Category Archives: History

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… Continue reading

Advertisements

Islip Collyer and 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. Continue reading

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: Continue reading

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] Continue reading

Wilfred Lambert on Genesis 1-3

lambert

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. Continue reading

LG Sargent rejected Logos attempts to dictate the understanding of Gen 1

LG Sargent Christadelphian

LG Sargent

LG Sargent in the 1966 Christadelphian Magazine (Vol 103, page 458–460), wrote a scathing letter to The Logos magazine editor following criticism of Sargent’s non literal approach to Genesis 1 (eg leaving the time in Gen 1 as an open question).  Sargent was opposed to evolution, but clearly notes our community (historically at least) took on board the plain observations of science.  He also noted Bro Thomas always accepted the earth had long rotated because of science.  Sargent also restates Walker’s earlier observation that there is no evidence (and should be according to most literalists) of a cataclysmic end to life and a reboot some 6,000 years ago.  50 years later again we have South Australian demands on how Genesis and fellowship statements should be read (see here for a response to the IEAC statement).  See below for the full letter from Sargent. Continue reading