How does the “Apostolic statement” stack up against the BASF (and of course the BUSF), as to general content?

Apostolic

Birmingham Amended
Statement of Faith Statement of Faith
(ASF) (BASF)
1. The Bible The Foundation clause, Doctrine to be Rejected 1
2. God Clause I, Doc. Rej. 2
3. The Holy Spirit Clause I, DR 6, 25
4. Jesus, the Son of God II, DR 3, 28
5. Jesus, the Man VI, VIII, IX, X, DR 4, 5 (The condition of the human race – of whom Jesus was part is defined in IV and V.)
6. Sin and Death IV, V, DR 27
7. The “Soul” IV, DR 7, 8
8. “Hell” DR 8, 9
9. The Sacrifice of Christ VIII, IX, X, XII
10. The Resurrection of Christ XIII
11. The Mediatorship of Christ XIII, XIV
12. The Second Coming XIX, XX
13. Resurrection XXIV, DR 16, 17
14. Judgment XXV, DR 15
15. The Promises to Abraham XXI, XXIII, DR 10
16. The Promises to David XXII
17. The Kingdom of God XXVI through XXX, DR 12, 14, 18, 29
18. The “Devil” DR 11
19. “Satan” and “Demons” ….No equivalent….
20. Justification by Faith XI, XII, XVI, DR 22, 23, 26
21. Baptism XVI, DR 21, 30, 31
22. The One Body ….No equivalent….
23. The Breaking of Bread ….No equivalent….
24. The Jews XXI, XXII, DR 33
25. Christ’s Commandments XVI, DR 24
.No equivalent…. DR 13, 19, 20, 32, 34, 35

Certain clauses in the BASF (i.e., III, VII, XV, XVII, and XVIII) are connective only, adding no particular principles to the whole. This leaves 25 clauses plus the “Foundation” clause, most of which find plain counterparts in the comparison above. The general doctrinal coverage between the two “statements” is almost identical, with two primary exceptions:

  • The BASF has no real counterpart for the doctrine of the One Body: involving fellowship and the breaking of bread. This is, in my opinion, a major shortcoming. This lack of emphasis, historically, on the positive doctrine of fellowship may account for an unwarranted Christadelphian preoccupation with the negative aspects of “fellowship” (i.e., the exclusive aspects) and an unwarranted Christadelphian neglect of the positive (i.e., the inclusive aspects). In short, Christadelphians seem to have always been more concerned to sever fellowship ties with those who might be in error than to seek fellowship ties with those who also constitute part of the One Body.
  • The BASF is much more extensive in the area of the Kingdom of God (specifically with clauses XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, and XXX: how long the Kingdom will last, its precise form at different times, the effects of the Kingdom, and the events at the end of the thousand years). This suggests that those who rely only upon the BASF may become overly dogmatic and technical in applying fellowship standards to questions about the order, the details, and/or the times of future events.