I have studied in some detail the
Christadelphian movement since late-2011. I have written a number of articles
addressing their theology, particular their rejection of the personal pre-existence
of Jesus and their denial of the ontological existence of Satan and Demons.
See:
Listing
of Articles on Christadelphian Issues
Interestingly, notwithstanding the belief
that John Thomas was raised up passively, not actively by God, both Thomas
and later Christadelphians imputed to him a greater level of inspiration. As
the late Ruth McHaffie, herself a Christadelphian, noted:
Divine inspiration,
as such, has never been claimed for John Thomas. Nevertheless, it has been
concluded that he had that “singularly constituted brain” which he was able to
apply “to the study of the holy oracles” and thereby recovered “the long-lost
treasure of gospel truth” (The Christadelphian, 1871, p. 114). It has
been decided that there was “a providence in the whole course pursued by Dr.
Thomas from the time he set out to find the truth till he discovered it in its
entirety . . . “ (The Christadelphian, 1894, p. 146). In addition, he
himself considered that “the spirit of life from the Deity” had “entered into
the witnesses for gospel truth” at the time of his immersion in 1847 (John Thomas,
Eureka, 1861-1869, Vol. II, p. 671). And these claims are tantamount to
concluding that it was divine inspiration which enabled him (as assessed by
Robert Roberts) to “truly be called” “Paul of the nineteenth century” (The
Christadelphian, 1871, p. 114). But time has proved that many of his
conclusions, his expectations of the order and nature of future events together
with his totally erroneous dating, have proved him to be as fallible as many of
those whose conclusions he so arrogantly derided. (Ruth McHaffie, Reformation
and Renewal: Life and Progression of Thought in the Christadelphian Community
during the Twentieth Century [2014], 177)
Interestingly, Thomas would not be
welcomed in the modern Christadelphian movement (at least those that use the Birmingham
Amended Statement of Faith, the largest body of Christadelphia). As
McHaffie noted:
Although
he has been credited with brilliant understanding of Bible interpretation as
compared with any in “the churches”, yet he was never baptized into the “whole
counsel of God” as now understood. For a number of years following his baptism,
he believed that the dead would be raised immortal (in 1866, he wrote in Anastasis
[p. 25] “Seventeen years ago, I believed that ‘the dead are raised
incorruptible,’ and taught that truth in ELPIS ISRAEL”). Robert Roberts decided
that belief in “immortal emergence” (as it came to be called) was seriously
erroneous. He claimed, “It abolishes an element of the truth of the gospel, and
thus becomes an evil to be resisted with determination and steadfastness” (The
ambassador, 1867, p. 214). Believing in it was “to wrongly divide the word
of truth, and exclude a first principle of the gospel of our salvation” (The
Christadelphian, 1889, p. 32). Nevertheless, he was unwilling to count
belief in “immortal emergence” as grounds for disfellowship. Nor did he think
that those holding to it at the time of baptism required reimmersion. It was,
as both he and John Thomas regarded it, “an enlargement of knowledge”. Any
other decision would of course, have abrogated the efficacy of our pioneer’s
baptism as well as that of other dedicated 19th century followers, some of whom
died while still holding to “erroneous” and “evil” a belief.
As time
went on after Roberts’ death, anyone admitting to believing in immediate
immortality at the resurrection, by then, as now, a Doctrine to be Rejected (Sec.
17), was liable to disfellowship, and it was affirmed in The Christadelphian
that “one believing in immortal emergence denies a first principle of
resurrection and judgment” (1921, p.163). (Ibid., 177-78)