i was quite fascinated by your comments on the cult of Christadelphians. i just found it interesting how the only thing you were worried about was picking out flaws in Mr Palmers arguments. It is in this that you have missed the essence of what he was trying to say.
"do not believe what we say - test what we say against the word of God."
Look it is very easy to pick flaws in human arguements, its in our nature but as a bible scholar i have tested the doctrines of the CD's against the bible. The christian faiths starting from the 1st century were based on this, an understanding of the spoken word of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1) which was then written down for people who understand. It doesn't contain any twists or mysteries, it was meant for the simple. The Lord Jesus said that if you can not be taught like a child then you can not inherit the Kingdom of God.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1v20
What i have discovered from the Christadelphians is that they try to encourage people to discover for themselves what the bible has to say. They run seminars encouraging people of all religions to join, not to enforce their views but to encourage people to come to their own, logical conclusions. I have observed that unlike other sects, the CD's are willing to discuss directly from the bible any topic that is brought up in the bible. this is a rare characteristic because all their doctrines could be proven (i have observed this from experience) without using commentaries from the pioneers you claim to be namely John Thomas and Robert Roberts. They will strongly defend the view that they are not followers of these men, but merely bible students who search and test their beliefs purely on the bible.
I think you have been to harsh on the CD's and that you have missed the point of Mr Palmers comment. Test the CD's doctines against the bible, it is interesting to note that they are suprisingly close to the doctrines of the 1st century church (ie. apostles). I would challenge you to find a contadiction to what the bible has to say and what they preach. i would love to hear your comments on them.
27th April, 2003 - TCE replies:
sorry for the long delay (in replying to your e-mail) which has been caused by very heavy commitments.
'i was quite fascinated by your comments on the cult of Christadelphians. i just found it interesting how the only thing you were worried about was picking out flaws in Mr Palmers arguments. It is in this that you have missed the essence of what he was trying to say.
"do not believe what we say - test what we say against the word of God."
Look it is very easy to pick flaws in human arguements, its in our nature ...
TCE: If you really believe that we did not test Palmer's arguments against the Bible it would be wise if you pointed out where you consider this to be so. We believe we have supplied enough Biblical quotations in every relevant place. Please show us where you believe this to be untrue for, if your assertion that 'it is very easy to pick flaws in human arguments' is true then, logically, you should have no trouble in picking flaws in our arguments!
Another aspect of testing against the Word of God is the fulfilment of the Lord Jesus Christ 's words in John 16:13: 'Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.' (cf. Ephesians 4:15: 'But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ')
Obviously, the true Christian would therefore expect to be led into 'all truth' pertaining to the gospel by the Holy Spirit. We do not expect the Holy Spirit to turn us into rocket scientists though! We may all be wrong concerning other matters, but on doctrinal and behavioural matters we should expect to be 'in the truth' - as some groups like to put it! We may occasionally slip up in our behaviour but, as Christians, we should be able to recognise our sinful behaviour from correct doctrine and therefore be ever ready to hold our hands up and admit we are wrong about the matter and ask for forgiveness.
Clearly the standard expected of Christians is to always walk in the truth as far as we are able. We merely pointed out the many discrepancies between the absolute truth and the statements by Stephen Palmer which were either wishful thinking - or downright deception! Such an example was the claiming of the martyr, Rawlins White, as one of the Christadelphians own. Surely you are not suggesting that it is alright to apply such standards of truth when you are supposedly defending your beliefs against the accusation that they are cultic? This is - after all - what Palmer was (supposedly) specifically answering in this talk! We merely pointed out the complete failure to convince, in the argumentation he used, both biblically and logically. Or do you believe that you can make claims, as he did for Rawlins White, in the complete absence of any evidence.
You write: 'as a Bible scholar i have tested the doctrines of the CD's against the Bible. The christian faiths starting from the 1st century were based on this, an understanding of the spoken word of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1) which was then written down for people who understand. It doesn't contain any twists or mysteries, it was meant for the simple. The Lord Jesus said that if you can not be taught like a child then you can not inherit the Kingdom of God.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1v20'
TCE: Did the Lord Jesus Christ really say: '... if you can not be taught like a child then you can not inherit the Kingdom of God'?
Have you tried looking up the real meaning of the word (Greek dechomai) translated 'receive' in the passages to which you seem to be referring? (Luke 18:16-17):
But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all."
(Mark 10:14-15) But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all."
There is a very subtle difference from the common translation of this, and related words, by Greek scholars to whom it means 'receiving something which is offered', or 'partaking of something beneficial', from being 'taught', as you phrased it as a result of your doctrinal upbringing. The difference in emphasis becomes very clear when you consider the works-salvation mentality of the whole Christadelphian moment which, no matter what its ecclesia, believes they are the only group teaching in depth and with great perseverance what they consider to be the true gospel.
The Christadelphian booklet, 'Preparing for Baptism' (printed December 1983 and October 1984 for Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 17 Braemar Road, Torrens Park, South Australia, 5062 - and used here in Cardiff) is a clear teaching tool used to prepare the innocent to become Christadelphians. It clearly sets out 15 lessons divided into notes and 'it is suggested that written answers to these questions would be done in between teaching periods ... this ensures that the subjects dealt with are thoroughly digested, repetition being a great aid to memory and instruction.' It also includes the appendices: the Statement of Faith, Doctrines to be Rejected, and an Epitome of the Commandments of Christ. Thus, without adequately supplying the counter arguments to these Christadelphian indoctrinations, it effectively blinds the unwary to the truth of the Biblical gospel. And which books are recommended reading throughout the booklet?:
Elpis Israel (J. Thomas)
Christendom Astray (R. Roberts)
God's Way (J. Carter)
First Principles - Bible Marking Course (J. Luke and P. Weller)
The Declaration (R. Roberts)
A Life of Jesus (Melva Purkis)
Nazareth Revisited (R. Roberts)
Thus we are surprised to read your later claim that 'all their doctrines could be proven (i have observed this from experience) without using commentaries from the pioneers you claim to be namely John Thomas and Robert Roberts.' This is clearly untrue.
The true gospel brought instant salvation to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) - a genuine 'death-bed repentance' - and 3,000, who heard Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) changed from ignorant unbelief (verse 37) to accepting believers baptism (the same day!), so that we read (verse 47): 'the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved'. How this contrasts with the Christadelphian view that two years of your life should be dedicated to working towards the goal of baptism and that baptism is necessary for salvation! Perhaps you can explain to us exactly how the thief on the cross reached Paradise that day (verse 43) when he was nailed to the cross as an unbeliever who reviled Christ (Matthew 27:44), but then changed in a short while (a matter of hours at the most) to believe in the Saviour and be promised an eternal home in the heaven (Paradise!) your baptism booklet denies?
Jesus warned specifically against those who might lead little children astray (Mark 9:42), as the Christadelphians and other cults are doing. We are also instructed to test what we believe against the Word of God - the Bible alone - and make sure of all things (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). All of our (natural) thoughts are evil (Genesis 6:5) and it is only after we are 'born again' (John 3:3) of the Spirit of God that we recover what Adam lost - our free-will and eternal life. The natural man has no choice - he can only sin. He may cover-up his sin in his own eyes by doing good works, but these do not fool God. Christadelphians live good, moral lives by the standards of the world - but they are in rebellion against God because of their false doctrines which insult Him, His Son and the Holy Spirit and are therefore not born again. It would be cruel of me not to point out that, for any who wilfully prevail in these Christadelphian doctrines, there is no forgiveness of sins - for the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; 1 John 4:2-3 - the acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ came literally as God in the flesh and demonstrated His Deity through divine miracles) is unforgiveable.
Of course our faith and understanding grow as we mature (1 Corinthians 13:11): When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. But the Christadelphians have taken this to another un-Biblical level for their salvation by works doctrine. This is one of the points we brought out in our tract references to Christadelphian doctrines (http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page4.html) and their false emphasis on works to earn salvation - even for baptism! We agree that the basic gospel message can be understood by a young child, but why do the Christadelphians deny heaven - or any sort of salvation - to 'idiots ... and very young children'?
Are there really 'no mysteries' at all in the Bible? There seem to be enough references to them in Scripture;
Lu 8:10 And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, in order that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.
Mt 13:11 And He answered and said to them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
Dan 2:28 "However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days. This was your dream and the visions in your mind while on your bed. 2:29 "As for you, O king, while on your bed your thoughts turned to what would take place in the future; and He who reveals mysteries has made known to you what will take place.
Dan 2:47 The king answered Daniel and said, "Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery."
1 Co 4:1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
1 Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
If there really are no mysteries, why is the sheer simplicity of the gospel of salvation hidden by the cults who turn straightforward doctrines into long trials and, indeed, mysteries which they attempt to unravel by many hours of study?
You may consider all of your statements to be true ('as a Bible scholar') and believe that this also applies to you and every other Christadelphian. However, we have found this to be far from the truth in our dealings with Christadelphians in Cardiff. Let me give you examples of Dr Stephen Palmer's treatment of the Word of God. The first time I heard the Christadelphians speak in Cardiff was in 1987, at an invitation meeting on the subject: 'Need We Fear a Personal Devil.' I quickly discovered that the speaker dealt with the subject in the way that all Christadelphians are eventually trained to handle the Bible through the many booklets explaining the meaning of Scripture, taking the Bible literally when it suited their argument and attempting to 'spiritualise away' clear descriptions when the result did not suit the Christadelphian goal. Towards the end of this first address - having listened patiently for about an hour - I raised my hand and asked the speaker to read Revelation 20:1-3. He duly read the verses from his Bible (I believe it was the RSV) which correspond very accurately to the excellent New American Standard Bible translation:
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while. (RSV)
1. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (NASB)
Upon completing his reading he exclaimed sarcastically: "Oh, so he's a dragon now, is he"?
I replied: "Well, you read it - do you believe it?"
I never did get an answer for the meeting quickly ended at this point as a horde of angry, though polite, Christadelphians descended on me and bombarded me with a multitude of questions (most attempting to disprove the Trinity, although this was not the subject of the meeting or my question!).
A few weeks later they advertised another open invitation lecture in which they proposed to discuss 'The Trinity'. At the beginning of the meeting Stephen Palmer, the speaker, claimed that the meeting was in response to the 'tracting' efforts of a few members of a local Baptist church who had remained outside the previous meeting when I caused such upset with a simple Biblical question. Anyone familiar with the Christadelphians treatment of the subject of the 'Trinity' would recognise the same appeal to dictionaries and quotes from the like of former Anglican, 'Cardinal' Newman, who proved his inability to detect the truth from Scripture when he defected to Rome. The 'Trinity' is considered a mystery by these 'authorities,' without appeal to Scriptural warrant for the doctrines. All of their claims are easily refuted.
No 'tri-unitarian' - to use the correct expression - worth his salt would have been concerned at the early objections being expressed by Stephen Palmer. However, when he began to deal with Scriptures that clearly speak of the Deity of Christ in unequivocal terms, a new approach was used. He read John20v28:
The verses show clearly that the monotheistic Jewish believer Thomas addressed the Lord Jesus Christ as his Lord and God! It does not matter what games you try and play with the languages for the meaning is inescapable.
To my astonishment Palmer declared: 'I expect what Thomas really said was: 'My Lord and my elohim.'
This was too much to go unchallenged and I quickly asked him if he could 'present a single piece of New Testament manuscript evidence to support this claim!'
His reply? He snappily asked 'if I considered myself to be an expert on the subject.'
I replied: 'No - but I do claim to know what experts say about the manuscript evidence!'
Needless to say, Palmer never did supply any evidence to support this claim. After the meeting I asked him if he would reply to a letter if I wrote to him explaining the position of 'Trinitarians.' I spent some months supplying a fairly comprehensive outline of the Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the general 'Tri-unitarian' position.
A received a fairly cursory reply in which he admitted that he had merely gone to the library and found these quotes 'on the "Trinity" shelf.' In reply to my endeavours to explain the 'Trinitarian position' from every reasonable angle possible, I received the accusation of tautology! He made no comment on his own deception regarding John 20:28.
It is clear from this Scripture that Thomas had no doubt that Jesus was "My Lord and my God" and, indeed, he addressed the reply to Jesus. Suggesting that Jesus was called "My Lord and (my) elohim" is purely wishful thinking. We are not advised to presume anything about God's Word, and to begin to apply interpretations and additions to Scripture so that it fits your theology is completely unacceptable. I was well aware of the reason for inserting this thought into John 20:28. Since, in the Old Testament, elohim can refer to angels, pagan 'gods,' objects of 'worship', men who act in a 'god-like' manner (e.g. Psalm 82:1-6 - a Scripture referred to by Christadelphians to try and prove 'God-manifestation', even though it clearly says that these 'gods' will die!) etc., this word would allow the Christadelphians to claim that Thomas was not declaring the Lord Jesus Christ to be the One True God. This application of elohim is found in the writings of Thomas and Roberts and I do not believe for a moment that anyone reading a good translation of the Bible on its own would ever think of a subterfuge of this kind. There are many good translations around which, read literally, will lead the sincere seeker into the basic truths that even a child can understand.
If you believe that people came to 'an understanding of the spoken word of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1) which was then written down for people who understand' then you must ask why - when you state: 'It doesn't contain any twists or mysteries, it was meant for the simple' - do Christadelphians like Palmer then introduce 'elohim' type arguments when they come across a Scripture that simply does not fit into their theological straight-jacket? Remember that the Apostle Peter wrote (2 Peter 3:15-17):
'... our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.'
So some things are hard to understand! Why did he write this if all of Scripture is easy enough to be taught to 'a child' as you claim? If you really read the whole of our website article on the Christadelphians then you would know that Palmer had not changed his approach from 1988. For example, he stated in 1998:
'The Apostles creed is the earliest creed and Christadelphians wholeheartedly accept it. The Nicene creed - that's where we have difficulty - date? 325AD. The Athanasian creed....great difficulty - 500AD. The Apostles creed - first century, no problem at all....'The Catholic Encyclopaedia: 'the doctrine of the Holy trinity is not taught in the Old Testament' - so what did Abraham believe? What did David believe? What did all the prophets which the apostles say they are fulfilling - what the prophets taught - what did they believe?' 'The doctrine of three persons in the Godhead....a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches.....Cardinal Newman: 'the doctrine of the Trinity had never been learned merely from Scripture'....Matthews, Archbishop of Canterbury: "the doctrine of the Trinity....no part of the original message.....Saint Paul knew it not and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the church ultimately agreed....Richardson: 'The Trinity - it is not contained formally in Scripture' - and so it goes on. Brunner - The Christian Doctrine of God: "We must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian New Testament message." And that's all we're saying.'
These statements are pure supposition. How can anyone make statements such as: 'Saint Paul knew it not and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the church ultimately agreed'. Paul was no fool and was full of the Holy Spirit, so who can say what he would have known, done or understood! The creeds that Palmer objects to were written precisely because devious men, such as Arius (the forerunner of the Jehovah's Witnesses) began to twist the simple 'straightforward' meaning of the Apostles creed. The evidence of history is that the deceivers at the council of Nicea began to wink at each other when they thought the wording of the creed would allow them to continue their denigration of Christ. No one will understand the reasons for the formulation of the creedal statements at these councils unless we consider the particularly insidious deviations which were deliberately excluded by their careful choice of words. The deviations - of the kind Christadelphian John Thomas introduced in his century - were intellectually and theologically unsound and, had anyone of them been finally approved as the ecumenical faith, the survival power of Christianity would have been seriously weakened.
You will therefore not be surprised to find that we reject your claims that Christadelphians: '... try to encourage people to discover for themselves what the Bible has to say ... run seminars encouraging people of all religions to join, not to enforce their views but to encourage people to come to their own, logical conclusions. I have observed that unlike other sects, the CD's are willing to discuss directly from the Bible any topic that is brought up in the Bible. this is a rare characteristic because all their doctrines could be proven (i have observed this from experience) without using commentaries from the pioneers you claim to be namely John Thomas and Robert Roberts.'
We have no reason to believe that the evidence detailed here is not typical of the Christadelphians approach. Reading doctrinal materials by their representatives today conveys exactly the same impression engendered by Palmer - that these people are 'followers of these men' and not 'Bible students who search and test their beliefs purely on the Bible'. Just as Palmer introduced the 'elohim' doctrine, Thomas' 'God manifestation' was a feature of his supposed reply to the 'Trinity' question. The booklets circulated at Christadelphian 'Bible exhibitions' present the same reasoning - which is not found in the Bible. Theology is a good thing when hermeneutics and exegesis remains true to the original languages and is internally and externally consistent. When eisegesis and revisionism is the order of the day you cannot expect to be led into 'all the truth.'
You have given us no reason to believe that we 'have been to harsh on the CD's and that you have missed the point of Mr Palmers comment.' Did you really read the whole account? We have 'Test(ed) the CD's doctines (sic) against the Bible' - and they have been found wanting.
You make the same claim as Palmer: '... it is interesting to note that they are suprisingly (sic) close to the doctrines of the 1st century church (ie. apostles)'. He wrote (page 64 on our site): 'Now those may not be your beliefs - but they've been the beliefs of the churches through the centuries at some stage.....and the further back in time you go the closer you get to these doctrines - and that's demonstrative' It isn't demonstrative as we showed in those pages. The writings of those closest to apostolic times are in closer agreement to the doctrines believed by contemporary orthodox Christians (although we are in a minority in Britain today) than they are to any Christadelphian doctrines - and that is demonstrative. The Church Fathers clearly believed in the orthodox divinity of Christ and were aware of the divine nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, despite the wild ideas of some rogues such as Origen (who claimed the Son was inferior to the Father and was thus a precursor of Arianism, the 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance). Origen also spiritualized away the resurrection of the body, and denied hell - and was therefore a precursor of quite a few cults and clearly had (heretical) beliefs in common with Christadelphianism. He was eventually dis-fellowshipped by even the heretical Roman Catholic church. The relatively orthodox Fathers were eventually forced to make their Biblical beliefs emphatically clearer through creedal statements. Christadelphians, like many other cults, make much of the absence of the word 'Trinity' in the Scriptures - and then repeatedly use the phrase 'God manifestation' in their writings as if this appeared in Scripture!
Yes, it is true that the essential teachings of the Bible are clear enough for a child to understand - until devious people begin to plays games with words and meanings as the cults always will! In case anyone tries to argue that all the Christadelphian beliefs can be explained directly from the Bible, I suggest they read some of the booklets circulated in Britain by this cult. Christadelphianism may claim that they can explain 'directly from the Bible any topic that is brought up in the Bible,' but the truth is that their belief system displays the need to have its doctrines 'explained' in a manner at least as comprehensive as that employed by the early Church Fathers (and subsequent more systematic theologians) and this has been done via the writings of Christadelphian founder John Thomas and others, such as Roberts.
Finally, if you are sincere about your statement: 'I would challenge you to find a contadiction (sic) to what the Bible has to say and what they preach. i would love to hear your comments on them' then we would issue you with the challenge from page 65 of our site. We presented the argument centring around this section directly to Palmer:
'Clearly the spirits that blind the eyes of the Christadelphians cause them to miss the clear connection made by Scripture and proven by such simple syllogism (definition: a form of reasoning in which from two given or assumed propositions/premisses, which have a common or middle term, a third is deduced/concluded):
The Word = God (John 1:1)
Jesus Christ = The Word (Rev. 19:13)
Jesus Christ = God (John 20:28)
Jesus Christ = The Word = God
Palmer's response when faced with these questions was simply to declare 'No' and present no reasons for rejecting the arguments - as if that answered the question. He seems to be of the opinion that he has proved that he doesn't need to consider any other view and simply refuses to attempt a Biblical answer. I could give other examples, but what is the point? Can you answer these questions? If, as you claim, Christadelphians can explain their doctrines directly from the Bible and do not follow these men, why did Palmer supply me with unsolicited material when he attempted to answer my arguments for the 'Trinity' - namely, Dr John Thomas' vehicle 'Phanerosis' and a paper by Neil Mullen from 'The Testimony' (July, 1985) to try and explain away the clear meaning of Philippians 2:6-11 - that Christ is equal to God (the Father) and:
'although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.'
I could supply other examples of such duplicity but content myself with the Scriptural advice to the elect of Christ (2 Timothy 2:14-26) to be critical in the right manner:
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Thus we do not believe that pressing ahead with other doctrinal arguments is Scriptural when the topics already dealt with have been treated un-Biblically or simply ignored. It is not as if there is a lack of Christadelphian doctrinal material at odds with Biblical truth, for there at least twenty major doctrinal aberrations taught by Christadelphianism. Did you read our tract including the Christadelphian basics on page 4 of our site under the title:
'Tracts distributed in Cardiff'?
We will gladly meet the 'challenge ... to find a contadiction [sic] to what the Bible has to say and what they preach' when Christadelphians honestly meet the challenges we have already laid down for them.
Sincerely in Christ Jesus