|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 5
 May 1994 
|
|
|
CHRISTADELPHIAN OR CHRISTIAN?
Q: I am encountering a group known as the Christadelphians.
How did they originate and what do they believe? question
A: The Christadelphians ("brothers of Christ")
were founded in 1848 by John Thomas, a physician and the son of a
Congregationalist minister. Thomas for a time had associated himself
with the Campbellites (the "Church of Christ" movement).
In 1848 he wrote Elpis Israel--An Exposition of the Kingdom
of God, a book which contained his religious ideas.
The sect attracted members in the U.S., Canada, and England and came
to be known as the Christadelphians during the U.S. Civil War, when
the members' pacifism forced them to select a name. They have experienced
no significant growth since that time and today have approximately
20,000 members in England and 16,000 in the U.S. Members are also
found in Canada, Australia, Germany, and New Zealand.
Christadelphians hold to unitarianism, the belief that there is only
one person in the Godhead. They see Jesus as one of many "Elohim"
or "created gods" who were at one time mortal men; in this
Christadelphians are much like Mormons. The Holy Spirit is not considered
a person but a force.
Christadelphians believe the soul "sleeps" between death
and resurrection and that there is no eternal punishment; in this
they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses. The wicked will not be raised
on the last day. Christadelphians deny the existence of the devil
and claim that Christ will soon return to reign in Jerusalem for a
thousand years.
Christadelphians have no central authority. Each local church or "ecclesia,"
as it is called, functions independently and generally meets in private
homes or rented buildings. They do not employ salaried clergy, but
elect "serving brethren" for three-year terms. They do not
have missionaries and are opposed to military service, trade unions,
holding elective office, and voting in civil elections; again, in
these matters they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Q: Christadelphians I deal with claim many people will never
be awakened from death (cf. Is. 26:14, 43:17, Jer. 51:57). They say
that Paul implies this in 1 Cor. 15:18, where he says that if there
were no resurrection then those who have died in Christ would have
perished. How can this be refuted?
A: Point out that the passages they quote do not prove their
case, but can be interpreted in other ways. Isaiah 26.14 describes
Israel's defeated conquerors as "shades that cannot rise."
This means they are unable to bring themselves back from the dead.
Isaiah 43:17 and Jeremiah 51:57 refer to the dead's inability to get
up physically; in the case of Isaiah 43:17 it is the inability to
get up from falling down, and in the case of Jeremiah 51:57 it is
the inability to get up from sleep. All three passages are qualified
by their time frame, which is limited to this age and does not have
the end of the world in view. It is within this age that the
dead will never rise and will always sleep. The end of time is a different
matter.
When we turn to those passages where the end of the world is in view,
we see that the wicked will be raised on the last day. In John 5:28-29
Jesus tells us, "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming
when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth,
those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who
have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." We are told
that all the dead will hear his voice and arise and that the
wicked will experience "the resurrection of judgment."
In Revelation 20:12-15 we read, "And I saw the dead, great and
small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another
book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged
by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea
gave up the dead in it, death and hades gave up the dead in them,
and all were judged by what they had done. . . . [A]nd if any one's
name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into
the lake of fire."
Here we are told that all of the dead, great and small, will be judged
by what they have done. The sea, death, and hades will give up the
dead that are in them, which means none of the dead will be left unresurrected.
Among the resurrected will be the wicked, who will be damned.
The Christadelphians' argument from 1 Corinthians 15:18 is flawed.
Paul states that if Christ is not raised, then those who have died
in him have perished. The simplest way to refute this is to turn it
on its head: Christ was raised, therefore those who have fallen
asleep in him have not perished--they are still awake and conscious
with him in heaven.
Further points should be made:
First, for Jews the alternative models of the afterlife were total
annihilation (this was the Sadducees' view) and resurrection (the
view of the Pharisees). When Paul says, "If there is no resurrection
then the dead in Christ have perished," he may be alluding to
the Sadducee view that there is no survival beyond death. He is not
thinking about a disembodied existence because, in Jewish thought,
a disembodied existence is a just temporary state preceding the resurrection.
If there were no resurrection, there could be no disembodied state
either. (On the fact that there is a conscious, disembodied
state, see Luke 16:19-31 and Rev. 6:9).
Second, your Christadelphian friends have assumed that in 1 Corinthians
15:18 "perished" means "been annihilated" or "ceased
to exist." This is not necessarily the case. For example, in
Ephesians 2:1 Paul refers to a spiritual death (being "dead in
one's sins") that can be experienced even while one is alive.
His point in 1 Corinthians 15:18 might thus be that those who have
died as Christians are not only physically dead, but spiritually dead
also if there is no resurrection; they pinned their hopes on Christ
in vain. This is the thought of the previous verse: "If Christ
has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your
sins" (1 Cor. 15:17).
Q: Some Eastern Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church
is under anathema because it added the word filioque("and
the Son") to the Nicene Creed after the declaration that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was illicit, they say, because
the Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed.
How should we reply?
A: It is true that the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited
the making of new creeds. It stated, "It is not permitted to
produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was
defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy
Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce
another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism
or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if
they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective
charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized"
(Definition of the Faith at Nicaea).
Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they
are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing
a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise
or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition
on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed
by later ecumenical councils.
At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed,
and the council ruled that the words "and the Son" had been
validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted
the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.
Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers
at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant
because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the
Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed
until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition
of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the
Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version
includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople
I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about
the filioque clause when all of the material on the
Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.
Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene
prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople
I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical
Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated, "Therefore this sacred
and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the
318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of
those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the
being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who
met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made
known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors,
but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit" (Definition
of the Faith).
According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople
I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea;
they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there.
Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was
permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus
the Council of Florence could add "filioque" legitimately
as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.
Q: I have heard some modern Catholic scholars suggest that
angels are not personal beings but archetypes or symbols of cosmic
principles. Is this correct?
A: They're fantasizing. Their notion is contrary to the official
teaching of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
states, "As purely spiritual creatures angels
have intelligence and will: They are personal and immortal creatures,
surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of
their glory bears witness" (CCC 330).
A theologian is also not permitted to reduce the devil or demons to
archetypes or to some other impersonal status.
The Catechism goes on to say, "The Church teaches that
Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: `The devil and the other
demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became
evil by their own doing'" (CCC 391, citing Lateran Council
IV [1215]).
|
