As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Christadelphians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox. But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed? Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it? Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how early Christadelphian leaders, like John Thomas and Robert Roberts, viewed the creed. If they did not address the Apostles' Creed in their writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of more recent Christadelphian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and Swedenborgians.


Christadelphian beliefs impact on their view of the Apostle’s Creed, though that Creed is not something mentioned much (if at all) in their literature.

Their literature does make it clear how antagonistic they are towards all the fundamental doctrines of what they call ‘Christendom’, so that we can conclude they would never subscribe to that Creed. To substantiate this, let me quote from ‘Who Are The Christadelphians?’ pp 3, 6, 8.

“Convinced that this is the only Scriptural constitution of the ‘one body’, of which Jesus Christ is alone the head, and Who has no personal representative on earth, we repudiate the popular churches, and all their adjuncts, as no part thereof, and affirm that there is no salvation within the pale of any of them. For we hold that the religious opinions and sacramentalism of all orders and classes of men in ‘Christendom’ so-called are nothing more than that ‘strong delusion’ sent of God upon all mankind that they should believe a lie, that they might all be condemned. We object to the fundamental doctrines of Christendom; the religion of the churches and chapels is a negation of Bible teaching on almost all points. We hold it to be ‘the abomination of the earth’ with all dissenting names and denominations, aggregately styled ‘names of blasphemy’, of which the European body politic, symbolised by the eight-headed, scarlet-coloured beast is said to be ‘full’.”

On that basis, they could not possibly assent to the Apostles’ Creed, for that would align them with an ancient tradition which they despise and which they claim is cursed of God. Yet, technically, they could agree with it, if their interpretation of the doctrines involved was understood as the meaning. For example, the Creed expresses belief in “the resurrection of the flesh”. Christadelphians do believe that when Christ returns, they and the Jews will be resurrected with physical bodies on to the earth (but not to heaven). That, however, falls far short of orthodox Christian teaching about all the dead being resurrected.

You mentioned their repudiation of the Trinity doctrine, and here is what Roberts said about it in ‘Christianity Astray’ p 108

“A contradiction, a stultification, an impossibility.” “There were not two or three eternal persons before ‘the man Christ Jesus’, but ONE – God the Father, whose relation to the Son was afterwards exemplified in the event related by Luke (i. 35)… Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not ‘the second person’ of an eternal Trinity of Gods [sic], but the manifestation of the ONE ETERNAL CREATOR.”

Regarding Jesus Christ, Walker writes in ‘Truth About The Trinity’ p 13,

“The Father was manifest in the flesh, not a pre-existent co-eternal Son, which is impossible.”

And in ‘Constitution of the Christadelphian Ecclesia’ p 13 we read,

“That ‘Christ’s nature was immaculate’ is among the doctrines to be rejected.”

This means that although they could agree with the Creed on many points, their rejection of Christ’s pre-mortal existence, denial that he had a sinless nature when on earth etc. means that their idea of who Christ is differs vastly from the Christ of the Creed even though the Creed does not spell such details out.

The Apostles’ Creed is, on the surface, a very simple declaration of basic Christian faith, yet there are so many denominations (like the Christadelphians) who will not be aligned with it, the question, ‘Why not?’ can only be answered with, ‘Because the early Church circa A.D. 400 came up with it, and such new groups so differ from mainstream Church doctrine, they cannot be identified with that which they claim was already corrupted by then.”

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.