Christadelphians and Catholics: Prospects for Dialogue

As a Catholic and a former Christadelphian, it grieves me that my Catholic family, friends and self and my Christadelphian family and friends, while all desiring to serve God and follow Jesus Christ, are sharply divided on the theory and practice of Christianity. So great are the theological differences between Christadelphians and Catholics that talk of dialogue might seem preposterous. Nevertheless, in this article I would like to reflect hypothetically on the prospects for such dialogue.

Let us first consider the past and present relations between these two religious communities. There is not much to say here. The Christadelphians are a sect that broke away from the Stone-Campbell movement in the mid-nineteenth century. The Stone-Campbell movement was largely made up of people from established Protestant denominations (e.g., Methodists and Baptists) who were dissatisfied with Protestant denominationalism. The Methodist denomination formed through schism with the Church of England and the Baptist denomination arguably did as well. Baptists see theological affinity with the sixteenth-century continental Anabaptists, who reacted against the Reformers, but historical links between the Anabaptists and later English Baptists are disputed.1 The Church of England and the Reformers broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, so Christadelphians are four degrees of ecclesiastical separation removed from the Catholic Church. There is thus really no history of formal interaction between the Catholic and Christadelphian communities. In the absence of historical interaction, we must content ourselves with examining how Christadelphians and Catholics view each other.

How Christadelphians view Catholicism

Dr. John Thomas, the British medical doctor who founded the Christadelphian sect, had strong views on Catholicism. In 1869, responding to a request for information about the beliefs of the Christadelphians from the editor of a British religious magazine called The Rock, Thomas offered a set of 24 propositions comprising "all things from the very first most surely believed and taught by their recognized scribes and their literature". The nineteenth proposition read as follows:

They regard the Roman church as "the Mother of Harlots;" and the papal dynasty as "the name of blasphemy," seated on the seven heads of Rome (Rev. xiii. 1; xvii. 9), and the paramour of the Old Mother. They hold, also, that their harlot-daughters answer to the state churches of Anti-Christendom; and the "abominations of the earth," to all the dissenting names and denominations, aggregately styled "names of blasphemy," of which the European body politic, symbolized by the eight-headed scarlet-coloured beast, is said to be "full." (Rev. xvii. 3).2

For the founder of the Christadelphians, then, identifying the Roman Catholic Church as the archenemy of God was not merely apocalyptic speculation but dogma. (One should add that he appears to have identified "all...denominations" apart from his own sect as part of this evil system.)  Since Thomas did not believe in supernatural evil, in his worldview there was no greater manifestation of sin in the cosmos than the Roman Catholic papacy. Obviously, within such a worldview the notion of dialogue with the Catholic Church is a nonstarter.3 You don't deal with the devil.

When Thomas died in 1871, his protégé Robert Roberts became the de facto spokesman for the Christadelphian community. Roberts shared his mentor's radically negative position on Roman Catholicism,4 but unlike Thomas he stopped short of giving this position the status of dogma. The Statement of Faith adopted by the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia in 1871, authored by Robert Roberts,5 never mentions Roman Catholicism. Since a modified version of this Statement of Faith subsequently became and remains normative for Christadelphians worldwide (despite the community having no hierarchy, representative body or doctrinal authority), Christadelphians today are free to retain or discard their forebears' application of biblical apocalyptic imagery to Roman Catholicism.

It is probably fair to say that the majority of Christadelphians today continue to regard the papacy as the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as the "mother of harlots".6 It is because they view the Catholic Church primarily through apocalyptic lenses that Christadelphians have generally been more interested in—and knowledgeable about—the Roman Catholic Church's role in past and present world politics than in Roman Catholic liturgy, theology, piety, orders, charitable work, etc. In short, many Christadelphians view the Catholic Church primarily as a geopolitical entity. This would be strange to most Catholics, who would regard the Pope's interactions with global political leaders as extremely peripheral to what Catholicism is.

Having said this, some progressive Christadelphians have both adopted different interpretations of apocalyptic "Antichrist" imagery and moderated their doctrinal opposition to Catholicism (toward something perhaps on par with that typically found among Evangelicals).7 There are probably three main reasons why some Christadelphians have moved away from the anti-Catholic vitriol of their founder. Firstly, the religious climate of contemporary Western society is tolerant and pluralistic compared with the rhetorical warfare of the 19th century.8 Secondly, increased Christadelphian awareness of the methods and results of modern biblical scholarship have caused some Christadelphians to jettison their traditional interpretations of biblical apocalyptic imagery. Christadelphians familiar with academic study of the Bible know that the historicist paradigm for interpreting the Book of Revelation, which has been central to Christadelphian anti-Catholic polemic, has no standing in contemporary biblical scholarship.9 Thirdly, historical developments over the past 150 years have made it very difficult to maintain, in good conscience, that the Vatican and the papacy are the nexus of human wickedness. While the papacy has held minimal temporal power during this period, non-Catholic political regimes perpetrated unprecedented violence and genocide during the 20th century: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the Khmer Rouge, the ISIS "caliphate," etc. Could any fair-minded person claim that the Vatican is morally comparable to such regimes, never mind that it is the very epicentre of global evil? Could any fair-minded person liken gentle, virtuous popes like John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis to evil dictators like Pol Pot, Bashar al-Assad and Kim Jong Un?

Another promising sign is that Christadelphians have increasingly reacted against pseudo-historical research that previously enjoyed popularity within their ranks, such as the idea that Easter and Christmas are pagan abominations, or various ideas from discreditable tomes like Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons and Ralph Woodrow's Babylon Mystery Religion (the latter refuted by its own author).

Because of these developments, I believe many Christadelphians today are willing to reappraise Catholicism, even if its doctrines strike them as strange. Of course, some Christadelphians will continue to uncritically parrot the harshest of 19th-century anti-Catholic propaganda and political conspiracy theories. Needless to say, the prospects for dialogue with the latter group are minimal.

How Catholics view Christadelphians

Given that there are about 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world versus perhaps 50 000 Christadelphians, it is unsurprising that while all Christadelphians have heard of Catholicism and most have a strong opinion about it, most Catholics have never heard of Christadelphians (especially outside the English-speaking world, where Christadelphians are concentrated). Moreover, the Magisterium—the teaching office of the Catholic Church—has never pronounced anything concerning Christadelphians specifically. Indeed, on the Vatican website, which contains a vast repository of official and unofficial documents of the Catholic Church, the word "Christadelphian" never occurs even once.

Nevertheless, Christadelphians are often mentioned in Catholic documents produced at the level of dioceses or national bishops' conferences. Specifically, such documents include Christadelphians in a list of groups whose baptisms are judged to be invalid. This means that a Christadelphian who wishes to become a Catholic needs to be baptized in the Catholic Church, whereas a Lutheran or a Baptist or a Seventh Day Adventist does not, because his or her baptism is recognized by the Catholic Church as valid. Christadelphians are mentioned in lists of groups that do not confer valid baptism by the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, the Archdiocese of Johannesburg, the Diocese of St. Petersburg (Florida, USA), the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Diocese of Columbus (Ohio, USA), the Diocese of Dallas (Texas, USA), etc. This probably does not mean that each of these dioceses have undertaken an independent investigation into the validity of Christadelphian baptism; rather, the diocesan documents rely on handbooks on Canon Law such as that cited by the Diocese of Davenport (Iowa, USA).

While, as mentioned, the Magisterium has never specifically ruled on Christadelphian baptism, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ruled on the validity of baptism in a number of other groups, including the New Church (Swedenborgians) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons).10 Two documents on the Vatican website (here and here) explain the reasons for the CDF's pronouncement that Mormon baptism is invalid, and these can be applied to the Christadelphian case as well.

The wider context of these rulings is the canons on baptism from the seventh session of the Council of Trent (promulgated in 1547). These canons included the following:

2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.

Here we have the rule that doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism, and we also implicitly have three requirements for valid baptism: water (Canon Law allows for either immersion or pouring),11 the baptismal formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), and "the intention of doing what the Church does." As Fr. Luis Ladaria explains, this actually translates into four requirements, since "the intention of doing what the Church does" applies to both the celebrating minister and the recipient (or the recipient's parents/sponsors, in the case of an infant). The four requirements for valid baptism therefore are:

1. The Matter (water)

2. The Form (Trinitarian formula)

3. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister

4. The Disposition of the Recipient12

Christadelphian baptism meets the first requirement since Christadelphians practice immersion. However, Christadelphian baptism generally does not meet the second requirement since Christadelphians have no fixed baptismal formula and often do not use the Trinitarian formula. However, even in cases where Christadelphians might use the Trinitarian formula, the baptism would still not be valid because it would fall short of the third and fourth requirements.13 These two requirements are not very onerous. The Catholic Church does not predicate the validity of baptism on the minister's qualifications.14 However, LDS baptism is judged to fall short of the third requirement because it is performed by Mormon priests, who are "radically formed in their own doctrine" (which is fundamentally different from the catholic doctrine of God), and therefore cannot make "a true invocation of the Trinity" even when using a Trinitarian formula. Christadelphian baptisms are invariably preceded by catechetical instruction which includes the rejection of orthodox Trinitarianism and acceptance of heterodox teachings concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus both the baptizer and the baptizand are "radically formed" in Christadelphian doctrine and cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when it baptizes. Hence, the logic by which the Catholic Church regards Mormon baptism as invalid applies also to Christadelphians.

Since the Catholic Church teaches that baptism is the means by which one becomes joined to the one body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13), the ruling that Christadelphian baptism is invalid means that the Catholic Church does not regard Christadelphians as "separated brethren" (like members of most Protestant denominations) but as outside the body of Christ entirely. Most Christadelphians would similarly regard Catholics as outside the body of Christ, since the Christadelphian Statement of Faith maintains that a knowledge of the Truth (i.e. the Christadelphian doctrinal system) is necessary to make baptism valid.

Ecumenical versus Inter-religious Dialogue

Since Christadelphians and Catholics mutually regard each other as outside the body of Christ, dialogue between the two cannot properly be called "ecumenical," which implicitly (based on its etymology) refers to dialogue within the universal Church.

The Catholic Church views Christadelphians as one of a dizzying array of sects or "new religious movements" that have appeared on the religious landscape over the past two centuries.15 A 1993 document approved by Pope John Paul II entitled Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism elaborates on the situation with regard to sects and new religious movements in the context of ecumenism:

35. The religious landscape of our world has evolved considerably in recent decades and in some parts of the world the most noticeable development has been the growth of sects and new religious movements whose desire for peaceful relations with the Catholic Church may be weak or non-existent. In 1986, a report 49 was published jointly by four dicasteries of the Roman Curia which draws attention to the vital distinction that must be made between sects and new religious movements on the one hand and Churches and ecclesial Communities on the other. Further studies are in progress on this question.  

36. The situation in regard to sects and new religious movements is highly complex and differs from one cultural context to another. In some countries sects are growing in a cultural climate that is basically religious. In other places they are flourishing in societies that are increasingly secularized but at the same time credulous and superstitious. Some sects are non-Christian in origin and in self-understanding; others are eclectic; others again identify themselves as Christian and may have broken away from Christian Communities or else have links with Christianity. Clearly it is especially up to the Bishop, the Synod of Eastern Catholic Churches or the Episcopal Conference to discern how best to respond to the challenge posed by sects in a given area. But it must be stressed that the principles for spiritual sharing or practical cooperation outlined in this Directory only apply to the Churches and ecclesial Communities with which the Catholic Church has established ecumenical relations. As will be clear to the reader of this Directory, the only basis for such sharing and cooperation is the recognition on both sides of a certain, though imperfect, communion already existing. Openness and mutual respect are the logical consequences of such recognition.

In short, because (unlike between the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations) there is not even "a certain, though imperfect, communion already existing" between the Catholic Church and Christadelphians, ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Christadelphians is impossible. It could become possible only if Christadelphians accepted the doctrine of the Trinity—a less far-fetched proposition than might first appear, given that some other sects (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists and Worldwide Church of God) have moved from a non-Trinitarian to a Trinitarian doctrinal position.

Any dialogue between Catholics and Christadelphians in the present would fall under the rubric of interreligious dialogue—the same rubric that (especially as promulgated in Nostra Aetate at the Second Vatican Council in 1965) governs relations between the Catholic Church and other world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism. Nostra Aetate discusses these respective religions in terms of their progressively widening common ground with Catholicism. Hinduism and Buddhism share the Church's quest for "freedom from the anguish of our human condition" or "the state of perfect liberation." Islam shares the Church's monotheism and its reverence for Jesus and honour of Mary. The Jews have a far more profound kinship with the Church, a shared belief in the Hebrew Bible, a shared monotheism and a shared Messianism. What do Christadelphians share in common with Catholics that might form the basis for interreligious dialogue?

Common Ground between Christadelphians and Catholics

Christadelphians and Catholics clearly share a great deal in common in belief and practice. Their doctrinal common ground can be aptly captured by the words of the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Although this creed has no liturgical standing among Christadelphians, many would recognise it as a summary of the gospel as they understand it. Catholics do use this creed liturgically and recite it every time they pray the Rosary. Although Christadelphians and Catholics would interpret a few of the clauses differently, it nevertheless contains much highly specific theological content that both communities believe.  At an epistemological level, Christadelphians and Catholics share 66 canonical books in common. There are even areas of doctrine and practice where Christadelphians and Catholics agree over against most Protestant denominations. Both communities believe that regeneration is effected through water baptism and not exclusively through any spiritual experience that occurs without baptism. Both communities hold grace, faith and works in dynamic tension in their soteriology and reject "Sola fide" and "Sola gratia" in the Reformation sense. Both communities teach, or at least practice as a norm (in Christadelphians' case), that the faithful should partake of the Lord's Supper every Sunday. Both communities use a daily Bible readings plan or lectionary to ensure the repeated exposure of the faithful to the full breadth of divine Writ. Apart from the Eucharistic prayer (admittedly a very important difference), the format and content of a Catholic Mass and a typical Christadelphian Sunday service have much in common. Many of the same hymns and choruses are sung by both communities. The Lord's Prayer is cherished and used liturgically in both communities. There are many moral and social causes which both communities can join in supporting wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. All of this commonality could serve as a starting point for constructive dialogue.

Conclusion

Christadelphians have traditionally viewed Catholicism with something resembling contempt, while Catholics have largely remained unaware of Christadelphians' existence. Moreover, theological differences are too great to allow for dialogue under the umbrella of ecumenism, and it is unlikely that formal engagement between the two communities will occur any time soon. Nevertheless, the substantial common ground between Christadelphians and Catholics virtually demands robust dialogue, and renders the adjective "interreligious" embarrassingly inadequate for describing the nature of such dialogue. 

Footnotes

• 1 Jeff Robinson, "Anabaptist kinship or English dissent? Papers at ETS examine Baptist origins," Baptist Press (2009).
• 2 Peter Hemingray, John Thomas, His Friends and His Faith (Christadelphian Tidings, 2003), 335-39.
• 3 Thomas's magnum opus was a multi-volume work entitled Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse that was full of vehement criticism of Roman Catholicism and the papacy in particular. Apocalyptic figures for ultimate evil—the little horn of Daniel 8, the man of lawlessness of 2 Thessalonians 2, the Antichrist—were consistently interpreted as foretelling the "Great Apostasy" (the church's departure from true doctrine) and rise of the papacy.
• 4 Consider this excerpt from Roberts book Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse: "Rome, the implacable enemy and destroyer of the Jews, in all the centuries, Pagan and Papal; Rome, the Papal foe of the Scriptures, and the murderer of the saints; Rome, the inventor of torments and foul iniquities of the monastery and dungeon; Rome, who flaunts among her architectural ornaments the sculptured forms of the dishonoured furniture of Jehovah's sanctuary; Rome of the Caesars, and Rome of the Popes and Cardinals; Rome of the long dark and dreadful history of the world; Rome, the mistress of kings and the debaucher of the nations; Rome, the corrupter of the world to an extent the corrupted populations do not realize in their corruption; seven-hilled Rome on the Tiber, which blasphemes heaven by arrogating to herself the title of the Eternal City, and exhibiting her chief magistrate to all the world as the Holy Father; Great Babylon, the Mother of Harlots and the abominations of the earth".
• 5 So Hemingray, John Thomas, 339.
• 6 See, for example, Ron Abel, The Man of Sin: A Future Fuehrer in Jerusalem or Roman Catholic Apostasy? (Torrens Park: Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1984); Rick O'Connor, The Things of the Kingdom and the Things of the Name (Christadelphian Books Online).
• 7 One alternative Christadelphian interpretation of biblical Antichrist imagery reads it primarily in terms of radical Islam. See, for example, Duncan Heaster, New European Christadelphian Commentary, Vol. 10: The Book of Revelation (self-published, 2016).
• 8 Christadelphians have not been unaffected by the ecumenical and interfaith movements that swept through Christendom in the second half of the 20th century, especially during and after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Reunion efforts between different communions ("fellowships") within Christadelphia intensified. Meanwhile, some Christadelphians began to regard "mainstream Christians" as potentially actual Christians rather than deluded apostates, and to regard their own community more as a Christian "denomination" (one among many) than as the definitive household of faith.
• 9 This is because the historicist paradigm is anachronistic to the core: rather than beginning from the author's historical context (Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic within the Roman Empire), it begins from the reader's historical context (modern Anglo-Protestant polemic within post-Reformation Western society), and attempts to map the apocalyptic language onto events from European history that the reader deems to have been significant. The result includes such exegetical monstrosities as ignoring the clear messianic biblical background of Rev. 12:5 in Psalm 2:7-9 in order to interpret the child imagery as a prophecy about the wicked (from a Christadelphian viewpoint) Roman emperor Constantine! It is heartening that some Christadelphians have reacted against such obviously contrived interpretations.
• 10 See here, here, here and here.
• 11 Canon 854 from the Code of Canon Law states, "Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring". An openness to these two modes of baptism dates back to the first century, as can be seen in Didache 7.1-3.
• 12 It is interesting to note that all four of these requirements are in some way implicit in the prescriptions concerning baptism in Didache 7.1-4, which mentions the proper use of water, the Trine formula, and instructs both the baptizer and the baptizand to fast (implying the need for both to have a correct disposition).
• 13 This is again clear from comparison with the LDS case. As Ladaria points out, Mormons do use a Trinitarian formula and yet their baptism is ruled invalid due to requirements 3 and 4.
• 14 The Code of Canon Law, Canon 861, states that while "The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon," "in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly."
• 15 For a Catholic perspective on this phenomenon and its pastoral implications, see the 1986 Vatican document Sects or New Religious Movements: A Pastoral Challenge.

Are Christadelphians Unitarian, Socinian, or something else?

Defining the question
Repudiation of Unitarianism and Socinianism by Dr. John Thomas
Subsequent Christadelphian appropriation of the labels 'Unitarian' and 'Socinian'
External descriptions of Christadelphians in relation to Unitarians and Socinians
Conclusions

Defining the question

First, we need to define what is meant by 'Unitarian' (or 'unitarian'). Cross and Livingstone, in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, provide a good working definition: 'A type of Christian thought and religious observance which rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ in favour of the unipersonality of God'.1

In terms of the history of Unitarianism, Cross and Livingstone write, 'Though the unipersonality of God was voiced in the early Church in the various forms of Monarchianism, modern Unitarianism dates historically from the Reformation era.'2 Famous early Unitarians (16th century) include Michael Servetus, George Blandrata and Faustus Socinus (from whose name the term 'Socinianism', synonymous with Unitarianism as a theological concept, is taken). These early Unitarians shared with their orthodox contemporaries a belief in the truth and authority of Scripture.  Although Socinianism was stamped out in Poland by the Counter-Reformation, 'in England, a thin lineage of Socinian thought survived to inspire what would become British Unitarianism in the 18th century.'3

During the 19th century, Unitarianism as a movement became increasingly liberal theologically.4 5 Indeed, this shift is visible already in the writings of the prominent Unitarian Joseph Priestley (1733-1804).6 In the 20th century, the Unitarians in America merged with the Universalists to form the Unitarian Universalist group, which is extremely liberal and bears little ideological resemblance to the 16th century version of Unitarianism.7

However, pockets of more conservative Unitarians have survived, referring to themselves as 'biblical Unitarians' (or 'biblical unitarians') to distinguish themselves from liberal Unitarians. Biblical Unitarianism is not a religious group as such but a theological label. It has been adopted, in particular, by the Atlanta-based Church of God General Conference, which produces a publication entitled Journal from the Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism. A website of the 'Christian Churches of God' carefully distinguishes between the terms 'Radical Unitarian' and 'Biblical Unitarian' and lays claim to the latter designation.

When we ask whether Christadelphians are Unitarian, therefore, we are not asking whether Christadelphians belong to the religion known as Unitarianism (or Unitarian Universalism). We are asking whether Christadelphians are theologically Unitarian, that is, sharing the view of God and Christ that was advocated by Servetus, Blandrata and Socinus, and is advocated by self-professed biblical Unitarians today.

Repudiation of Unitarianism and Socinianism by Dr. John Thomas

If we look to the writings of Dr. Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphian sect, we find that he expressed strong antipathy toward Unitarianism and Socinianism throughout his whole career as a polemicist. We find statements opposing these theological positions in his pre-Christadelphian writings in The Apostolic Advocate (1834) right up to the publication of Phanerosis, his pamphlet on the nature of God published in 1869, two years before his death. Below is a survey of Dr. Thomas' statements on the matter.

The following was written by Dr. Thomas in 1834, over a decade before his final baptism and founding of the sect that was to become the Christadelphians:

I have been informed that the Clergy among you... have resorted to their old weapons of warfare, and instead of fairly meeting the arguments and testimonies we have laid before you, and candidly and openly refuting them - they have, I say, endeavored to rouse your prejudices, and thus to pervert all equity and right judgment. Instead of opposing the Gospel, we proclaimed to you by reason and Scripture, they have misrepresented us and abused your minds by imposing upon you the false accusation - that we deny the Divinity of the Saviour, and have identified ourselves with Unitarians. Friends! This is a gross slander, a downright falsehood... We maintain all that the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Apostles testify concerning Jesus - we speak of him and his Divine Person in the language of Holy Writ - we worship him as God - we adore him as our Prophet, Priest, King, and Judge - and we ascribe all honor, might, majesty and dominion to Him as our exalted Messiah, Prince, Lord and Saviour for evermore. As for the vain babblings of the Clergy - a class of men puffed up with a conceit of their own importance, and fancied infallibility (we speak now of all Clergy from His Holiness the Pope down to an itinerant preacher) - as to their speculations on Arianism, Trinitarianism, and Unitarianism, or any other ism, we have nothing to do with them, except to expose their fallacy and nonsense: - we find no such words in the whole Bible, and therefore we know there are no such ideas there as they represent - for words are signs of ideas, and where the words are not, sure we are, the ideas are wanting likewise. Our rule is to speak of Bible things in Bible words, and to leave all vain, idle, and untaught questions to the Clergy and the Schools... [such dogmas] are an abomination in the eyes of the Exalted Son of God.8

Almost two decades later, having written Elpis Israel and begun the evangelistic endeavours through which his nascent sect coalesced, Dr. Thomas responded thus to a journalist who referred to his magazine, The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, as 'a specimen of low scurrilous Socinianism and Universalism': 

The readers of the Herald well know that its pages are never defaced by Socinianism or Universalism, which, like Calvinism and Arminianism, equally as absurd creeds, are removed from my faith as widely as the poles asunder9

According to Christadelphian historian Peter Hemingray, Dr. Thomas' understanding of the nature of Christ and God was not fully developed until a series of articles written in the Herald in 1857-1859.10 In the midst of this material we find the following:

But the New Man of the Spirit is free, looking searchingly into the perfect law of liberty, and having no respect to "the philosophy and empty delusion," and antitheses of gnosis, or "oppositions of science," falsely so called, in which the flesh delights. He troubles not himself about Trinitarianism, or Antitrinitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism, or Socinianism. He has no more deference for these than for any other of "the works of the Devil," or for the Old Man himself.11

In 1869, Dr. Thomas published Phanerosis, a pamphlet based on his earlier Herald material that definitively expressed his understanding of the nature of God (which I have briefly critiqued elsewhere). In the preface he wrote thus:

The Author is enabled to present the thinking and truth-seeking portion of the public with this exegesis of the "great mystery," revealed through the Son, and preached by the apostles, but afterwards so grossly perverted by the traditions of the Trinitarians, Arians, and Unitarians, through the liberality of one, who having found "the truth as it is in Jesus," has not only laid fast hold of it, but seeks to introduce it to the notice of others.12

Toward the end of the work, having argued for his doctrine of 'God manifestation', Dr. Thomas summarized:

These things having been demonstrated: much rubbish has been cleared away; Trinitarianism and Unitarianism have both received a quietus. There are not three Gods in the Godhead, nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God, and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and ‘a multitude which no man can number.’ The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams from which this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.13

We can summarize Dr. Thomas' ideas in the above quotations with the following observations:

1. Dr. Thomas' antipathy toward Unitarianism and Socinianism appears to have equaled his antipathy toward Trinitarianism and Arianism: all were described using terms like absurd, nonsense, rubbish, abomination, works of the devil, etc.

2. By essentially condemning all major doctrinal positions on the nature of God and Christ known from Church history, Dr. Thomas implicitly declared that his own position was completely new and unprecedented (although, of course, he thought it was the position of the apostles and prophets of old).

3. Dr. Thomas' objections to Unitarianism were both Christological (in that Unitarianism denied the deity of Christ) and theo-logical (in that Unitarianism denied the notion of many gods streaming from a single fountain-head).

Subsequent Christadelphian appropriation of the labels 'Unitarian' and 'Socinian'

Notwithstanding the strenuous opposition to Socinian and Unitarian theologies by the founder of their sect, the majority of Christadelphians would eventually come to adopt these labels for themselves. Documenting exactly how this shift took place is beyond the scope of this article. One possibility that merits further investigation is that Robert Roberts', by deciding not to include any detailed proposition about the Phanerosis doctrine in the Christadelphian Statement of Faith, signaled that this doctrine was not core Christadelphian dogma. This paved the way for subsequent generations to tone down what they increasingly recognized to be an idiosyncratic theological position. The God manifestation concept has not been abandoned by Christadelphians but it is certainly less prominent today and expressed in far milder language than Dr. Thomas' talk of a plurality of Gods.

It is reasonably clear that today, Christadelphians widely self-identify as Unitarians, or more specifically as biblical Unitarians. The very first sentence of the Wikipedia page on Christadelphians declares that the group holds 'a view of Biblical Unitarianism.' If this statement were controversial among contemporary Christadelphian web users, presumably it would have been challenged by now. Similarly, the Wikipedia page on Biblical Unitarianism identifies Christadelphians among the two most visible religious denominations that 'could be identified as "biblical unitarian".' Moreover, in his online debate on the Trinity with Rob Bowman, Christadelphian apologist Dave Burke identifies Christadelphians as 'the largest Biblical Unitarian denomination', distinguishing 'Biblical Unitarians' from two other kinds of Unitarians, namely 'Rationalist Unitarians (who do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God) and Universalist Unitarians (who believe that all people will be saved, regardless of what they believe'. A strict dichotomy between 'Unitarian theology' and 'Trinitarianism' is maintained throughout his argument. There is no hint of Dr. Thomas' rubbishing of both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism in favour of a third alternative.

Similarly, contemporary Christadelphians have embraced the Socinians as their theological forebears. This is particularly evident in Alan Eyre's historiographical works The Protesters and Brethren in Christ, which have enjoyed great popularity within the Christadelphian community. (Interestingly, Eyre suggested that while the 'Polish Brethren' had 'Scriptural' and 'reverent' teachings, Christadelphian theology represented a further advance specifically in its doctrine of God manifestation.) Another Christadelphian writer, Ruth McHaffie, has observed in her book Brethren Indeed? how Christadelphians began in the 1970s, mainly as a result of Alan Eyre's work, to trace their history back beyond Dr. John Thomas to the Anabaptists and the Polish Brethren in particular.14

In a recent pamphlet designed to introduce the Christadelphian community to the public, and hosted on one of the main Christadelphian-run websites, Rob Hyndman15 writes:

The beliefs and practices of the Christadelphians can be traced from the New Testament to the earliest Christians of the 1st and 2nd Centuries in documents such as the Epistle of Clement, The Didache and The Apostles’ Creed. With the advent of religious freedom in Europe in the 16th Century Reformation, the same beliefs and practices resurfaced in Bible-minded groups such as the Swiss Anabaptists and Polish Socinians.16

It is safe to say that the consensus of today's Christadelphians, in marked contrast to the founder of their sect, is to identify themselves as Unitarians in the Socinian tradition. One still finds Christadelphians who reject the label 'Unitarian'. However, this is simply because of the associations of the term with a denial of the virgin birth, a doctrine that Christadelphians dogmatically uphold.17 Such writers might embrace the label 'biblical Unitarian' if they were aware of it. There is scant evidence of contemporary Christadelphians who reject the label 'Unitarian' outright for the same reasons as Dr. Thomas, although strong proponents of his radical God-manifestation doctrine do remain.

Note: the previous paragraph has been edited to remove a reference to a blog post arguing that Christadelphians are not Unitarians. The author may have been a Christadelphian at the time of writing, but he has apparently since left the Christadelphians and is regarded as a disgruntled individual.

External descriptions of Christadelphians in relation to Unitarians and Socinians

Given that the founder of Christadelphians regarded Unitarianism and Socinianism as abominable and yet that contemporary Christadelphians have largely embraced these labels and the concepts they name, it will be no surprise to find that non-Christadelphians, when describing the Christadelphian belief system, differ on whether it is Unitarian or Socinian or neither.

Geach regards the Christadelphians as straightforwardly the continuation of Socinianism:

But Socinianism still continues to exist in its traditional English seat; those who followed the old paths formed a new sect, at first nameless, now called Christadelphians.18

Similarly, Bray describes Christadelphians as a form of unitarianism: 

Another form of unitarianism is Christadelphianism, whose beliefs go back to John Thomas (1805-1871). Christadelphians are more orthodox than Unitarian Universalists are, but like them, they also deny the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.19

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary describes Christadelphians as a religious sect which 'rejects the doctrine of the Trinity in favour of a Unitarian and Adventist theology.' Christian apologetics website tektonics.org flatly asserts that 'Christadelphians are Unitarians.' Biblical scholar James McGrath uses the term 'Unitarian evangelical churches' to describe the source of some non-trinitarian popular literature he cites that includes a Christadelphian book.20

Other writers demur to call Christadelphians Unitarian. Clementson stresses that 'Christadelphians do not describe themselves as unitarian'.21 Edwards states:

Christadelphians are not therefore Trinitarian, neither are they Unitarian, because they hold to the belief that Jesus was and still is literally the Son of God as the scriptures describe.22

These writers are likely contrasting Christadelphian theology with liberal Unitarianism and may be unaware of the term 'biblical Unitarian' or that many Christadelphians today have embraced it. A more nuanced discussion of whether Christadelphians are Unitarian, Socinian, or something else are found in Bryan Wilson's sociological study of Christadelphians. It is worth quoting him at length:

In referring to the Christadelphians some writers have styled the movement's theology as unitarian, but this designation obscures rather than clarifies the Christadelphian position. Certainly Christadelphianism is avowedly anti-trinitarian, and attacks what it calls the triune God of many Christians. Christadelphians believe in one God, the Father... The designation "unitarian" relates most specifically to the opinion held concerning the nature of Jesus Christ, and the thorough unitarian position is to deny the deity, divinity and pre-existence of Christ. This, however, is not the opinion of Christadelphians, who, whilst they assert that Jesus was a man, also stress that he was the Son of God, begotten of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is understood to have had a like nature to that of mortal man, being himself born of woman and thus a sufferer of the consequence of Adam's transgression - death, which, by Adam's sin, comes to all mankind. But Jesus was also Immanuel, God manifest in the flesh... The nature of Jesus has been a matter of profound contention among Christadelphians, giving rise to a variety of schisms, on the part of those who have stressed his humanity or his divinity. The magnitude of these schisms should not be over-stressed, however, and the position of the Central Fellowship is quite clear. Jesus was born of unclean flesh... Yet it is also emphasised that Jesus possessed a knowledge and discernment beyond those of other men, and was gifted with the limitless power of the Holy Spirit in his life. He was not simply a man, for Deity dwelt in him... The distinction of Christadelphian teaching from a unitarian position is apparent, although it shares much common ground with a Socinian or Arian position, yet with some differences. Christadelphians do not deny the divinity of Jesus, indeed they believe it23

Thus, for Wilson, Christadelphians are neither Unitarian nor Socinian because, despite similarities, they believe in the divinity of Jesus (albeit not in the same sense as Trinitarians).

More recently, Ruth Sutcliffe, has written a theological work which offers a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity in dialogue with Christadelphian, Arian and Unitarian positions. Sutcliffe avers that Christadelphians, 'contrary to some erroneous assertions, are most definitely not Unitarians'.24 Her explanation runs thus:

Although Christadelphians deny the trinitarian understanding of the Godhead, they most certainly affirm that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary by the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit and that neither Joseph nor any other man was involved in Jesus' conception.25

It appears that Sutcliffe is using the term Unitarian exclusively for liberal Unitarianism which denies the virgin birth, and not inclusive of the designation 'biblical Unitarian'. However, she elsewhere addresses the question 'Are Christadelphians Socinians?' with considerable erudition. While noting that John Thomas 'denied that the group is Socinian',26 she identifies similarities between Socinian and Christadelphian teaching, such as their shared denial of the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ. However, after further analysis of Christadelphian sources she concludes:

Despite the similarities with Socinianism, ultimately it seems fruitless to label the Christadelphian position on the Godhead with any other historical, divergent teaching. It is much more appropriate to call it what they themselves call it; the doctrine of "God manifestation," and seek to understand what they actually mean by this.27

This functions as a segue into a discussion of the traditional Christadelphian God manifestation doctrine. Hence, Sutcliffe finds that Christadelphians are not (liberal) Unitarians, and are similar to Socinians but still ought to be regarded as distinct due to their unique ideas about God manifestation.

Conclusions

Our findings may be summarized as follows. First, the term 'Unitarian' is multivalent. It can be used of non-Trinitarians of the Radical Reformation (including the Polish Socinians), the later 18th-century English Unitarian movement which gradually became more rationalistic and liberal in the 19th century, and the extremely liberal Unitarian (Universalist) movement of today. It is also, albeit usually with the prefix 'biblical', used by and of conservative Christians today who maintain the unipersonality of God and deny the pre-existence of Christ.

Second, Dr. Thomas emphatically repudiated Unitarianism as well as Socinianism, because he regarded both as incompatible with his understanding of the nature of Christ (since he maintained Christ's divinity, albeit in unorthodox form) and of the nature of God (in which Deity consists of many streams supported by a single fountain-head).

Third, Dr. Thomas' antagonism toward Unitarianism and Socinianism has all but vanished in the Christadelphian community of today. What he regarded as abominable nonsense and works of the devil, they claim as their own. The God-manifestation doctrine still seems to be regarded favourably by many, but unlike its progenitor, contemporary proponents of the doctrine seem to regard it as compatible with Unitarianism.

Fourth, some external literature describes Christadelphians as Unitarian, while others emphasizes that Christadelphians are not such. It seems that the divergence in description is partly due to varying scope for the term 'Unitarian' but also partly due to a failure by some scholars to appreciate the subtle but important theological differences between Christadelphians and all other 'Unitarians', past and present. For similar reasons, some external literature identifies Christadelphians as the continuation of Socinianism, while other literature demurs on this identification.

It is therefore impossible to offer a straightforward answer to the titular question. The founder of the Christadelphians was decidedly neither Unitarian in any sense nor Socinian. Christadelphians later gravitated back toward (biblical) Unitarian and Socinian positions, and many today are happy to apply these labels to themselves. However, the enduring influence of Dr. Thomas' God-manifestation doctrine - more pronounced in some Christadelphian circles than others - means that in substance, Christadelphians are still unique in their understanding of the nature of God and of Christ. Ruth Sutcliffe is right that no historical label fully captures the singularity of Christadelphian theology.

Footnotes

• 1 Cross, Frank Leslie & Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (Eds.). (2005) Unitarianism. In The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 1671-1672. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 1671.
• 2 ibid. Similarly, Ellwood and Alles: 'Modern Unitarianism began with radical Reformation anti-Trinitarian movements in 16th- and 17th-century Poland and Transylvania' (Ellwood, R.S. & Alles, G.D. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of World Religions. New York: Infobase Publishing, p. 458).
• 3 Melton, J.G. (2010). Socinianism. In Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. New York: ABC-CLIO, p. 2656.
• 4 As the 19th century wore on, 'a new school of Unitarianism developed, which was anti-supernaturalist...which rejected the uniqueness of Christianity' (Kent, J. (1983). Unitarianism. In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 591).
• 5 'Before the end of the 19th cent. Unitarianism in America had become a very liberal or rationalistic movement, accepting scientific methods and ideas and recognizing the truth of non-Christian religions' (Cross & Livingstone, op. cit.)
• 6 'In sum Priestley's theological thoughts centered on the rejection of Protestant orthodoxy's most important theological positions. He denounced the Trinity as untenable and specifically denied any evidence for the Holy Spirit. He detested the concepts of original sin and the atonement as misunderstandings and corruptions of man's relationship to God. He likewise rejected the virgin birth as a contrived theological fallacy. His views on materialism - the corporeal soul and its resurrection at the time of the second coming - were further rejections of Calvinist interpretations of the end times. Biblical inerrancy, a topic which Priestley approached with subtle distinctions, was most often, when employed by the Protestant majority, an error of reasoning or a misapplication of scripture.' (Bowers, J.D. (2010). Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America. Penn State Press, p. 36)
• 7 'In the 20th and 21st centuries, some Unitarians no longer call themselves Christians or believers in God but proponents of religious humanism.' (Ellwood and Alles, op. cit.)
• 8 Thomas, John. (1834). The Apostolic Advocate, Vol. 1, p. 47 (emphasis added). Whether Dr. Thomas would still have declared of Jesus, 'We worship him as God' in his later years is doubtful.
• 9 Thomas, John. (1853). The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Vol. 3, p. 150.
• 10 Hemingray, Peter. (2003). John Thomas: His Friends and His Faith. Christadelphian Tidings, p. 267.
• 11 Thomas, John. (1858). The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Vol. 8, p. 16. Reproduced verbatim in Thomas, John. (1869). Phanerosis: An Exposition of the Doctrine of The Old and New Testament Concerning The Manifestation of the Invisible Eternal God in Human Nature, p. 11.
• 12 Thomas, Phanerosis, preface, p. vi.
• 13 op. cit., p. 39.
• 14 McHaffie, Ruth. Brethren Indeed, p. 14.
• 15 The writer has since left the Christadelphian community and become an agnostic.
• 16 Hyndman, Rob. (1999). The Christadelphians (Brothers and Sisters in Christ): Introducing a Bible-Based Community.
• 17 For example, one B.M. Johns, in a debate on the Trinity by correspondence, clarified that he was unable to defend the 'Unitarian' position because of its view that Jesus is the son of Joseph. Similarly, on the Antipas Christadelphians website, a writer comments on the Websters Dictionary entry on Christadelphians: 'Since they do not understand our concept of the Godhead, they state that we are like Unitarians.' He objects to this characterization on the grounds that Christadelphians affirm that God the Father, not Joseph, was the father of Jesus.
• 18 Geach, P.T. (1981). The Religion of Thomas Hobbes. Religious Studies, 17(4), 549-558. p. 553. Elsewhere, Geach writes, 'Socinianism lives on under the new label of Christadelphianism' (Geach, Peter. (1991). A Philosophical Autobiography. In Harry A. Lewis (Ed.), Peter Geach: Philosophical Encounters (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer, p. 21).
• 19 Bray, Gerald. (2012). God is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology. Wheaton: Crossway Books, p. 449.
• 20 McGrath, James F. (2009). The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, p. 130.
• 21 Clementson, Julian. (2003). The Christadelphians and the Doctrine of the Trinity. Evangelical Quarterly, 75(2), 157-176. Here p. 158.
• 22 Edwards, Linda. (2001). A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 422. Similarly, Chryssides describes the Christadelphians as 'non-Trinitarian' but also 'non-Unitarian' since they affirm 'Jesus as God's only begotten Son, who atoned for human sin, not merely as a great teacher and example (Chryssides, George D. (2012). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, p. 82.)
• 23 Wilson, Bryan R. (1961). Sects and Society: A Sociological Study of the Elim Tabernacle, Christian Science, and Christadelphians. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 222-223.
• 24 Sutcliffe, Ruth. (2016). The Trinity Hurdle: Engaging Christadelphians, Arians, and Unitarians with the Gospel of the Triune God. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, pp. 144-145.
• 25 op. cit., p. 31.
• 26 op. cit., p. 147.
• 27 op. cit., p. 148.

The Spirit-Word, then and now: A history of Christadelphian hyper-cessationism

An overview of Christadelphian pneumatology

This article looks at Christadelphian pneumatology, i.e. the Christadelphian doctrine of the Holy Spirit, from a historical point of view (as opposed to an exegetical or theological point of view). Note that the article is not as long as it looks: some of the footnotes are very lengthy and take up a lot of space at the bottom.

Both the Roman Catholic1 and Reformed2 traditions affirm the ongoing, direct activity of the Holy Spirit in the world. Some key areas of this activity are held to be (i) enabling people's hearts to receive the gospel; (ii) enabling spiritual and moral development of believers; (iii) enabling correct interpretation of Scripture. In the case of (iii), Roman Catholics regard the Spirit as active mainly at the macro Church level through the Magisterium, whereas Protestants regard the Spirit as active mainly at the individual level.3

In Evangelical circles, the debate continues between cessationists (who affirm that charismata such as tongues, prophecy and healings have ceased) and continuationists or charismatics (who affirm that such manifestations of the Holy Spirit are still available today). However, the most zealous Evangelical defenders of cessationism, such as John MacArthur,4 ardently affirm the present work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers.

What is the Christadelphian pneumatology, or doctrine of the Holy Spirit? From an ontological standpoint, Christadelphians reject the orthodox position that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity.5 However, our focus here is functional: what do Christadelphians teach about the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church (or Ecclesia, to use Christadelphian terminology)?

The BASF6 has little explicitly to say about this question. It rejects the doctrine 'that a man cannot believe without possessing the Spirit of God'.7 This seems to deny a direct role for the Holy Spirit in conversion, and would prevent Christadelphians from fellowship with Catholics and most Protestants even if all other doctrinal differences were resolved. Indeed, in view of this article, it is difficult to see how a Christadelphian who came to believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers today could remain in fellowship. Passages such as Rom. 8:9 and 1 Cor. 12:3, if they refer to such indwelling, teach that which the BASF explicitly rejects.

Other than this, the only mentions of the Spirit in the BASF are in relation to God's attribute of omnipresence8 and in relation to the earthly life of Jesus.9 Nothing is said about the Holy Spirit's work in individual believers or the Ecclesia/Church as a whole.10 The BASF is a very brief outline of Christadelphian theology, so one could not argue from its silence that Christadelphians see no role for the Holy Spirit in the Ecclesia/Church. Nevertheless, complete silence on a subject regarded as vital to Christian life by most denominations certainly says something about Christadelphian theological priorities. By the letter of the BASF, one could deny that the Holy Spirit had ever been poured out at Pentecost and still remain in fellowship with Christadelphians!11

One can gain a better idea of traditional Christadelphian teaching about the present role of the Holy Spirit by consulting the writings of the two most influential founders of the Christadelphian movement: Dr. John Thomas and his protégé Robert Roberts. As we shall see, they teach a much more radical cessation of Holy Spirit activity than that taught by Evangelical cessationists. Hence, traditional Christadelphian pneumatology can aptly be termed 'hyper-cessationism'.12

Dr. John Thomas

The quotation below comes from a debate between Dr. Thomas and a Presbyterian minister which took place in 1837. This was still a decade before Dr. Thomas' final baptism, which would seem to represent the formal beginning of the Christadelphian movement. Nevertheless, this debate was published in 1872 with a glowing preface by Robert Roberts, and the passage below was quoted favourably a century later by Graham Pearce in his book The Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit Gifts. There does not seem to be evidence that Dr. Thomas' position changed from the following:

If the sacred Scriptures are able to make us wise, we need no other instrumentality. The Holy Spirit by the word, without infusing a single idea into it more than it actually and ordinarily contains, and without any collateral influence, teaches us all wisdom and knowledge that is necessary.13

Evidently Dr. Thomas restricted the teaching function of the Holy Spirit to the production of Scripture. The same is true of the converting function of the Holy Spirit. In a fictional dialogue entitled Clerical Theology Unscriptural (apparently first published in 1850),14 Dr. Thomas has Boanerges, the interlocutor representing his viewpoint, offer the following interpretation of the 'renewing of the Holy Spirit' (Titus 3:5):

His Spirit is His power by which He effects intellectual, moral, and physical results. When He wills to produce intellectual and moral effects, it is by knowledge revealed by His Spirit through the prophets and apostles. This knowledge becomes power when received into “good and honest hearts”... The prophets, Jesus, and the apostles were the channels through which it was transmitted to mankind; and the spirit the agent by which the knowledge was conveyed to them. Hence, the knowledge or the truth being suggested to the prophets by the spirit is sometimes styled “the spirit” (Rom. ii. 20). The spirit is to the truth as cause and effect; and by a very common figure of speech, the one is put for the other in speaking of them relatively to the mind and heart of man. So that the phrase “renewed by the holy spirit” is equivalent to renewed by the belief of the truth testified by the Holy Spirit (John xv. 26: xiv. 13-14).15

Here, Dr. Thomas divides the effects of the Holy Spirit on people into three categories: intellectual, moral, and physical. In the case of the former two, he again restricts the function of the Holy Spirit to the production of Scripture.16 No divine help is available for the interpretation of Scripture; it is apparently left to the individual to ensure he has a 'good and honest heart' and so arrives at a correct understanding. As to physical effects, Dr. Thomas has the other interlocutor, Heresian, ask, 'But doth the Spirit of God exert no physical energy upon man in his regeneration?' Boanerges replies: 'Certainly it does but not in the renewal of his character. It will operate physically upon “the new creature in Christ Jesus,” when through Jesus it raises him from the dead (2 Cor. iv. 14).' Heresian then comprehends, to Boanerges' approval, that

regeneration is not an instantaneous mesmeric action upon an immortal soul; but a process beginning with the truth understood and believed, and ending with the resurrection of the believer from the dead

Hence, Dr. Thomas denies that the Holy Spirit exercises any direct influence on the believer in this life. It exercises an indirect intellectual and moral influence due to its role in the production of Scripture, and will exercise a direct physical influence at the Resurrection of the Dead. As he writes in Elpis Israel, 'The Holy Spirit does not renew the heart of man as He renews the mortal body, when through Jesus He raises it from the dead. In this case, the power is purely physical. But when the heart is the subject of renewal, it is by the knowledge of the written testimony of God, or the word.17

What is remarkable about Elpis Israel, given that it was Dr. Thomas' main work of systematic theology, is the paucity of its teaching about the Holy Spirit. A search for the exact phrase 'Holy Spirit' yields only 23 occurrences (by comparison, the phrase occurs 89 times in the NASB New Testament). Of these, ten are in direct quotations from Scripture, six are in passing references narrating biblical events, and three are in usage of the baptismal formula from Matt. 28:19. Of the four remaining cases, two refer to practices of which Dr. Thomas is critical,18 and only two contain affirmative teaching about the function of the Holy Spirit.19 A search for the phrase 'Spirit of God' yields little more. Some ontological teaching on the Spirit is present, focusing on its relationship to God's person and creation, and its relationship to the resurrection.20 However, Dr. Thomas has remarkably little to say about the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Ecclesia/Church, past or present. Pneumatological language largely dissolves into terminology concerning Scripture and the human intellect: 'word', 'truth', 'knowledge', etc. For all practical purposes, Dr. Thomas reduces pneumatology to a facet of his doctrine of Scripture.

Dr. Thomas also apparently authored a work entitled The Holy Spirit not a present possession, but I have not been able to obtain access to this.

Robert Roberts

In his best-known work of core doctrine, Christendom Astray, Robert Roberts discusses the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit, at some length in a chapter on 'God, Angels, Jesus Christ, and the Crucifixion'. His main concerns are ontological. He defines the spirit of God as 'an actual element in universal creation', which is none other than electricity!21 'Holy Spirit' is defined as 'Spirit concentrated under the Almighty's will... as distinct from spirit in its free, spontaneous form.'22 Apparently, then, the Holy Spirit is a special, divine use of electricity. Of 'this form of the Spirit's manifestation', Roberts starkly states, 'It is given to none in the present day.'23 After describing its outpouring and supernatural effects in the apostles' time, and arguing for its necessity for their work, he proceeds to argue for its redundancy in the post-apostolic period. Quoting Eph. 4:11-14,24 he takes 'until' in v. 13 to refer to the post-apostolic period:

This is perfectly intelligible: If the early churches, consisting of men and women fresh from the abominations and immoralities of heathenism, and without the authoritative standard of the completed Scripture which now exists, had been left to the mere power of apostolic tradition intellectually received, they could not have held together. The winds of doctrine, blowing about through the activity of "men of corrupt minds," would have broken them from their moorings, and they would have been tossed to and fro in the billows of uncertain and conflicting report and opinion, and finally stranded in hopeless shipwreck. This catastrophe was prevented by the gifts of the spirit. Properly qualified men, as to moral and intellectual parts, were made the repositories of these gifts, and empowered to "speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority." They "ruled" the communities over which they were placed, feeding the flock of God over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock (Acts 20v28; 1 Peter 5v2,3). In this way the early churches were built up and edified. The work of the apostles was conserved, improved, and carried to a consummation. The faith was completed and consolidated by the voice of inspiration speaking through the spiritually-appointed leaders of the churches. By this means the results of gospel-preaching in the first century, when there were no railways, telegraphs, or other means of a rapid circulation of ideas, instead of evaporating to nothing, as, otherwise, they would have done, were secured and made permanent, both as regards that generation and succeeding centuries. But it must be obvious that the case stands very differently now. There is no manifestation of the Spirit in these days. The power of continuing the manifestation doubtless died with the apostles; not that God could not have transferred it to others, but that He selected them as the channels of its bestowment in their age, and never, so far as we have any evidence, appointed "successors." There are many who claim to be their successors; but it is not the word but the power of a man that must be taken as the test in this matter. Let those who think they have the Spirit produce their evidences. There is a great outcry about the Holy Spirit in popular preaching; but nothing more. There are phenomena which are considered outpourings of the Holy Spirit; but they bear no resemblance to those of apostolic experience, and, therefore, must be rejected. They are explicable on natural principles... The result of an intelligent apprehension of what the word of God teaches and requires, is different from this; this [result] has its seat in the judgment, and lays hold of the entire mental man, creating new ideas and new affections, and, in general, evolving a new man. In this work, the Spirit has no participation, except in the shape of the written word. This is the product of the Spirit - the ideas of the Spirit reduced to writing by the ancient men who were moved by it. It is, therefore, the instrumentality of the Spirit, historically wielded the sword of the Spirit by a metaphor which contemplates the Spirit in prophets and apostles in ancient times, as the warrior... The present days are barren days, as regards the Spirit's direct operations.25

On another occasion, quoted on the Christadelphian Research website, a reader of The Christadelphian magazine (1893) posed a question about the Holy Spirit to which Robert Roberts, as Editor, responded. The question was essentially this. Petitionary prayer presupposes the hope that God will directly intervene (through His Spirit) in response to the request, e.g. for comfort, strength, or guidance. If it is only through the written Word that the Holy Spirit is available today, what is the point of petitionary prayer? The question concludes:

If it is only through the Word and by our own effort such prayers are answered, why do we not go to the Word at once, and use our own effort?  What faith or reason can there be in such prayers if we do not receive the Spirit?

Roberts' answer to the question proceeds thus. He reiterates that God is silent today; He does not speak, and the manifestation of 'the gift of His Spirit' 'has now lapsed'. Those 'who profess to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit' are mistaken. He then asks whether God is therefore 'unregardful of those upon the earth' who seek Him today? No, he replies, emphasizing that 'we may draw nigh [in prayer] from day to day with full assurance of heart' and that 'In His response to these advances, He will work by His Spirit; but in what way we know not; we cannot know; we need not care to know'. It appears that Roberts is not prepared to say that God works by His Holy Spirit in response to prayer today.26 However, this would seem to follow from his definition of the Holy Spirit: a response to prayer would necessarily be 'Spirit concentrated under the Almighty's will... as distinct from spirit in its free, spontaneous form'.

Roberts further emphasizes, 'But in all this, God is the worker. Man is the subject, without possessing in himself the Spirit of God as it was in the apostles'. In contrast, he claims, 'When God granted the gift of His Spirit, the Spirit was in the control of those who received it'. The implicit claim seems to be that God was not the worker when the apostles did things by the Holy Spirit! Roberts appears to be creating this distinction to avoid a contradiction in his position: he claims on the one hand that 'There is no manifestation of the Spirit in these days' and on the other hand that God works today 'by His Spirit' in a way 'we cannot know' in response to petitionary prayer.

He concludes by denouncing 'prayers which are childish', e.g. 'that the speaker (who perhaps has his address prepared) "may speak acceptable words"; that the hearers (who are already there just as they are) "may have good and honest hearts" &c., &c.' He describes these as 'prayers that are unreasonable, that could not be answered, that are a mere rattle of words... an insult to the majesty of God.' While he allows that prayer ought to include 'supplication for the various things we need', Roberts does not give any positive examples of the kind of supplications that he envisions God might grant 'by His Spirit'; only negative examples of the kind of supplications that he regards as unreasonable and insulting to God's majesty.

The Spirit-Word concept

Traditional Christadelphian pneumatology is perhaps best characterized by the Spirit-Word concept, which is explained thus by Christadelphian writer H.P. Mansfield:

The Holy Spirit relates to God's power, which was then (but not now) poured out upon men, enabling them to speak foreign languages without having learned them, or to perform miracles. The prophets were moved by the Spirit to record their teaching (Nehemiah 9:30; 2 Pet. 1:21), and by the same means God spake to men through His Son (Heb. 1:1). In consequence of this the revelation of God's truth can be described as the spirit-word (see John 6:63; Eph. 6:17; 1 John 5:7). It is this spirit only that is available to men today, but that is also capable of performing miracles, for it can cause the hard hearts of men to become softened and pliable to the Divine will, and to reflect this in a changed way of life (see Gal. 5:22-25).27

Essentially, the term 'Spirit-Word' is substituted for 'Spirit' in Christadelphian interpretations of many New Testament passages about the Spirit, in order to stress that the Spirit is only working indirectly, through the instrumentality of the written Word of God. 'Spirit-Word' indicates that the interpreter should not look further than the intellectual process of reading and understanding Scripture to explain the Spirit's present role. The Spirit's input into this process occurred in antiquity when the biblical writers were inspired; the Spirit has no active role today. The term 'Spirit-Word' never occurs in Scripture, but as Mansfield's explanation shows, Christadelphians think the concept can be inferred from passages which link '(the) word(s)' with '(the) S/spirit' in some way or other.28

This terminology appears already in the writings of Dr. Thomas, albeit sparingly. He uses the term 'Spirit-Word' in passing in the Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1855: 'Does the Spirit-Word beget people to the belief of nonsense?' Since he does not explain the term 'Spirit-Word' here, it seems he could already assume his audience's familiarity with it.

In his magnum opus, Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse, another, similar passing reference occurs which indicates that the concept is dependent upon John 6:63:

It is the Spirit-Word that quickeneth; and therefore Jesus says, "It is the Spirit which is life making; Spirit is and life is the words which I speak to you" (John vi. 63).29

The logic behind the 'Spirit-Word' can be seen in Dr. Thomas' comments on Titus 3:5 quoted earlier:

The spirit is to the truth as cause and effect; and by a very common figure of speech, the one is put for the other in speaking of them relatively to the mind and heart of man.

If Dr. Thomas can argue that by a figure of speech, 'Holy Spirit' in Titus 3:5 actually means 'truth' due to their cause-and-effect relationship, he could similarly argue that other references to the Spirit actually mean 'Word' due to the same cause-and-effect relationship. 'Spirit-Word' then becomes a convenient shorthand expressing that by 'Spirit' we should actually understand 'Word'. What is surprising is that the other two occurrences of the term 'Spirit-Word' in Eureka actually refer to Jesus personally:

The Eternal Spirit-Word was the High Priestly Offerer of His own Flesh, whose character was without spot -- "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners;" "who knew no sin;" yet whose nature was in all points like ours -- "sin’s flesh," in which dwells no good thing (Heb. ix. 14; vii. 26; 2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. viii. 3; vii. 18; Heb. ii. 14-17)... Suspended on the tree by the voluntary offering of the Spirit-Word (John x. 18), "sin was condemned in the flesh," when the soul-blood thereof was poured out unto death. The Spirit-Word made his soul thus an offering for sin (Isa. liii. 10); and by it sanctified the Altar-Body on the tree.30

Jesus, then, like all his brethren, is to be considered in two states, each state having a nature peculiar to it. In the former state, "he was crucified through weakness;" but in the after state wherein he now is, "he liveth by the power of the Deity" (2 Cor. 13:4). In the former state, the flesh was "the filthy garments" with which the SPIRIT-WORD was clothed (Zech. 3:3); "the iniquity of us all" that was laid upon him; "the soul made an offering for sin" (Isa. 43:6,10); but, as He now is, the filthy garments have been taken away; "his iniquity has passed from him," and he is clothed with "change of raiment."31

Hence, it appears that Dr. Thomas had a complex, nuanced Spirit-Word concept. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any detailed explanation of how he comes to identify the Spirit-Word with Christ. Presumably this is related to Christ's identification with the Word in John 1.

Antecedents of Christadelphian hyper-cessationism

We have seen that Dr. Thomas was able to use the term 'Spirit-Word' without explanation as early as 1855. We have also seen that in Elpis Israel (1848), his treatment of pneumatology was very cursory. This may suggest that within the circles in which he moved, a 'Spirit-Word' concept was already widely held and needed no comprehensive defense. I have not been able to find this term used in any religious literature prior to 1855.32 However, research into the Restorationist movement has found that 'hyper-cessationism' similar to that of Christadelphians has arisen within this movement.

The 19th-century Restorationist movement is usually referred to by historians as the Stone-Campbell movement because it was founded by Barton W. Stone and Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander. In his essay on pneumatology in the Stone-Campbell movement, Kurka speaks of a general conviction among Evangelicals 'that for the euangelion to either be preached or heard, the Holy Spirit must be present in some real sense'.33 He says that this belief spans the Reformed and Wesleyan/Arminian traditions. However, he notes a nuance in the Stone-Campbell tradition not found elsewhere, i.e. that 'The Holy Spirit indwells the hearts of God’s saints through the instrumentality of the Word'.34

He identifies

a fairly typical, early to mid-twentieth century Restorationist pneumatology which suggests "tighter" Word/Spirit relationship than most other evangelicals would comfortably allow. While virtually all evangelicals would eagerly admit to a close connection between the gospel and the Holy Spirit’s work, these descendants of Campbell’s (more than Stone’s) theological tradition have expressed a view of the testimonium spiritus that appears to nearly "swallow up" the Spirit in the divine writ.35

Since, as a rule, Stone-Campbell Restoration literature maintains a Trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit, Kurka stresses that 'the apparent loss of the Spirit within the Scriptures is less an evidence of a binitarian view of God than a by-product of an "extreme" form of cessationism'.36

Kurka thinks this pneumatology owes much to the influence of Alexander Campbell, who, more than anyone else, eventually controlled Restorationist soteriology. He stresses Campbell's 'almost intellectualized definition of faith'37 and 'theological and philosophical indebtedness to Scottish Common Sense Realism.'38 The latter philosophy is the product of a more conservative and religious branch of the Enlightenment which elevated human reason and rejected ecclesiastical hierarchies but still accepted biblical revelation. Since God's communication to man in the Bible was held to be fundamentally clear,39 'a special interpreter such as the Holy Spirit is not needed, nor for that matter, specially trained teachers to interpret the Bible.'40 Campbell optimistically expressed the belief that if everyone applied the same common-sense rules of interpretation to the Bible, a greater uniformity in doctrine would result. He viewed the Bible as 'a book of facts' and the New Testament as 'a sort of legal constitution'.41

According to Kurka, one aspect of Campbell's Christian rationalism was a 'hyper-cessationism' which makes the Bible 'the consummate supernatural expression of this age'.42 He criticizes this view inasmuch as it 'forces an improbable "canon" interpretation on 1 Corinthians 13:10' (a passage I have discussed previously).

He notes that Campbell refused to completely equate the Spirit with the biblical text, but that he made statements that suggested such an equation. For instance, in 1824 he wrote, 'Since those gifts (of the Spirit) have ceased, the Holy Spirit now operates upon the minds of men only by the Word.'43 This sounds very much like the Christadelphian Spirit-Word concept.

Hughes, however, observes that 'Campbell's view of the Holy Spirit was more complex than many of his later followers recognized'.44 While he denied that the Spirit works in miraculous ways today, he held that Word and Spirit 'are always united in the great work [of conversion]' and that 'No one is converted by the Word alone, nor by the Spirit alone.'45 In his book The Christian System, he wrote that

Whatever the word does, the Spirit does; and whatever the Spirit does in the work of converting men, the word does. We neither believe nor teach abstract Spirit nor abstract word - but word and Spirit, and Spirit and word.46

In this he seemed to shackle the Spirit to the Word as in the Christadelphian Spirit-Word concept. However, according to Hughes, when his later followers 'contended that the Spirit works only in the pages of Holy Writ', they were going beyond Campbell, who had emphasized only 'that the Spirit always works in conjunction with the word.'47 As Campbell wrote further in The Christian System,

The Spirit of God inspired all the spiritual ideas in the New Testament, and confirmed them by miracles; and he is ever present with the word that he inspired. He descended from heaven on the day of Pentecost, and has not formally ascended since. In the sense in which he descended he certainly has not ascended: for he is to animate and inspire with new life the church or temple of the Lord.48

He regarded the work of the Spirit as important not only in conversion but in sanctification:

Christians are, therefore, clearly and unequivocally temples of the Holy Spirit; and they are quickened, animated, encouraged, and sanctified by the power and influence of the Spirit of God, working in them through the truth... when through faith, repentance, and baptism, we have assumed him as our rightful Sovereign, by his Holy Spirit, in answer to our prayers, he worked in us, and by us, and for us, all that is needful to our present, spiritual, and eternal salvation.49

It appears, then, that Alexander Campbell was a cessationist who, despite leaning toward hyper-cessationism in some respects, affirmed a direct influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Some of his followers developed his pneumatology further into full-blown hyper-cessationism. Among these was Dr. John Thomas, his protégé during the 1830s until doctrinal disagreements led to a rift between the two, culminating in Campbell disfellowshipping Dr. Thomas in 1837. Although Dr. Thomas' pneumatology may have been shaped by the rationalism of his scientific education, it is also likely that Alexander Campbell exerted an influence on him in this regard. Whatever the case, it appears that by 1837, and for the remainder of his life, Dr. Thomas was a hyper-cessationist.

Beyond hyper-cessationism?

Kurka concludes his essay by noting that many of today's descendants of the Stone-Campbell Restorationist movement (in the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ denominations) 'have recognized the philosophical liabilities and rigidities of their brilliant forebear and have tended to find a comfortable niche among mainstream Arminian theologians.'50 This reform has included 'A more supernaturally appreciative view of the Holy Spirit and his presence in conversion', 'admitting a more direct influence from the Spirit upon the lost person than in years past'.51

What about the Christadelphians? Since the latter half of the 20th century, a number of Christadelphians have written literature challenging the movement's traditional hyper-cessationism. The 1975 booklet The Holy Spirit and the Believer Today, by Alfred Norris, challenges the notion that the promise of 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' in Acts 2:38 was valid only for one or two generations. Norris does not identify this gift with 'miraculous powers', which he thinks have ceased. However, he cautiously affirms the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers today, while not claiming to be able to 'chart the course of the Spirit's activities.' 

Also in 1975, a longer study was published by Edgar Wille entitled The Holy Spirit: An Exploratory Survey of Scripture Teaching. In a foreword to the Second Edition (2000), Wille states the central thesis of his book: 'that the Holy Spirit is God at work within the hearts and minds of those who have faith in him through Jesus Christ.' Wille challenges the traditional Spirit-Word idea head-on when he writes concerning conversion that, while 'The written Word is obviously the basic source of our information', Christianity is 'the precious gift of God, not the hard earned outcome of the exercise of man's mental powers.'52 Wille emphasizes the experiential side of faith in Christ without abandoning the intellectual side. He affirms that 'The Spirit of God somehow takes hold of the cross of Christ and the whole redemptive work of Jesus and works it into the experience of the believer.'53 He summarizes the work of the Spirit thus: 'that the absent Lord is present in his church, moving it how he will; whether the outward appearances are normal or supernatural'.54 He goes on to argue that life in Christ is a matter of 'receiving - not achieving'.55 He stresses in his conclusion that 'the work of the Holy Spirit is an essential part of the gospel.'56 Wille seems to be a moderate cessationist who is not prepared to assert the present reality of miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, nor to deny them outright.57 Wille's ideas have apparently not won widespread acceptance. A critical review was published in The Christadelphian,58 and Wille himself apparently left the Christadelphian community soon after writing the book. To this day a website is maintained specifically to oppose the 'false doctrine' in this book, while participants in a Christadelphian discussion forum strongly discouraged another participant from reading the book.

It seems the torch lit by Norris and Wille is today being carried primarily by Nathan Trevor Brierly, who maintains a website partially devoted to educating other Christadelphians about the present role of the Holy Spirit. Particularly relevant to this post is Brierly's critique of the Spirit-Word idea. Otherwise, criticism of Christadelphian pneumatology has largely come from former Christadelphians, such as Stephen Cook (who helpfully debunks the Christadelphian claim that the 'Holy Spirit' and the 'Spirit of God' are two different things in Scripture), Tim Woodall (who states that he was disfellowshipped by Christadelphians 'over the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer'), and myself (I haven't written extensively on the Holy Spirit but see my articles on God's Down Payment on Eternal Life and on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13). It seems that generally, Christadelphians who challenge the traditional hyper-cessationist pneumatology eventually end up outside the movement (as noted earlier, it would be difficult for a non-hyper-cessationist to endorse article 25 of the BASF's Doctrines to be Rejected). Additionally, Christadelphians who leave the movement for other reasons will almost inevitably rethink hyper-cessationism.

Conclusion

The traditional Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit's work may be termed 'hyper-cessationism'. It holds that the Holy Spirit influences the human intellect and character only indirectly, through the Scriptures which were inspired by it in the ancient past. Thus New Testament references to inward manifestations of the Holy Spirit are interpreted as referring to the 'Spirit-Word', i.e. to the transformative power of Scripture. This view was held by the founders of the Christadelphian movement, Dr. John Thomas and Robert Roberts. Dr. Thomas' pneumatology appears to have been influenced by his estranged mentor Alexander Campbell, a pioneer of the Restoration movement, who had in turn been influenced by Scottish Common Sense Realism, a religious breed of Enlightenment rationalism.

Although Christadelphian hyper-cessationism has been challenged from within during the past half-century by writers who advocate something akin to Evangelical cessationism, these challenges have largely remained at the margins of the movement. Hyper-cessationist doctrine remains entrenched, and in this respect Christadelphians seem to be virtually unique among Christian denominations and sects. This may be news to some Christadelphians, who may not be fully aware of the distinctiveness of the Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit's present work (perhaps because this is not made explicit in the BASF and does not figure prominently in Christadelphian counter-orthodox apologetics teaching).

Amendment (added 30/12/2015): This post has generated some discussion on Christadelphian Facebook groups. One piece of feedback I have received is that I have underestimated the contemporary prevalence of views other than the traditional hyper-cessationism / Spirit-Word teaching. Seemingly, the rethinking of pneumatology advocated by Norris, Wille, and more recently Brierly has been more influential than I realized. These views do not seem to be well-represented in print, with Pearce's and Crawford's hyper-cessationist works being the standard works linked to on major Christadelphian websites (christadelphia.org; christadelphianbooks.org) (though I did overlook an apparently recent book by Peter Schwartzkopf linked to on the latter site).59 It may be the case that what is happening in practice does not correspond to what is happening in literature.

Footnotes

• 1 The following are excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which highlight some major Catholic teachings about the Holy Spirit. Note that footnotes have been omitted: 'If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."' (CCC 108); 'According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").' (CCC 113); 'Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action"' (CCC 137); 'This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son.' (CCC 683); 'Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to "know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ."' (CCC 684); 'The Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the plan for our salvation. But in these "end times," ushered in by the Son's redeeming Incarnation, the Spirit is revealed and given, recognized and welcomed as a person. Now can this divine plan, accomplished in Christ, the firstborn and head of the new creation, be embodied in mankind by the outpouring of the Spirit: as the Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.' (CCC 686); 'By his coming, which never ceases, the Holy Spirit causes the world to enter into the "last days," the time of the Church, the Kingdom already inherited though not yet consummated.' (CCC 732); 'By this power of the Spirit, God's children can bear much fruit. He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear "the fruit of the Spirit: . . . love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." "We live by the Spirit"; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we "walk by the Spirit."' (CCC 736); 'The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This joint mission henceforth brings Christ's faithful to share in his communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit prepares men and goes out to them with his grace, in order to draw them to Christ. The Spirit manifests the risen Lord to them, recalls his word to them and opens their minds to the understanding of his Death and Resurrection. He makes present the mystery of Christ, supremely in the Eucharist, in order to reconcile them, to bring them into communion with God, that they may "bear much fruit."' (CCC 737); '"The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes with sighs too deep for words." The Holy Spirit, the artisan of God's works, is the master of prayer.' (CCC 741); 'The Holy Spirit, whom Christ the head pours out on his members, builds, animates, and sanctifies the Church. She is the sacrament of the Holy Trinity's communion with men.' (CCC 747); 'In the Church's liturgy the divine blessing is fully revealed and communicated. The Father is acknowledged and adored as the source and the end of all the blessings of creation and salvation. In his Word who became incarnate, died, and rose for us, he fills us with his blessings. Through his Word, he pours into our hearts the Gift that contains all gifts, the Holy Spirit.' (CCC 1082); 'Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying: they became sacramental signs of Christ. By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This "apostolic succession" structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders.' (CCC 1087); 'The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one "anointed" by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king.' (CCC 1241); 'Christ himself declared that he was marked with his Father's seal. Christians are also marked with a seal: "It is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has commissioned us; he has put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." This seal of the Holy Spirit marks our total belonging to Christ, our enrollment in his service for ever, as well as the promise of divine protection in the great eschatological trial.' (CCC 1296); 'Confirmation... increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us... it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross' (CCC 1303); 'The theological virtues are the foundation of Christian moral activity; they animate it and give it its special character. They inform and give life to all the moral virtues. They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. They are the pledge of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the faculties of the human being. There are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity.' (CCC 1813); 'The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon Christians are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.' (CCC 1845); 'The Holy Spirit, whose anointing permeates our whole being, is the interior Master of Christian prayer. He is the artisan of the living tradition of prayer. To be sure, there are as many paths of prayer as there are persons who pray, but it is the same Spirit acting in all and with all. It is in the communion of the Holy Spirit that Christian prayer is prayer in the Church.' (CCC 2672); 'Contemplative prayer is the prayer of the child of God, of the forgiven sinner who agrees to welcome the love by which he is loved and who wants to respond to it by loving even more.8 But he knows that the love he is returning is poured out by the Spirit in his heart, for everything is grace from God.' (CCC 2712)
• 2 The following are excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith which highlight some major Reformed teachings about the Holy Spirit. Note that footnotes have been omitted: '...yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.' (WCF I.V); 'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word' (WCF I.VI); 'The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.' (WCF I.X); 'Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.' (WCF VII.III); 'This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.' (WCF X.II); 'Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.' (WCF XVI.III)
• 3 Of course these three categories certainly do not exhaust the activity of the Holy Spirit according to the Catholic and Protestant traditions. See the excerpts quoted above and the respective confessional documents in their entirety.
• 4 Asked in an interview about continuationist claims that cessationists regard the Holy Spirit as inactive since they don't believe the Spirit performs miracles, MacArthur responded thus: 'Well, that is such a tragedy, that kind of thinking, that I recently did a, I don’t know, how many part? 13 messages or something trying to bring honor to the Holy Spirit because of the horrible dishonor that is being heaped upon Him? The Holy Spirit is accused of all kinds of satanic things, all kinds of human things. To understand the ministry of the Holy Spirit, you go to the New Testament. And the Holy Spirit is the source of divine revelation, He is the author of Holy Scripture, He is the one who illuminates the believer. We have been given the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. We have an anointing from God. It’s an amazing gift that the Holy Spirit is to us for the understanding of Holy Scripture. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, internally. The Holy Spirit drives us to Christ. The Holy Spirit helps our prayers, with groanings that can’t be uttered. The Holy Spirit secures us and gives us assurance so that we cry, “Abba Father.” The primary work of the Holy Spirit, the wondrous work, is to conforming us to Christ, making us more and more like Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:18, “from one level of glory to the next, as we gaze at Christ.” We look at the Bible, we see Christ revealed. The Holy Spirit illuminates Christ as revealed in Scripture, and then changes us into His image. These are the things the Holy Spirit is really doing.'
• 5 Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, Doctrines to be Rejected, article 6: 'We reject the doctrine - that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father.'
• 6 Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, used as a basis of fellowship by the majority (but not all) of Christadelphians worldwide.
• 7 BASF, DTBR, article 25.
• 8 BASF article 1. Note that 'the Spirit' here may be intended to denote an entity distinct from 'the Holy Spirit', since traditional Christadelphian theology distinguishes between the two.
• 9 BASF article 2 acknowledges the Holy Spirit's role in the Virgin Birth and anointing of Jesus Christ, while article 10 acknowledges the 'indwelling of the Holy Spirit' in Jesus.
• 10 In fact, the BASF's main articles do not even mention the Ecclesia/Church! A casual reader might be forgiven for concluding that Christadelphians have no ecclesiology.
• 11 This is not to say that Christadelphians would, in practice, accept one who held such a position. However, it remains telling that the author(s) of the BASF did not deem it necessary to safeguard the Christadelphian community against even the most extreme minimalist pneumatology, at least with respect to the life of the Ecclesia/Church.
• 12 This term is not of my own coinage, but has been used by scholars in historical study of the Restorationist movement - of which Christadelphians are a product. See below for more on this history.
• 13 The full context of this passage is as follows: ‘As to the work of the Holy Spirit, we believe it to its fullest extent. It is a work which has been elaborated on a most magnificent scale. All nature around is a part of His stupendous work. By Him was a place appointed for the sun, the moon, and the stars; by Him were the heavens constituted, and peopled by the hosts thereof; by Him, man lives and enjoys the life that is; by Him, is he indebted for all: for it is by God, who is Spirit, that we are saved with a temporal and an eternal salvation.’ [Having objected to the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity, he continues:] ‘Now you will observe the tendency of these Presbyterian dogmata. If man has no ability to obey God’s commands, it is necessary that God should operate upon him in some physical manner by His Holy Spirit, in order to enable him to believe; and if this be received, the machine can work comfortably enough. For God commands men to obey Him; but they cannot unless He enables them; it is therefore, not man’s fault if he continues in disobedience; for he is willing, but unable to do his duty. Hence God is made responsible for the disobedience of every one who does not obey Him. Again, some men want to be saved; the clergy are also anxious that they should be saved, because it will increase their flocks and so enlarge the fleece; they therefore besiege heaven with their prayers: but some of these are not saved – why? Because God has not given them His Holy Spirit to enable them to obey, and therefore, it is God’s fault, and not the clergy’s, that sinners are not converted. This is the gospel according to Presbyterianism.’... ‘But, my friends, as I said before, so now I reiterate, that though I reject the traditions of men concerning the work of the Holy Spirit, yet I do most heartily believe in the Scripture account thereof. And here permit me to observe that you should always make a distinction between things that differ – between the opinions of a thing, and the thing itself. The work of the Holy Spirit is the thing; Presbyterian and popular views of this work are the opinions of the thing. Now the self-complacent critics of orthodox communities anathematize us, because we do not agree with them in their opinions of this work; and denounce us blasphemers of the Spirit; thus making our rejection of their dogmata tantamount to a rejection of the Holy One Himself. But this is not to be wondered at, for it has been the spirit of Antichrist through all ages; and it was this spirit of proscription which conferred the crown of martyrdom upon the victim of Geneva tyranny. 
  For myself, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the only authoritative, infallible, efficient, and sufficient teacher of the Christian religion, in all its parts. If I be asked what is the manner in which he teaches this religion, I reply in the same way that all teachers convey instruction to their pupils; by words, either spoken or written. Hence, it is by the sacred Scripture that he convinces men of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come in these times, and indeed, in all times subsequent to the apostolic age. God is simple in all His plans. He appears never to use intricate means, when the end to be effected can be produced by simple ones. Simplicity is the characteristic of all that he performs. He rules the heavens, he regulates the seasons, and he saves men upon few, but powerful principles. If one means is able to make man wise, we need not expect to find any other institution than that one to effect the same end. Now Paul, the author of my friend’s text, says that the sacred Scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation, by the faith (or gospel) which is through Christ Jesus. What more do we want than wisdom in relation to this matter? If the sacred Scriptures are able to make us wise, we need no other instrumentality. The Holy Spirit by the word, without infusing a single idea into it more than it actually and ordinarily contains, and without any collateral influence, teaches us all wisdom and knowledge that is necessary. It instructs man concerning his origin, his constitution, his sinful state, and how he may, though mortal, absolutely and unqualifiedly mortal, yet attain to life and incorruptibility; it informs him concerning the attributes of God, the creation, and the destiny of the earth and the race by which it is inhabited. Why, then, my friends, can we not be content with the means within the grasp of every one who owns the volume of inspiration? If the ecclesiastical world were content to learn the truth from “the Bible alone,” and it honestly desired to obey the Messiah, there would soon be an end to Presbyterian and every other ism, by which “Christendom” as it is called, or “anti-Christendom,” as it should be termed, has been for ages desolated. But the world loves not the truth; because therefore, they have “not embraced the love of the truth that they might be saved, God has sent them strong delusion that they might believe a lie; that all might be condemned who have not obeyed the truth.” The sacred Scriptures are not a dead letter, as the clergy teach you; they are “living and powerful, and sharper than a two-edged sword:” this is Paul’s testimony and ought therefore to be received as true by all believers.’ (Roberts, R. (ed.). (1872).The Apostasy Unveiled: Being a Debate between John Thomas, M.D., and a Presbyterian Clergyman, thirty-four years ago, on the popular doctrines of immortality, heaven, hell, election, and kindred topics. London: George John Stevenson, pp. 19-22).
• 14 Bryan Wilson notes that this work was published in 1877 but had been previously published in 1850 under the title The Wise Taken in their own Craftiness (Wilson, B.R. (1961) Sects and Society: A Sociological Study of the Elim Tabernacle, Christian Science, and Christadelphians. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 219 n. 3).
• 15 The saying in its entirety reads thus: 'He also says, we are renewed by knowledge” (Col. iii. 10). In this, however, he does not contradict himself, but rather makes the one phrase explanatory of the other; as if he had said, “we are renewed by the Holy Spirit through knowledge.” The Holy Spirit renews or regenerates man intellectually and morally by the truth believed. “Sanctify them by thy truth,” says Jesus; “thy word, O Father, is truth” (John xvii. 17). “Ye are clean,” said he to his apostles, “through the word which I have spoken to you” (John xv. 3). God’s power is manifested through means. His Spirit is His power by which He effects intellectual, moral, and physical results. When He wills to produce intellectual and moral effects, it is by knowledge revealed by His Spirit through the prophets and apostles. This knowledge becomes power when received into “good and honest hearts”; and because God is the author of it, it is styled “the Knowledge of God” (2 Pet. i. 2), or “the word of truth” (James i. 18), by which He begets sinners to Himself as His sons and daughters. “The word of the truth of the gospel,”” the gospel of the kingdom.” “the incorruptible seed,” “the word,” “the truth as it is in Jesus,”” the word of the kingdom,”” the word of reconciliation,” “the law and the testimony,” “the word of faith,” “the sword of the spirit which is the word of God,” “the word of Christ,” “the perfection of liberty,” etc.-are all phrases richly expressive of” the power of God” by which He saves His people from their sins, and translates them into the Hope of the kingdom and glory to which He invites them. The truth is the power that makes men free indeed (John viii. 32, 36). Hence Jesus says, “My words are spirit, and they are life.” The prophets, Jesus, and the apostles were the channels through which it was transmitted to mankind; and the spirit the agent by which the knowledge was conveyed to them. Hence, the knowledge or the truth being suggested to the prophets by the spirit is sometimes styled “the spirit” (Rom. ii. 20). The spirit is to the truth as cause and effect; and by a very common figure of speech, the one is put for the other in speaking of them relatively to the mind and heart of man. So that the phrase “renewed by the holy spirit” is equivalent to renewed by the belief of the truth testified by the Holy Spirit (John xv. 26: xiv. 13-14).'
• 16 Similarly, in Elpis Israel, Dr. Thomas wrote that the 'effects of the word believed are attributed to the spirit' because 'the "testimony of God" came by the Holy Spirit, by which God testified in His prophets...and, in the last days...spoke through His son...and the apostles' (Thomas, J. (1866). Elpis Israel (4th ed.). Findon: Logos Publications, p. 53. The elliptical words are scripture references.)
• 17 ibid., p. 53. In context, Dr. Thomas is here concerned to argue against infant baptism by showing that the spiritual renewal associated with baptism is inextricably tied to knowledge. He does not directly interact with the idea that man requires more help than the written Word alone to overcome his intellectual and moral fallenness.
• 18 In ibid., p. 31, Dr. Thomas condemns 'the Romish conceit of the rhantismal regeneration of infants by the Holy Spirit in the scattering of a few drops of water upon the face, and the use of a certain form of words.' On p. 167, he rebukes men who 'pray for the Holy Spirit; profess to preach under its guidance; and often in a very bad spirit, protest that they received it when converted.' While he does not explicitly condemn these practices here, he opines that those 'sincerely desirous of the spirit of God' ought to renounce unscriptural human traditions, 'search the scriptures' and so 'believe the truth and obey it'.
• 19 Both on ibid., p. 53, which is discussed above.
• 20 ibid., p. 34ff.
• 21 Roberts, R. (1884). Christendom Astray. Birmingham: Christadelphian Publication Society, pp. 143-144.
• 22 ibid., pp. 144-145.
• 23 ibid., p. 145.
• 24 '11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;' (NASB; Roberts, of course, quotes the AV)
• 25 Roberts, op. cit., pp. 148-150; italics original, boldface added.
• 26 Remember that Roberts distinguishes the Spirit of God from the Holy Spirit - see above.
• 27 Mansfield, H.P. (1968). Key To The Understanding of The Scriptures. Findon: Logos Publications, p. 114; emphasis added.
• 28 It is surprising that Mansfield cites 1 John 5:7, since it is universally agreed by textual critics that the Trine formula found here in Textus Receptus is not part of the original text.
• 29 Thomas, J. Eureka, vol. 1, 3.1.3. Notice how Dr. Thomas reverses the subject and predicates in his translation and capitalizes the second 'Spirit' so that the text appears to identify 'Spirit' as 'the words that I speak to you'.
• 30 Thomas, J. Eureka, vol. 2, 6.5.2.
• 31 Thomas, J. Eureka, vol. 1, 1.2.3.
• 32 My search was not very extensive, so further research is needed in this direction.
• 33 Kurka, R.C. (2002). The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion: Why Restorationists Appear to be Out of the Evangelical Mainstream. In William R. Baker (ed.), Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement (pp. 138-151). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, p. 138.
• 34 ibid., p. 140.
• 35 ibid.
• 36 ibid., p. 141.
• 37 ibid., p. 142.
• 38 ibid., p. 144.
• 39 Or 'perspicuous' to use a more technical term.
• 40 ibid., p. 145.
• 41 Hughes, R.T. (1991). Are Restorationists Evangelical? In Donald W. Dayton & Robert K. Johnson, The Variety of American Evangelicalism (pp. 109-134). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, p. 115.
• 42 Kurka, op. cit., p. 147.
• 43 ibid., p. 148.
• 44 Hughes, op. cit., p. 117.
• 45 ibid.
• 46 Campbell, A. (1839). The Christian System. Pittsburgh: Forrester & Campbell, p. 93.
• 47 Hughes, op. cit., p. 117.
• 48 Campbell, op. cit., p. 93.
• 49 ibid., pp. 94-95.
• 50 Kurka, op. cit., p. 149.
• 51 Kurka, op. cit., p. 151.
• 52 Wille, E. (1975). The Holy Spirit: An exploratory survey of Scripture Teaching. Accessed at http://welivebythespirit.org/Holy_Spirit_Exploratory_Survey/Holy_Spirit.pdf.
• 53 ibid., p. 32.
• 54 ibid., p. 41.
• 55 ibid., p. 62.
• 56 ibid., p. 88.
• 57 For instance, he writes that 'The gift of healing is not recognised among us in the "miraculous" sense' (ibid., p. 50). This is a much less dogmatic statement than a strict cessationist might have made, such as, 'The gift of healing is not available today in the "miraculous" sense.'
• 58 It is, however, interesting to note that the author of the review, Fred Pearce, appears to step guardedly back from hyper-cessationism. While maintaining the exclusive role of the written Word in drawing people's minds to God, he adds: 'When the mind is prepared by intimate contact with the "sacred Scriptures, inspired of God, profitable for... instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete" (2 Tim. 3: 16-17, RV), then God will surely add, according to His promise what blessing is needed and appropriate, and He will do it by His Spirit.'
• 59 Schwartzkopf's book does not directly challenge traditional Christadelphian pneumatology, but is willing to grant a broader scope to the present work of the Holy Spirit than the traditional view would allow, in language that sounds close to Evangelical cessationism. For him, 'God’s Spirit acts in all sorts of diverse ways: By the effect of the Word of God in the minds of believers, By the actions of other believers, By the answer to prayers with God using miraculous and non-miraculous means, By God intervening in a multitude of ways in peoples lives to bring about his purpose even if they have not prayed for the intervention… The Spirit of God is received when people believe the gospel. All true believers will have the Spirit. It is a down payment on who we will be when immortal. Its indwelling indicates that a person belongs to God. Its indwelling marks out a person as destined for salvation. The role of the Spirit is to both sanctify and transform us into the sort of people God wants us to be.' (Schwartzkopf, P. (n.d.). The Spirit of God, p. 39).