated and published books and papers on various cuneiform tablets and seals.[1]  Bro Lambert also published articles on his understanding of Genesis 1-3.  You can see a number of these articles today at this Endeavour Magazine site.  His work demonstrates that a wider variety of opinions have (and continue) to exist in our community) despite the narrow demands of some.