'for himself, then for us'"

BASF - CLAUSE 8

"That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, through wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him. -1Cor 15:45; Heb 2:14-16; Rom 1:3; Heb 5:8,9; 1:9; Rom 5:19-21; Gal 4:4,5; Rom 8:3,4; Heb 2:14,15; 9:26; Gal 1:4; Heb 7:27; 5:3-7; 2:17; Rom 6:10; 6:9; Acts 13:34-37; Rev 1:18; Jno 5:21,22,26,27; 14:3; Rev 2:7; 3:21; Mat 25:21; Heb 5:9; Mk 16:16; Acts 13:38,39; Rom 3:22; Ps 2:6-9; Dan 7:13,14; Rev 11:15; Jer 23:5; Zech 14:9; Eph 1:9,10"

Most of the clauses of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith which we previously considered have a direct bearing upon one or more facets of the Atoning work of God in Christ. But this clause - perhaps more than any other - succinctly expresses many vital truths concerning both the way in the law of condemnation (brought into being by Adam's transgression) impacted upon, and was borne away by the Sacrifice of Christ. The word "condemnation" is repeatedly emphasised in it's relation to our Lord: he was "raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David"; he wore "their condemned nature", and he abrogated "the law of condemnation" "by dying". And notice the terms used; "by dying" he abrogated the law of condemnation "for himself and all who should believe and obey him". It is this latter aspect of things which is so often denied today - that the Lord died first for himself, to remove the condemnation of his own nature, in order that his offering could also be efficacious for those who believe and obey him also.

The reasoning which we are presented with from time to time, is that because the Lord bore no guilt, or accountability for the nature with which he was born, he therefore did not need to die for himself. For example, consider the following; "But as he bore no moral accountability for his mortality, he did not have to make an offering for the nature he received at birth" (Editorial, p 467 The Christadelphian, December 1993). But such is contrary to the BASF which explicitly states that precisely because of the nature he received at birth, Christ did need to die "for himself", to "abrogate" the "law of condemnation" inherently within it - that he might also save others. And more importantly, it is also contrary to the Oracles of God upon which the BASF is founded.

FOR HIMSELF THAT IT MIGHT BE FOR US

The inspired Word speaks of the Lord's offering up of himself by comparison with the Mosaic sacrificial system: "for such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily (Greek "day after day"), as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself" (Heb 7:27). The allusion here, is to the Day of Atonement when the High Priest would enter beyond the Vail once a year as the people's representative. The record in Leviticus describes how that before Aaron (or his successors) could do anything by way of atoning for the people's sins, he had to firstly offer for himself: "And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself ..." (Lev 16:11). Notice the 3-fold emphasis; there can be no doubt that under the Mosaic system, for a High Priest to appear acceptably before the Presence of the Most High, he had to firstly offer for himself.

But the writer to the Hebrews informs us that he did this "for his own sins". The High Priest under the Law was a transgressor - a sinner in his own right, and therefore himself in need of sanctification and forgiveness before he could appear acceptably before the Most High. From this, some deduce that there is therefore a difference in the antitype; that because Christ never transgressed, he needed no such sanctification, and thus his sacrifice was for one effect only, that is, for the people. So, it is claimed that "it is wrong to say that his offering was 'for himself, then for us'" (J Martin, Saved By His Life, p 48). True, the Lord's personal sinlessness is a vital difference, for without it his sacrifice itself could not have been acceptable. But that difference does not negate the Type, for the words of the Spirit are clear; that as the Aaronic High Priest would offer "first for his own sins, and then for the peoples" in the case of the Lord Jesus, he achieved both effects also: "this he did once, when he offered up himself". This he did - that is, in his single offering both effects were achieved. But how is this so?

As we have demonstrated earlier in this series, the answer lies in the fact that although the Lord committed no transgression, he nevertheless possessed the cause of sin, styled apostolically "the law of sin" or "sin in the flesh". The propensities were there - yet were never succumbed to. The presence of the diabolos or sin in the flesh of Christ was essential for him to condemn and destroy it there. And the Truth of Scripture is that he firstly needed to "abrogate" the "condemnation" placed upon the diabolic nature of man in Eden by himself taking it to the grave, where it was "Destroyed" (Heb 2:14). It had to be done in himself first, that it might ultimately be done also in others. He had to abrogate the law of condemnation in himself first in order to free others from it.

But how could such a situation be depicted in the Mosaic Law? The Law, whilst it condemned the action of sin, could never deal with the root cause. "What the law could not do... God sending his own son ... condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3). What the Law could not do, God did in Christ. And here we see a beautiful situation so often repeated in the Law of Moses - it fulfilled a necessary requirement of the current situation, yet was also a "shadow" of greater things to come in Christ. Here is the 'problem': The Law could not deal with the root cause of sin. The man enacting the role of Christ in shadow, was himself a sinner, and in need of cleansing from sin himself. How then could the Law foreshadow the two-fold operation of our Lord's offering? By the sinner having his own need met, by being cleansed first for himself, then offering for the people! So the shadowy type (the law being but a shadow, "not the very image" - Heb 10:1; of the greater things seen in Christ), both met the contemporary need for all the people - high priest included - and also foreshadowing the principles of the Atonement in Christ, where the efficacy of his offering was far "better", dealing with the very root of all iniquity, even sin in the flesh itself.

As a final point in this regard - if there is still any doubt as to whether or not the Lord Jesus required personal cleansing, or sanctification in order to provide salvation for us, let us go to his own testimony, in his prayer concerning his disciples "for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth" (Jno 17:19). As Bro Roberts so often expressed it, it was "for himself, that it might be for us".

"BY DYING"

The BASF is explicit in stating that it was through the death of Christ, that the condemnation was removed; he "was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself, and all who should believe and obey him". There is, however a train of thought currently being promulgated which states that forgiveness and salvation comes through the mortal life of Christ, not his death. This concept, invariably styled "The Theory of Partial Atonement", or the "Saved by his life theory" (after the book of the same title by Bro John Martin where the concept appears to have originated in these last days) essentially teaches that the death of Christ was a culminating act of obedience (which it undoubtedly was) - but nothing more. Denying that Sin is a fundamental "law" of the human condition (Rom 7:25), as well as an act committed, it is claimed that the only condemnation of Sin by Christ was the fact that he never transgressed. Further, since he never transgressed; and that there is no "sin in the flesh" in actuality, it is argued that Christ did not require to die for himself, to sanctify himself - the claim we have just examined.

A major flaw of this theory however, is that it essentially denies that death is the Divine condemnation of sin. The condemnation of Death was imposed upon all of humanity consequent to transgression in Eden. "By one man sin entered into the word, and death by sin; and so death passed into (Gk) all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom 5:12). "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23), for it has been Divinely decreed that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek 18:4,20). Death is the means whereby sinners are removed from the sight of God. Death is the Lord's judgement upon sin, condemning it to utter destruction - in both it's cause and effect. For when a man dies; not only is it the case that his works of iniquity cease - the very root cause in his nature; the diabolos ceases to exist also - a dead body can have no thoughts (Ps 146:4), either of sin, or righteousness. Even so it was in the case of our Lord, "through death", he 'destroyed" that having the cause of death (Heb 2:14), for he brought it to the grave - to destruction - in victory.

This is why in Scripture, by contrast with this theory, emphasis is placed on the death of Christ as the means of Redemption. In his death, sin was condemned to destruction, and therefore a means of reconciling man to God was established - the barrier of Sin having been taken away: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom 6:3); "you, that were sometimes alienated ... Yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable ..." (Col 1:22); "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb 2:9) "for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15).

Proponents of the so-called "saved by his life" theory claim (as in the case of a young brother speaking at the South Wales youth weekend at Llanmadog recently), that the efficacy of the Lord's offering lies purely in his life of obedience - and when the above passages are brought to bear on the matter, the standard reply is that "his death includes his life". Unfortunately, no passage of Scripture is ever advanced to show that death is, in fact, inclusive of life! Rather than to speak in ambiguous and inexplicable phrases, Scripture addresses the issues in crystal clarity. The Apostolic testimony is clear; reconciliation to the Father comes through the death of Christ: "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us ... If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Rom 5:10). And the 'life' spoken of here, is not the mortal life of the Lord as the advocates of the "saved by his life" theory suppose (yet give no evidence for), but as the context plainly demands, is the Immortal life of the risen Christ - the very means whereby we also might be made Immortal. As Paul declared elsewhere: "if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins... But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1Cor 15:17,20 - see context).

So it is, that in Christ the "law of condemnation" was "abrogated" in himself, as it will yet be in his brethren. The word "abrogate" signifies, "repeal, annul, abolish" (Oxford Dictionary), and a correspondent asks how it can be said that the Law of Condemnation was "repealed", yet be permitted to have it's full course in both Christ, and his brethren? If the Law is repealed in our case, we ought never die! But the point is, that we are not speaking of a Law in the sense of a written piece of legislation, but a fundamental law of our physical being - in a not dissimilar way in which we refer to the known 'laws' of the universe - apparently immutable principles which govern the way physical elements and objects behave. This physical law can be said to be "abrogated" in Christ, because whereas he was once under the dominion of death (Rom 6:9), he is no longer. He is not subject to the law of mortality any more - he is deathless; immortal. That law of condemnation has lost all power over him. And for his brethren also, they will be freed from it at his appearing - by the bestowal of Immortality, it will be repealed. Though they may once have succumbed to it, and though they will appear before the judgement throne as mortal creatures once again - that law will disappear when, in a twinkling of an eye, this mortal shall put on immortality (1Cor 15:52).

THE PERFECT OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST

Although Scripture, and therefore ourselves (especially in the light of the current distress), place emphasis upon the Death of Christ as being the means of our salvation; that must not allow us to detract in any way from the importance of his mortal life. Indeed, the BASF reflects this balance, in stating that the Lord "was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience". It was by the perfect obedience of the Lord Jesus throughout his life - his lifetime of commitment to the doing of his Father's Will that the death of Christ had any value. "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first (covenant), that he may establish the second. By the which Will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:9,10). It is by the "Will" of the Almighty, as performed by His Son, that we can be sanctified by the offering of Christ's body. His life of sinlessness was that which ensured that the grave could not hold him (Acts 2:24), which made him personally undeserving of the wages of death - and therefore entitled, by the principles of His Father's righteousness, to be raised.

Indeed, it is the life of the Lord Jesus that gives us, as his brethren a supreme example to follow, that we also might inherit the gift of everlasting life: "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously ..." (1Pet 2:21-23). And this is an aspect of things which it is so easy to neglect in all debates concerning the Atonement. Indeed, we have seen brethren grossly contradict this wonderous example by their very conduct in such debates. But whilst it is of great importance for us to try and comprehend the principles which were being worked out in our Lord's Sacrifice - we must never lose sight of the wonderful example which was laid down for us to follow, in both his life of holiness, and obedience in death. Hence the Apostles' exhortation: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought not equality with God something to be grasped; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name ..." (Phil 2:5-9). Indeed, let us do likewise.

Christopher Maddocks

attacks made against the BASF in popular (albeit heretical) Central publication called "Saved by His Life" by John Martin

Leaving "The Endeavor Magazine" this Central brother goes on to criticize attacks made against the BASF in popular (albeit heretical) Central publication called "Saved by His Life" by John Martin.   In an article entitled The BASF--It's Importance and Teaching he quotes from an editorial in a 1993 Christadelphian where it was written: "But as he bore no moral accountability for his mortality, he did not have to make an offering for the nature he received at birth (Editorial, The Christadelphian, December 1993)." We agree with most of what is written in the article by this Central brother.  The only disagreement we have is with the brother's contention that this concept, which he calls the saved by his life theory after John Martin's book, originated in that book in these last days.  In fact, John Martin's book is just evidence of a leavening which has been taking place in Central since 1923.  The leaven has now so permeated the loaf that what once was spoken only in the shadows is now proclaimed from the platform.

The teachings of John Martin have so corrupted the Central body that the last vestige of solid truth in Central, those represented by the Logos magazine, now have come face to face with the corrupting influences of the past.  Writing in 2004 about the effects of past compromises, a trio of Central brethren wrote a response to a man who has departed from true Christadelphian teachings, and who was rewriting history and criticizing as errorists, those who had separated from Central over the compromises of 1956 and 1957 which I have already described.  They wrote:

A Grave Concern:  Truth under Threat by Philip Taylor, Graeham Mansfield (Editor of the Logos Magazine,) and Keith Cook  "The letter also reveals ignorance concerning the history of reunion and the reason for the formation of the Old Paths Fellowship. That fellowship was not formed by those in Australia who retained what Brighton describes as "those unscriptural views." It was first formed in the UK by those who rejected reunion there in February 1957 and who objected to the fellowship of the Suffolk Street fellowship, [which was based on a document called the "Final Statement"--JP]  claiming that it permitted doctrinal error. The doctrine of the Atonement was not mentioned in that Reunion Statement, and in fact there was agreement on the doctrinal issues covered by the statement. The problem arose over its implementation. Reunion took place between ecclesias who accepted the statement on a majority vote which left a possibility of a minority in ecclesias who were accepted into fellowship even though they may not have been in agreement with those doctrines, and who in fact did not accept the BASF without reservation. There was no action proposed with regard to such individuals, but those who formed the Old Paths believed that they should be withdrawn from. The original separation of the Old Paths from Central was with regard to the doctrine of fellowship, as it remains to this day.

When reunion took place in Australia the following year, again it was on the basis of a majority vote within ecclesias, which again left the possibility of a minority which did not accept the Basis of Fellowship. Those who later joined the Old Paths Fellowship in Australia considered the Cooper-Carter Addendum to be a clumsy statement, and not clearly defining the BASF. They had always been part of the Temperance Hall (Central) fellowship, and saw the CCA to be inadequate, and unnecessary. Regrettably, subsequent events would appear to show that such fears were justified.

The fears of those brethren forming the Old Paths, and those brethren who at that time joined the Bereans were justified.  It could be no other way, if the Bible is true.  "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."  The leavening was inevitable, and Scripturally prophesied.  It is for all these reasons that I am a Berean Christadelphian, and that I recommend this to all others.

Saved By His (FREE) Life, by John Martin

Saved By His Life, by John Martin


The above book is causing chaos in certain parts of the world, just like Saved By His Life, by John Martin, did in the 1980's and 1990's.



Matthew Trowell's exposition contained therein is apostate, but to some extent, is worse than Saved By His Life because it is presented in a way where some of his quotes are from sound books such as Elpis Israel, Eureka etc which makes it look as though his views are the same as the pioneers.



On Sunday night, I received an email from a Central Christadelphian in the US claiming that these false ideas are taking over. I respectfully pointed out to them that Temperance Hall's failure to take decisive action in 1923 against A D Strickler, and their great desire for unity as opposed to purity in the 1940's and 1950's led to compromise statements being written which allowed them to reach a re-union position without any of the errorists changing their minds - a Pseudo agreement therefore (Cooper-Carter Addendum being an example). Error has to be withdrawn from - "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" the apostle tells us, and it has been unfortunately evident that as a result of compromise, and a failure to stand valiantly for the faith "contending earnestly", the truth has been lost in most parts of the world (or so we are told by some in the Central Community).



The brethren and sisters who come to our house every other friday are currently reading "Purifying of the Heavenly" with us. How important to have these principles firmly in our minds.



The key issue with Saved By His Life and Understanding the Atonement is that they fail to grasp that there are two acceptations of sin in the Scriptures (1) constitutional sin (in sin did my mother conceive me, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing, I was shapen in iniquity, made sin who knew no sin etc etc and (2) actual personal transgression of God's law. Matthew Trowell tries to make out that when bro Thomas used the word "principle" in relation to sin and evil in Elpis Israel, that bro Thomas was therefore not talking about anything physical. Bro Thomas could not be clearer than the following on page 127 of Elpis Israel:




Quote:

"Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus
if it had not existed there... the purpose of God was to condemn sin in the
flesh; a thing that could not have been accomplished if there were no sin
there."









Notice that Trowell also fails to grasp metonymy, quoting extensively from John Carter as opposed to bro Thomas and bro Roberts. Bro Growcott has a brilliant section on Metonymy in Purifying of the Heavenly.



Let us remember at all times that Shield in Australia in 1956 could not accept clause 5 in the BASF which refers to the physical defilement of our nature, and to achieve re-union, the Cooper-Carter Addendum was created to 'tweak' the wording of clauses 5 and 12, referring to a defiled conscience as opposed to a physically defiled nature, a tweak which fundamentally changes truth into error.



Upon reviewing Matthew Trowell's book, one soon discovers that he quotes Elpis Israel and Eureka briefly, and John Carter extensively, and that once again his focus is on Christ's life of obedience as opposed to Christ's sacrifice.



Let us stick firmly to the exposition of brethren Thomas, Roberts and Smallwood on this vital subject and be prepared to stand up and voice our disapproval of apostate teaching which leads weaker brethren and sisters away from the Truth.



Bro Steve




STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 07/02/12 #2



From Elpis Israel, bro John Thomas, 1848


Quote:


The remote cause of these "motions" is that physical principle, or quality, of the flesh, styled indwelling sin, which returns the mortal body to the dust; and that which excites the latent disposition is the law of God forbidding to do thus and so; for, "I had not known sin, but by the law".

Now, while a righteous man feels this law involuntarily at work in his members, the law of sin, or of nature within him; he also perceives there a something which condemns "the motions of sins," and suppresses them; so that they shall not impel him to do what he ought not to do.

The best of men -- and I quote Paul as an illustration of the class -- are conscious of the co-existence of these hostile principles within them.

"I find," says he, "a law that, when I would do good, evil is present with me" Yes; the principle of evil and the principle of good are the two laws which abide in the saints of God so long as they continue subject to mortality.

The reader is invited to re-peruse pages eighty-nine and ninety on the subject of these laws, as it will prevent repetition in this place.

The law of sin and death is hereditary, and derived from the federal sinner of the race; but the law of the mind is an intellectual and moral acquisition.

The law of sin pervades every particle of the flesh; but in the thinking flesh it reigns especially in the propensities.

Note that Matthew Trowell tries to make the argument in his book that the references to indwelling sin "sin that dwelleth in me" (Romans 7) relates to the mind, whereas bro Thomas' consistent teaching was that "the law of sin pervaded EVERY particle of the flesh".

The following is a quote from Bro Growcott in Purifying of the Heavenly worthy of consideration:


Quote:


The word 'sin' is used in two principle acceptations in the Scripture. It signifies in the first place 'the transgression of law'; and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust ... Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled 'sinful flesh,' that is, 'flesh full of sin'. . . Sin, I say, is a synonym* for human nature." - Elpis Israel, pages 126-127

[*Synonym: "One of two or more words having the same meaning."]



Illustrating brethren Thomas' and Roberts' robust and uncompromising use and exposition of terms scripturally applied to Christ that moderns, for "unity," shy away from or try to water down and explain away. These excerpts could be multiplied many-fold, and the quotation of a fuller context would make them even more powerful. (We suggest they all be looked up and studied). But surely these given here are sufficient to show without possibility of contradiction their consistent teaching: sound Christadelphian teaching from the beginning. A few by later writers are given to show that, in the early days at least, the same sound teaching was preserved and insisted on. It is deeply saddening that the present outlook is very different. All quotations from the Christadelphian through 1898 are by Brother Roberts personally, except where they are specifically attributed to brother Thomas





"Made Sin"-2 Cor. 5:21



"To be 'made sin' for others (2 Cor. 5:21) is to become flesh and blood."- Eureka 1:247

"Christ was 'made sin' in being born into a sin- constitution of things." Christadelphian, 1898:390

"Was Christ 'made sin'? Brother Roberts' answer: "Yes." - Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, No. 93

"Sin is a synonym for human nature ... God made him to be sin for us ... Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." - Elpis Israel, page 127

"Christ 'made sin,' though sinless, is the doctrine of God." - brother Thomas, Christadelphian, 1873: 362

"It is testified that he was 'made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21). As he was not of sinful character, this could only apply to his physical nature, drawn from the veins of Mary." - Christadelphian, 1869:83

"God sent forth Jesus in the nature of the condemned, that sin might be condemned in him. Hence, he was "made sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). - Christadelphian, 1873:402

"This perishing body is 'sin'...'Sin,' in its application to the body, stands for all its constituents and laws." - Eureka 1:248

"Was he not made sin in being made of a woman who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?" - Christadelphian, 1873:463

"He (Jesus) did no sin, but he was physically 'made sin for us who knew no sin.' He was sent forth 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' that sin might be condemned in him." - Christadelphian, 1898:343





STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 07/07/12 #3




Quote:




Extract from the book "Understanding the Atonement"

So if our understanding of how the word ‘sin’ is used in Scripture is so important, how is it used in Scripture as it relates to the work of God through the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

We must remember that it was sin or disobedience which was the cause of suffering and death coming in to the world. As a consequence of Adam’s sinning, we are now dying creatures — subject to death and prone to sin. Christ first came to deal with the root of the problem which is ‘sin’. When he returns to the Earth he will deal with its symptoms — suffering and death.

Please let the readers of this post note that bro Thomas' consistent exposition on this subject, never included the term "prone to sin" in relation to the physical nature, or the quality of the nature. He referred to it as "sin in the flesh" or "flesh full of sin". "Prone to sin" has only become popular amongst Christadelphians since the 1950's to accommodate error, especially amongst those in the Shield community in Australia. It is the same apostate exposition as that advanced by John Martin, in "Saved by his Life".

Note the words of bro Thomas in Elpis Israel below:


Quote:




This enemy within the human nature is the mind of the flesh, which is enmity against God; it is not subject to His law, neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7). The commandment of God, which is "holy, just and good," being so restrictive of the propensities, which in purely animal men display themselves with uncontrolled violence, makes them appear in their true colors. These turbulent propensities the apostle styles "sin in the flesh," of which it is full; hence, he also terms it "sinful flesh." This is human nature; and the evil in it, made so apparent by the law of God, he personifies as "pre-eminently A SINNER," (Rom. 7:12-13)

Bro Thomas could not be clearer - his understanding was that the flesh was "full of sin".


Quote:

from "Understanding the Atonement..."

It is “our iniquities” or our sins that separate us from God (Isaiah 59:2). In Colossians 1:21 Paul says that we are “alienated and enemies in our minds by wicked works”. Again, in Ephesians 4:18 Paul says that we are “alienated from the life of God through the ignorance.” It is our sinful way of thinking, or “carnal mind which is enmity against God” (Romans 8:7). We possess flesh and blood natures with an inherent tendency towards sinning. Sometimes we find that our flesh and blood natures are referred to as ‘sin’, not because flesh and blood is a ‘form’ of sin or it contains something called ‘sin’, but by the principle of metonymy where “the flesh” and “sin” are related as cause and effect.





Mr Trowell says that it is sometimes called sin, not because flesh and blood is a form of sin or it contains something called sin...". We ask the question, how could sin have been condemned in the body of Jesus if sin had not existed in his flesh?



Quote:

From Understanding the Atonement

There are many occurrences in the New Testament where this principle ofmetonymy is found and where the word ‘sin’ is put for the flesh. Here are some of those examples:



Example Number 1:

The first example is Romans 8:3 where Paul says: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Mg: ‘sin’s flesh), and for (RSV: ‘by a sacrifice for sin), condemned sin in the flesh…”

The margin in the KJV says Christ came in the likeness of ‘sin’s flesh’. In other words, the flesh and blood nature that we have now, with its tendency towards sinning, came about as a result of sin. It is the product of sin. The phrase ‘sinful flesh’ or ‘sin’s flesh’, therefore, is not referring to a literal physical substance within us called sin or the propensities within us (styled ‘sin-in-the-flesh'). It is a figure of metonymy whereby the cause of us disobeying God (our flesh) is related to its effect (our sinning).



In response to Mr Trowell's exposition, we ask the reader to note the following from the pen of Bro Roberts:


Quote:




BY BROTHER ROBERTS "Questions and Questions" Oct., 1873, pages 460-468):


9. Why was Jesus "put to death in the flesh" of Adam? Paul says it was that"through death he might destroy that having the power of death." If "that having the power of death"* was not IN HIS BODY, how could he "through death" destroy it? On the other hand, how could he be a body of the flesh of Adam without also having in himself that which was "the power of death" in it.10. You say that the body of Christ was not sinful flesh, but a "likeness" of it. In what did the likeness flesh consist, if it was not of the same sort? It is testified that he was made in the "likeness of men" (Phil. 2:8). Would you therefore say he was "not a man but a likeness of one"?


If not — if you say he was a man though Paul says he was made in the likeness —why not say he was sinful flesh, though Paul says he was sent in the likeness of it?


11. Paul says that God, sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). How could this have been done IF THERE BE NO SUCH THING AS "SIN IN THE FLESH," and if Christ was not SINFUL FLESH, but a likeness of it?


12. Moses says that Adam begat a son "in his own likeness" (Gen. 5:3). Does this mean that the son so begotten was, in any sense, of a dissimilar nature to his father? If you say No, as you are bound to, why do you contend that a "likeness of sinful flesh" is dissimilar to sinful flesh itself?




STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 07/07/12 #4



Extract from Purifying of the Heavenly, by bro GV Growcott. We whole heartedly agree with him and find his thinking in complete harmony with bro Thomas and bro Roberts.


Quote:


"METONYMY" is not an alternate to reality. It does not mean mere shadow and type. It is simply the extension of one term to include a related aspect of the same entity. To say something is called something "by metonymy" doesn't brush it away as a fact. The dictionary definition of "metonymy" is:

"The use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute, or with which it is associated."

Sin, literally and primarily, is transgression of God's law. That is the root meaning, from which others flow. The term "sin" is scripturally extended by the process called "metonymy" (extending a name to include a related thing) to include the evil, corrupt, death-bringing principle in every cell and particle of human flesh - the diabolos - that causes all diseases and death and disharmony with God: and which normally (unless there is direct Divine interference, as in the unique case of Christ) will inevitably bring forth its fruits of actual transgression.

This evil principle in the flesh is both the result of sin, and the cause of sin, and therefore the Scriptures go to the root of the matter, and give the name "sin" to it (just as they call hate, "murder"; and lust, "adultery") - and they deal with all sin as an inseparable totality.

Actual transgression, and the evil principle that Paul calls "the Law of Sin in the members," (or "Sin in the flesh," or the diabolos) - are inseparable parts of the total sin constitution that Christ came to destroy and abolish. Therefore the Scriptures, which deal with roots and realities, and not mere superficial appearances, gives the same name to all: SIN.

"Metonymy" is not a magic word to change a Yes to a No, or a fact into not a fact. It is simply a description of a process, illustrated in this case by the Scriptures grouping together everything to do with sin under the name Sin.

When you see "metonymy," just remember "another name" - that's what it means - and in this case, a scriptural, God-given name.

To say it is "metonymy," doesn't change the fact that God (the Supreme and All-Wise Authority) gave the name "SIN" to the evil principle in all human flesh.

[metonymy--the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the track for horse racing.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek metōnumia, literally ‘change of name.’]






JonDavies

Registered: 12/08/09
Posts: 48
Posted 08/26/12 #5

Steve, I would recommend contacting brother Matt directly with your comments, I'm sure he'd appreciate discussing these things in the spirit of Prov 24:9.
__________________
"that the excellency may be of God and not of us"


STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 09/04/12 #6

Hi Jon

I did send an email to a contact listed on the main site of where his book is advertised but I never got a reply.

I would recommend that everyone in the Christadelphian brotherhood re-reads Eureka, Elpis Israel, Law of Moses, Sin and Sacrifice by William Smallwood [booklet against the A D Strickler error of the 1910's and 1920's] and Purifying of the Heavenly by bro Growcott.

How many in Central today believe anti-clean flesh and anti-partial atonement views? According to several people who have written to us from Central or we know from Central are saying to us that partial atonement is now the mainstream view - do you think that is true?

When brethren publish books 'publicly' their error needs to be renounced publicly. I do intend posting more in this section in the months ahead pointing out where Matthew Trowell has gone astray. The point which angered me the most reading the first part of his book is how he misconstrues bro Thomas' writings on this vital subject leading readers to believe he is pro-pioneer in his approach and exposition, whereas his writings couldn't be further away from them.

Jon, this is Yahweh's truth we are dealing with. The apostle says that a ittle leaven leaventh the whole lump - it is so sad to see how this heresy has spread in the last 20-30 years especially. If brethren stuck fast to the writings of the Pioneers they wouldn't go astray!

Bro Steve

John Martin, following the death of H. P. Mansfield, changed his position

Question: Is the physical principle of sin or "sin in the flesh" "separate but equal" to transgression? Can they be classed in one category?

Answer:

1. Brother Thomas addresses this when he wrote “This sinful nature we inherit. It is our misfortune, not our crime, that we possess it. We are only blameworthy when, being supplied with the power of subduing it, we permit it to reign over us. This power resides in 'the testimony of God'... " (Elpis Israel, p.77). Clean flesh needs to explain how they agree with this statement because they claim that sin as metonymy is only a figure of speech. Brother Thomas says that the second acceptation of 'sin', our sinful nature is something "we possess", something we must "subdue" and something that can "reign over us". Does this sound like the work of mere metonymy? I don't see the "misfortune" if the only misfortune is to have a figure of speech applied to the body. Brother Thomas goes on to say that "We are only blameworthy when, being supplied with the power of subduing it..." — So are we supposed to subdue a figure of speech (?) or are we called to subdue desire excited by that physical principle of indwelling sin (Romans 7:23)? Is there a clean-flesh teacher has the courage to answer this question?
2. These two things, nature and transgression, are not separate in the sense that they are related as cause (flesh) and effect (transgression). But they are not synonymous and therefore "cannot be classed in one category” ("Unity Book", p. 63). The former (our nature) is our misfortune, the latter (transgression) is our crime.
3. There is an irony here in that this charge of making them "separate but equal" is a mantra of clean-flesh teachers against the genuine Christadelphian position. They claim that by applying the word "atonement" to both the body as well as moral issues that this creates some similiarity between them. Genuine Christadelphian teaching has never held such a confused and false position. Take for example these quotes:
• “the double cleansing process all believers must be the subjects of before they can attain to eternal life, but both the moral and physical purification is in virtue of the one sacrifice.” (Roberts/ Harvey, The Law of Moses, 4th ed., p. 249-250)
• “The forgiveness of personal offences is the prominent feature of the apostolic proclamation, because personal offences are the greater barrier. Nevertheless, men are mortal because of sin, quite independently of their own transgressions. Their redemption from this position is a work of mercy and forgiveness, yet a work to be effected in harmony with the righteousness of God, that He might be just while justifying those believing in the Redeemer. It is so declared (Rom. 3:26). It was not to be done by setting aside the law of sin and death, but by righteously nullifying it in one who should be authorized to offer to other men a partnership in his right, subject to required conditions (of their conformity to which, he should be appointed sole judge). (R. Roberts, The Law of Moses, The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons, 4th ed., p. 170-172)
• “The 'uncleanness' of the Lord, therefore, was physical and not moral; but ours is both… Some have aligned uncleanness only with actual transgression. Therefore, they would reason that whereas we are ‘unclean’ because of personal failure, the Lord was not. But if so, they overlook the fact that the altar, which typified Christ, had to be ‘cleansed.’” (HP Mansfield, The Atonement, The Power of the Altar, p. 186)
4. The irony is this: by making "sin in the flesh" merely a figure of the collective transgressions, which the Lord symbolically wore, or had "placed upon him" in his crucifixion (as clean flesh teaches), the clean-flesh position makes transgressions and "sin in the flesh" terms of equality and terms which can be placed in the same category: one being the thing itself (our literal sins) and the other being a mere figure of speech (for those same sins). So clean-flesh teachers really ought to be held to the standard they claim to uphold. But...
5. John Martin, following the death of H. P. Mansfield, changed his position on this point saying, "So he (the Lord) has one sort of sin and you've got two. I won't wear that" (John Martin, Yagoona A.B. meeting with Enfield/Cumberland AB February 5th 2000). Let's think about this claim and apply simple logic:

   The Lord "Had" How Many Kinds of Sin	The Lord Was Related to Sin	Logical State & Conclusion
   2 acceptations	The Lord had two kinds of sin (physical nature and transgression)	False -- no one believes this
   1 acceptation	The Lord had one sort of sin (physical) and you've got two (physical and transgression)	False -- According to John Martin but True according to John Thomas, Robert Roberts, H. P. Mansfield, Henry Sulley, W.H. Boulton and many many others.
   0 acceptations	The Lord was not personally related to sin in any way (though it is claimed that OUR transgressions were literally or symbolically imputed to him)	Ergo: John Martin is left with no other position than that the Lord didn't "have" any sort of sin and therefore his position is a claim of clean-flesh and substitutionary sacrifice. Ergo: John Martin and his supporters are in violation of 2 John 7.

• "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
6. The clean-flesh argument is that because x (transgression) <> y (sin in the flesh) that y must be only a figure of speech and therefore a non-reality; ergo x(1) + y(1) must equal 1 (forgiveness only) whereas we know that x=1 (sin, crime) and y=1 (nature, misfortune) and 1+1 = 2 acceptations of the word 'sin' and man must be cleansed morally and physically to inherit the kingdom of God and both these are by virtue of the One Offering made by Christ.

claim to have fought clean-flesh

Question: In the presentation made by Jim Luke, John Martin and Brian Luke they claim to have fought clean-flesh. Is this true?

Answer:

1. Prior to H. P. Mansfield's death the Central fellowship in Australia did fight clean flesh. But following the death of H. P. M. a new leadership arose which favor the teachings of Harry Fry, a clean flesh teacher of the early 1900's who supported A. D. Strickler and John Bell.
2. You can see the thrust of the new clean flesh movement in their misrepresentation of the controversy that arose regarding J. J. Andrew's teachings. They represent J. J. Andrew as inventing the concept of 'sin in the flesh' as being a term which describes our physical human nature.

Letter from Graham Hill to John Martin, November 1989

Graham Hill
PO BOX 725
ROCKHAMPTON QLD 4700
6th November 1989
BTO. John, Martin
7 Milner Street
PEGSPtOT SA 5082
Dear John,
Warm greetings in the Hope which we share,
The purpose of my writing at this time is because I have recently been given a copy of your book
entitled "Saved by His Life". John, I would be less than honest if I did not say that I am very
unhappy with some of the things that the book contains.
As you know, coming from Queensland as I do, we have had a constant battle in countering the
"Clean Flesh" problem there over many years, and in a number of respects your book is far from
helpful in that regard. In Rockhampton we have already had your talk at the Adelaide meeting
with Bro. Harry Tennant and Bro. Michael Ashton used against the Truth, and your Book simply
compounds our difficulties.
With the greatest respect, having examined your book, I believe that on a number of points your
exposition is wrong, and it is certainly not what I believe the Truth to be on the subject of the
Atonement.
John, I do believe that there was an element in Christ's sacrificial offering which provided the
means whereby he could be raised from the grave and given immortality. On the basis of his own
sacrifice, the Lord obtained eternal redemption. Consequently I believe that Christ offered for
himself in that his sacrificial death was a necessary element in the purification of his sin nature. I
believe that the Lord's sacrificial offering was NOT just Tor us".
Bro. Walker in the "Christadelphian" for 1921 at Page 313 said -
To say that (Christ's sacrifice) was "for us" and "not for himself is to contradict the Word of
God, AND TO TAKE A STEP AT LEAST TOWARDS THAT DOCTRINE OF THE ANTI-
CHRIST THAT DENIES THAT CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a form of
error that has persisted from the days of the apostles until now."
I am sorry to have to say John, that having reviewed your book, I believe that you have at least
taken a faltering step in the direction that Bro. Walker indicates.
Nothing indicates more clearly to me that you have taken this step, than your latest exposition of
Hebrews 7:27 which is in disagreement with expositions on the same verse provided by Bro. John
Carter, Bro. J. Thomas, Bro. Robert Roberts, Bro. H.P. Mansfield and other leading
Christadelphian expositors. The fact that you are in fundamental disagreement on the teaching of
this verse with such a group of noted brethren should sound warning bells that something is wrong.
Certainly it does that for me.
I believe that what you have done in trying to redress what you perceive to be an imbalance, has
led you into a serious state of imbalance yourself.
Again with respect, I also feel constrained to say that I am very disappointed that your book is
being distributed in circumstances where you know that respected brethren in the brotherhood are
not happy with some of the things you have been teaching on this most important subject. What
circulating the book has done, is force people like myself to say with humility, but nevertheless
openly and publicly, that I am strongly opposed to a number of things which you advance in the
book.

Page 2

2.
Such debate would have been far better kept private while the matter was sorted out, but in a
number of ways you have taken the matter into the public arena, and frankly that is a tragedy.
So John, I am very sorry to find that I am in disagreement with you, but there are a number of
things in your book which are either wrong or expressed in a way which is very misleading, and
this will bring comfort to those that are already in error, and is likely to lead others into error.
The following comments on aspects of your book are designed to respectfully do a number of things,
viz.
1. Be helpful.
2. Explain some of the difficulties which I see in your exposition.
3. Express what I understand to be the Truth on the subject.
4. Redress some of the imbalance which your book contains.
5. Show the need for the book to be withdrawn from circulation.
Some of the matters I will raise are of more significance than others. However they are expressed
in sequential order and not in order of importance.
COMMENTS ON THE BOOK "SAVED BY HIS T JFE"
PAGE 20 - THE TRANSPARENCY ENTITLED "JESUS WAS"
The second point on this transparency says that Jesus was "under the dominion of sin". I do not
believe that the Lord was ever under the dominion of SIN. Scripture says that the Lord came
under the dominion of DEATH and that is quite different from saying that he was under the domin-
ion of sin. The Lord never succumbed to sin. Sin never ever had dominion over him. It never
reigned in his life. What Romans 6:9 says is that after resurrection "DEATH hath no more
dominion over him". DEATH had dominion, but now it doesn't.
PAGE 24 - THE TRANSPARENCY - "JESUS BENEFITED BECAUSE"
I am not happy with this transparency because it is deficient in that it does not provide for the fact
that the Lord benefited because he himself "OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION" (Hebrews
9:12).
The matter is expressed in the Unity Book on a number of occasions. On page 78 of the Unity Book
it is put this way -
"He was a sufferer from the hereditary effects of sin; for these effects are physical effects.
Death is a physical law in our members implanted there through sin ages ago, and handed
down from generation to generation. Consequently, partaking our physical nature, he
partook of this, AND HTS OWN DELIVERANCE (as 'Christ the firstfruits') WAS AS
NECESSARY AS THAT OF HIS BRETHREN. In fact, if Christ had not FIRST BEEN
SAVED from death (Heb 5:7), if he had not FIRST OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION
(Heb 9:12), there would have been no hope for us, for we obtain salvation only through what
he has accomplished in himself "
Any balanced presentation of the benefits the Lord received through his death would have to
include the fact that HE OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION. Indeed this is an important
feature of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith which says in Clause 8 -
That the Lord wore our condemned nature, and that BY DYING, he abrogated the law of
condemnation FOR HIMSELF and all who should believe and obey him.
This is THE KEY feature of the Lord's benefit from his work, but with respect you appear to be at
pains to avoid it.
PAGE 25 - JESUS BENEFITED BECAUSE ....
I believe that there is a problem in the explanation provided on this page. The problem arises
because an emphasis is placed on the Lord's OBEDIENCE without linking that obedience with HIS
SACRIFICE.

Page 3

3.
This is done in the second paragraph (even though Philippians 2:8-9 is quoted) and again in the
third paragraph. It is done again at point 6 of the summary on this page.
The reason I am raising this matter is because in my experience people with 'Clean Flesh' ideas
tend to emphasize the Lord's obedience and depreciate his sacrifice. They do this because they do
not see the Lord benefiting himself BY HIS SACRIFICE. They want to divorce the Lord from his
sacrifice as much as possible.
I am sorry to have to say that this seems to be the intention of Pages 24 and 25 of your book as well.
In any event the presentation is unbalanced because the LORD'S BENEFIT FROM HIS
SACRIFICE in OBTAINING ETERNAL REDEMPTION is not even mentioned.
In Philippians 2:8 Paul emphasises that the basis upon which the Lord was cleansed physically
from his mortal nature was because of an obedience that took him "UNTO DEATH even THE
DEATH OF THE CROSS". On the basis of that death, God has highly exalted him. It is equivalent
to saying that "BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
Obedience which did not incorporate SACRIFICIAL DEATH involving the shedding of blood, would
not have provided redemption for mankind (of which the Lord was part), and in which redemption
he himself participated (Hebrews 9:12).
It is expressed on page 81 of the Unity Book this way
"As a sufferer from the effects of sin, (the Lord) had himself to be delivered from those effects;
and as the mode of deliverance was BY DEATH ON THE CROSS, that DEATH WAS FOR
HIMSELF FIRST, not for sins of his own committing, but for deliverance from the (effect of
the) sin of Adam from which he suffered in common with his brethren, and from the sins of
his brethren which were laid upon him".
Here we have a clear, unambiguous statement of how the Lord benefited from his death. The
crucial aspect in its accomplishment was an obedience that led to a SACRIFICIAL DEATH.
So John, I believe that there are two fundamental errors here in your book. Firstly the Lord's
benefit from his death in obtaining eternal REDEMPTION is totally omitted. An element in the
Lord's sacrificial death DID involve sacrifice FOR his sin-prone nature. Secondly stress is laid on
the Lord's obedience RATHER THAN ON his obedience which led to HIS SACRIFICIAL DEATH.
On the basis of that sacrifice the Lord was raised, and cleansed physically from his mortal nature.
PAGE 41 - THE PURPOSE OF GOD AND THE REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF CHRIST'S
SACRIFICE
Christ was our representative and therefore I agree that Christ should not be "separated from the
work which (he) came to perform for his brethren" (page 37). Further I have absolutely no difficulty
with the concept that "he did these things for himself that it might be for us" (page 41).
Yet in reading page 41 of your book, there seems to be a degree of imbalance. That imbalance
comes about, I think, because while acknowledging that the Lord did benefit from his sacrifice, you
again largely distance him from his sacrifice by saying that the Lord DID NOT BENEFIT on
account of his sacrifice for his sin-prone nature. That of course, I believe to be error.
Having done that you then highlight on this page the words 'our need' and 'that we might be saved'.
The problem is further compounded because while talking about the purpose of God, you OMIT to
say that God manifestation not human salvation is the purpose of the Eternal Spirit. So to my
mind there is an impression of imbalance in treating with the subject.
It was for HUMANITY (i.e. the human race) that Christ went to the cross. "God so loved THE
WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son". His sacrifice provided for the RACE of which the
Lord was part -

Page 4

4.
1. Conditional forgiveness of sins, and
2. The means whereby mortal bodies can be redeemed.
The Lord was part of the HUMANITY of which he was the REPRESENTATIVE. But the Lord did
NOT require forgiveness of sins. He was sinless. But in common with ALL HUMANITY he did
require redemption from mortality. Consequently when scripture speaks of how the Lord himself
benefited from the work which he performed FOR the HUMANITY of which he was part, it says -
1. He himself obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12).
2. He was brought from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant (Hebrews 13:20).
3. He became the firstfruits of them that sleep (1 Corinthians 15:20).
Consequently his CLEANSING OF NATURE came for him as a result of his own offering on the
basis of which he was raised from the dead. He was redeemed from the state of mortality. He was
redeemed from death which had dominion over him. This was his benefit from his work on behalf
of the humanity of which he was part. God's PURPOSE in providing him was that God might be
manifest in a multitude of the human race. What Christ did, he did so that his Father's purpose
might be accomplished in A MULTITUDE of which HE WAS THE FIRST. In this understanding of
things there is absolutely no separation of Christ from his work.
What Christ did, he did as a REPRESENTATIVE of the HUMAN RACE. "He also himself likewise
took part of the same" (Hebrews 2:14). He was thus a true and proper representative. And when
we talk about the representative nature of Christ's sacrifice we need to be clear about what we
mean. A representative is one who acts on behalf of himself AND others. The idea which lies
behind the word 'REPRESENTATIVE' is seen in the 'House of Representatives' in Australia's
political system. The laws which are made in that place by the 'Representatives' are not made just
for THEMSELVES. Nor are they made just "FOR US". They are made for ALL THE PEOPLE -
THEMSELVES INCLUDED. Nor do they make laws for themselves FIRST and THEN for us.
And in an imperfect way that illustrates the representative nature of the sacrifice of Christ.
WE ARE SAVED through the work of the Representative of the race. We do not separate him from
his work. But the fact that his work had an affect so far as he himself was concerned in that he was
redeemed FROM DEATH AND CLEANSED IN NATURE ON THE BASIS OF HIS SACRIFICIAL
OFFERING, is indisputable.
PAGE 42 TRANSPARENCY - TWO FALSE DOCTRINES THAT SEPARATE THE LORD FROM
HIS WORK-
In correctly stating the ERROR of 'Clean Flesh' in one of the boxes of the transparency you have
"Jesus - No personal sins so NOT INVOLVED IN HIS SACRIFICE".
But are not the explanations provided in your book akin to this wrong doctrine? Are you not
arguing that the Lord IS NOT INVOLVED IN HIS SACRIFICE in the way we have always
understood it in the Truth? Are you not SUBSTANTIALLY removing the Lord from his sacrifice by
statements in your book? Statements such as -
P25. "Jesus did not have to sacrifice for his sin-prone nature ...."
P41. "The fact that our Lord did benefit from his own work has also confused some
into thinking that this benefit was on account of the acceptable sacrifice
made for his sin-prone nature".
P49. "(Hebrews 7:27) is often quoted to support the contention that Jesus had to
sacrifice for his sin-prone nature " (but with this you disagree).
Bro. Roberts in the 'Christadelphian' for 1873 at Page 405 said
"Paul's statement (Heb 7:27) is that Jesus did ONCE what the typical high-priest did DAILY.
What was that? 'Offered first for his own sins and then for the people's.' It follows that there
must be a sense in which Jesus OFFERED FOR HIMSELF also, a sense which is apparent
when it is recognised that he was under ADAMIC CONDEMNATION, INHERING IN HIS
FLESH".

Page 5

5.
And again, Bro. Roberts in the 'Christadelphian' for 1895 page 262
"Christ required REDEMPTION FROM ADAMIC NATURE equally with his brethren, and
the mode of redemption which God had ordained was a perfect obedience CULMINATING IN
A SACRIFICIAL DEATH".
Bro. H.P. Mansfield in the 'Herald' "Christ's Death and your Salvation" says (Page 76, February,
1968 edition) (Page 12, July, 1988 edition)
"Jesus as a representative man, who BORE IN HIS NATURE the same flesh-promptings as
all other men but conquered them, WAS IN NEED OF REDEMPTION FROM THAT
NATURE (not for sins for he never committed any) as are all mankind. HE OBTAINED
THIS BY HIS OWN OFFERING. This is the clear teaching of Heb 13:20. Hebrews 9:12
states THAT BY HIS OFFERING he obtained eternal redemption".
Now clearly the teaching of your book is in disagreement with these quotations from Bro. Roberts
and Bro. Mansfield. And such quotations could be multiplied.
Although you may not realise it John, you have stepped away from the Truth and taken a step
towards the ideas advocated by people who believe the 'Clean Flesh' error. You have substantially
removed the Lord from his sacrifice.
PAGE 46 - TRANSPARENCY - CHRIST OUR REPRESENTATIVE
I respectfully suggest that this transparency is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it is the
transparency which people tend to take notice of and not the accompanying explanation. The
statement under Andrewism that "he did these things for himself AND for us" is ERROR. ONLY IF
understood as Andrewites understand it. The Andrewites are totally WRONG in their
understanding that "includes (Christ) in his own sacrifice, but with a SEPARATE need because his
sin-prone nature (is) regarded as ACTUAL SIN".
However, the REPRESENTATIVE nature of Christ's work DOES MEAN that "he did these things
FOR HIMSELF AND FOR US" in the way that has been explained earlier. Now certainly when
Christ went to the cross he was NOT thinking of himself. He was entirely self-less. He was intent
on doing his Father's will. He was intent on seeing God MANIFESTED in a multitude. That
involved the SALVATION of a multitude. He knew far better than we that 'God manifestation not
human salvation was the purpose of the Eternal Spirit'. And because the salvation of the race was
bound up in what was accomplished IN HIMSELF (e.g. crushing the serpent's head, breaking the
bonds of death etc.), the Pioneers are quite right when they say that "he did these things for him-
self that it might be for us".
But to understand that that which Christ did, he DID FOR HIMSELF AND US, does NOT make a
person an Andrewite. Properly understood and taking the words with their normal meaning it is
JEUE. to say that Christ did these things FOR HIMSELF AND US. Bro. Roberts affirmed in the
Andrew debate that -
Christ offered FOR HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR US (Question 716).
Christ died FOR HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR US (Question 715).
PAGES 48 AND 49 - HEBREWS 7:27
I believe that the transparency on page 48 headed "JESUS OUR REPRESENTATIVE" is wrong for
reasons that have already been explained. There is an apparent contradiction in the transparency
where under RIGHT it says "as our true representative he died FOR US" but in the circle below it
says "JESUS AND HIS BRETHREN". The circle containing the words "Jesus and his brethren" is
right but I believe the caption above it which says "As our true representative he died FOR US" to
be wrong. The inference in the caption is that there is a separation between the Lord and us in his
work.

Page 6

6.
I have no difficulty with the transparency headed HEBREWS 7:27 on page 48. But I do have
difficulty with the explanation which accompanies it on Page 49. The explanation says in
connection with Hebrews 7:27 that "this is often quoted to support the contention that Jesus had to
sacrifice for his sin-prone nature as well as for the sins of his brethren". But with this use of the
verse you now disagree.
Certainly this verse has often been used to show that the Lord was involved in his own sacrifice -
that in some way his sacrifice had an effect so far as he was concerned. He was righteous. He had
no sins. He needed no forgiveness. But he did need the redemption of his body. His nature did
need cleansing. That surely was how in TYPE, the SHADOW which was seen in the case of Aaron
offering FOR HIMSELF AND THE PEOPLE was fulfilled.
Bro. John Carter uses Hebrews 7:27 in this way. He writes in his "Letter to the Hebrews" (page 81)
as follows -
"His one sacrifice is sufficient for all time, emphatically once for all.
""Aaron offered for his own sins, and then for the people's", in his annually repeated offerings.
But 'this' Jesus did once
"THAT THERE WAS A SENSE IN WHICH HE MUST OFFER FOR HIMSELF would appear
from the fact that Aaron had so to do before he offered for the people; and Jesus is the
antitype. If it should be said that this was a necessary preparation in Aaron's case, it might
be asked, was there no necessary preparation in Christ's case? THERE WAS; and the
Scriptures give the reason. We get a clue in the words of Peter: "who his own self bare our
sins IN HIS OWN BODY on a tree" (1 Peter 2:24). He was there as a representative,
partaking of the nature that was common to all - a nature under sentence of death because of
sin. He died to declare God's righteousness, as Paul says (Rom 3:21-26); and this could not
have been done if he could not righteously have died.
"All the sacrifices of the law meet in him, INCLUDING THAT WHICH AARON OFFERED
FOR HIMSELF as well as that which he offered for the people. But all the sacrifices are
included in his one offering. All concern redemption in one phase or another; and while Jesus
is the redeemer he is so because he has obtained redemption (Heb 9:12)."
There was only ONE offering. But as Bro. Carter points out, if the antitype is to be given its proper
weight "THERE WAS A SENSE IN WHICH (THE LORD) MUST OFFER FOR HIMSELF" within
that ONE offering. The Lord's involvement in the offering is connected with the fact that the Lord
had a mortal body which needed redemption - a nature that needed cleaning. This came by his own
shed blood (Hebrews 9:12).
Other highly respected Christadelphian expositors are in agreement with Bro. Carter as to the
meaning of Hebrews 7:27, including Bro. J. Thomas, Bro. Roberts, and Bro. H.P. Mansfield.
It is with sadness and concern John, that I find you in disagreement with them. Differing on one
verse would perhaps not matter but your difference on this verse is the inevitable OUTCOME of
other more FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES which you have with them. That is the tragedy of it.
PAGES 51 TO 64 - EXCERPTS FROM THE ROBERTS/ANDREW DEBATE
The Roberts/Andrew debate is a debate which must be used with great care. It is easy to misuse it.
At the time, some of the brethren and sisters and Bro. Andrew, thought that some of Bro. Roberts'
answers were different to what he had taught on other occasions. Had Bro. Roberts changed his
mind? No he had not, as he explains in the 'Christadelphian' for 1894 at page 347, where he says -
"It is a total misapprehension on the part of the 'Advocate' to allege or suggest that we have
altered our position with regard to the sacrifice of Christ. We hold absolutely bv all we wrote
20 years ago at the time of the Renunciationist controversy .... Where it might for a moment
seem otherwise is where we refuse to consider the case of Christ apart from the race for
whose salvation he was brought into being. The reason for this is explicitly stated in answers
393 and from 706 to 724 - namely, that if THERE HAD BEEN NO HUMAN RACE to save.

Page 7

7.
there would have been no Christ; and if there had been, he would not have been in the
position he stood in as a member of that race. Even in the Renunciationist tussle, we
recognise this reasonable distinction (see article in Christadelphian for March, 1875 page 139
the very heading of which is "For himself that it might be for us"). Run through the
Christadelphian for 1874 or 1875, and you will find abundant corroboration of what we now
say. If you want particular reference, see Christadelphian 1873, pages 402-409; also 434 to
468; Christadelphian for 1874, page 139; also 140-2, and many other places too numerous for
citation."
I will refer to some of this material later.
But before that, something else needs to be said about the Roberts/Andrew debate. Firstly the
debate was not primarily about the Atonement but about resurrectional responsibility. And
secondly Bro. Roberts had to accommodate himself in his answers to Bro. Andrew's questions,
bearing in mind Bro. Andrew's wrong, technical, and peculiar understanding of things.
And Bro. Roberts makes this second point in his preface to the published debate. He says Bro.
Andrew used "inexplicit phraseology, technical terms and phrases, which are always open to more
than one construction."
This explains why care must be used in quoting Bro. Roberts answers, because unless one knows
the Andrewite doctrine (and it is not fully or adequately explained in your book), then it is easy to
be mistaken as to what Bro. Roberts is saying. Bro. Roberts is often answering bearing in mind
Bro. Andrew's problem of attributing wrong technical meanings to words.
It is also interesting to note John, that in your book you quote some 44 questions from the first
night of the debate, but only 13 from the second night. But it is on the second night that Bro.
Roberts was able to clarify some of the things which were said on the first night.
Further, you seem to use the material from the debate very selectively. In dealing with the
Representative nature of Christ's work where Bro. Roberts rightly refuses to separate the Lord
from his work, Bro. Roberts directs his readers attention to questions 393, and from 706 to 724.
(See the quotation from the 1894 Christadelphian given above). But when you deal with it you omit
questions 711, 712, 715, 716, 717, and 719.
Here are all the questions Bro. Roberts recommends if we want to understand his mind on the
matter.
Bro Andrew asks the QUESTIONS
Bro Roberts supplies the ANSWERS
Q. Why did you say that Christ did not die for himself, apart from others?
A. Because you were asking me to consider him in his individual capacity,
DETACHED FROM THE HUMAN RACE, and I refuse to consider him
in that capacity.
Q. What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place in regard to
Christ?
A. CLEANSING AND REDEEMING HIM FROM ADAMIC NATURE
UTTERLY.
Q. Shedding of his blood and raising him from the dead?
A. THE WHOLE PROCESS
Q. In relation to himself, personally APART from his position as a sin-
bearer for others?
A. You cannot take him apart from that position.
Q. Have you not taken him apart from th&t position formerly?
A. Never.

Page 8

8.
Not in the argument with Renunciationists?
That is too general a question altogether. THERE NEVER WOULD
HAVE BEEN A CHRIST IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN A SIN RACE TO
REDEEM. If he HAD BEEN BY HIMSELF, he would not have
required to die at all, IF HE HAD BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM OUR
RACE.
What do you mean by that?
I mean if he had been BY HIMSELF - A NEW ADAM - HAVING NO
CONNECTION WITH THE RACE OF ADAM FIRST; NOT MADE OUT
OF IT.
But if as a descendant of Adam, he had been the only one to whom God
granted the offer of salvation, would he not have had to die before he
could obtain that salvation?
A. I refuse to answer the question in that form because it is an impossible
'if. He was not sent for himself, but for us.
Q. Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must OFFER UP FOR
HIMSELF FOR THE PURGING OF HIS OWN SIN NATURE?
A. As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, a son of David, YES.
Q. FIRST FROM THE UNCLEANNESS OF DEATH THAT HAVING BY
HIS OWN BLOOD OBTAINED ETERNAL LIFE HIMSELF, HE
MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAVE OTHERS?
A. CERTAINLY.
Q. Then he died for himself APART FROM being a sin-bearer for others?
A. I do not admit that: I cannot separate him from his work.
Q. Was he not so separated 20 years ago to refute the free life theory?
A. Not by me, it might be by you.
Q. HOW COULD JESUS HAVE BEEN MADE FREE FROM THAT SIN
WHICH GOD LAID UPON HIM IN HIS OWN NATURE, "MADE IN
THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH," IF HE HAD NOT DIED FOR
HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR US?
A. HE COULD NOT.
Q. THEN HE OFFERED FOR HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR US?
A. OH, CERTAINLY.
Q. Is it not clear then THAT THE DEATH OF CHRIST WAS NECESSARY
TO PURIFY HIS OWN NATURE FROM THE SIN POWER?
CERTAINLY.
That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh?
No doubt of it.
And he AS THE FIRST ONE HAD TO UNDERGO PURIFICATION
THROUGH HIS SHED BLOOD AND RESURRECTION?
CERTAINLY, I HAVE NEVER CALLED THAT IN QUESTION IN THE
LEAST.
Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to shed his blood
for himself?
That is upon your impossible supposition that HE STOOD APART
FROM US, AND WAS A NEW ADAM ALTOGETHER.
I never introduced that position.
You are unfortunate in not conveying your ideas to me.
I never introduced that idea to you.
You asked me to consider him APART FROM US.
Apart from us but still a descendant of Adam.
That is my point, that you cannot separate him from the work he came
to do. THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN A CHRIST AT ALL IF IT
HAD NOT BEEN FOR THAT WORK.
John, these answers of Bro. Roberts to Bro. Andrew's questions accurately represent my mind on I
this subject. I have not the slightest quibble about any of them.
I remind you that these are the questions which AFTER THE DEBATE Bro. Roberts recommended
as representing his mind on the fact that the Lord WAS NOT SEPARATED FROM HIS WORK
720.
721.
722
723
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.

Page 9

9.
I ask you to look again at ALL the questions and answers cited above, but in particular I ask you to
note the ones you have NOT used namely 711, 712, 715, 716, 717 and 719. Are they not fatal to
your position? With great respect, I believe that they are.
Bro. Roberts' answers stand IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to the statement you make on page 41 of
your book (a point repeated on page 49) where you say -
The fact that our Lord did benefit from his own sacrifice has also confused some into thinking that
this benefit was on account of the acceptable sacrifice FOR his sin-prone nature. This is not so".
On page 63 you say that "taken on face value (the idea that) Jesus had to offer FOR his sin-prone
nature is totally unscriptural." Bro. Roberts disagrees with you. In Questions 706 to 724 Bro.
Roberts teaches that -
1. The Lord must OFFER UP HIMSELF FOR THE PURGING OF HIS SIN
NATURE.
2. THAT HE DIED FOR HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR US.
3. THAT THE LORD OFFERED FOR HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR US.
4. That the DEATH of Christ was necessary TO PURIFY HIS OWN NATURE
FROM THE SIN POWER.
5. That Christ died to undergo PURIFICATION THROUGH HIS OWN SHED
BLOOD AND RESURRECTION.
Unquestionably Bro. Roberts taught that Jesus Christ had to offer FOR his sin-prone nature. He
had to offer up himself FOR the purging of his own nature. And none of those things which Bro.
Roberts affirms separate the Lord from his work. I ask you to look again at what I have said on the
matter of REPRESENTATION in my comments concerning page 41 of your book.
With respect, John, it is you who is separating the Lord from his work.
Before leaving this topic I should briefly quote some of the material from the articles in the
'Christadelphian' which Bro. Roberts recommended to his correspondent AFTER his debate with
Bro. Andrew. Some of it has already been quoted in this letter e.g. his exposition of Hebrew 7:27.
But here is some more -
Bro. Roberts in the 'Christadelphian' for 1873 at page 405
The Son of God is thus no substitute, but the very bearer of the condemnation. Though
personally sinless, he was by constitution condemned, AND HAD THEREFORE TO OFFER
FOR HIMSELF AND HIS BRETHREN."
Bro. Roberts in the he 'Christadelphian' for 1873 at page 465
"So he died FOR US; but did he not die FOR HIMSELF ALSO? How otherwise could he have
been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in the sending him forth in the
likeness of sinful flesh? Paul says that "He that is dead is free from sin" and that" in that he
died he died unto sin once" being raised from the dead, death hath no more dominion over
him - (Rom 6:9,10). Is it not clear from this that the death of Christ was necessary TO
PURIFY HIS OWN NATURE from the sin power of death that was hereditarily in him in the
days of his flesh?"
Bro. Roberts in the 'Christadelphian' for 1873 page 468
"Paul says of Christ, "it is of NECESSITY that this man have somewhat to offer" - (Heb 8:3)
Is it not clear that your Christ is not Paul's Christ, with whom it was a necessity that he
should offer up himself, FOR THE PURGING OF HIS OWN NATURE, first, from the
uncleanness of death, THAT HAVING BY HIS OWN BLOOD OBTAINED ETERNAL
REDEMPTION (Heb 9:12), he might be able afterwards to save to the uttermost, them that
come unto God by him? - (Heb 7:25).

Page 10

10.
Now perhaps that leaves me to canvass one other question, namely -
DID CHRIST DIE FOR US?
Certainly he did. And the scriptures give abundant testimony to this fact. No one who
understands the subject of the Atonement in its fullness and in its purity should have any difficulty
in repeating Paul's words in Galatians 2:20
"I live by the faith of the Son of God WHO LOVED ME AND GAVE
HIMSELF FOR ME."
But it needs to be said again that GOD'S PURPOSE in providing the Lord Jesus Christ was that
His own mental, moral, and physical characteristics might be manifested in a multitude. GOD
MANIFESTATION not human salvation was the purpose of the Deity. In order that that purpose
might come to fruition God provided His own glorious Son so that salvation might be available TO
MANKIND.
Now that means that through God's purpose salvation has been provided in Christ FOR US. And
we are a greatly privileged people. We have the most marvellous benefits in the Truth. God has
done great things FOR US whereof we are glad.
And while the marvellous benefits that WE receive through the grace and love of God must be
freely and fully acknowledged by US, there was a METHOD or PLAN of salvation which God
instituted whereby we could be saved without God having to abandon His righteousness. It is when
we come to examine that PLAN that we see how God's righteousness was upheld in the whole
process of reconciliation. It was upheld in that God provided His only begotten son who was made
in all points like his brethren. And while the Lord was not a sinner and never therefore alienated
from his God, nevertheless as one of the human race, like us he had a body that needed redemption
- a nature that needed cleansing.
Because of that, God could justly require him to die. Because of that he was involved in the re-
demption that was provided for MANKIND through his sacrifice. That doesn't separate the Lord
from his work. That doesn't detract from his work. Rather it magnifies his work, because it
reminds us that while burdened down with mortality - while having a sin-prone body like ours - the
Lord was obedient unto death even the death of the cross. And now we are priveledged to have a
merciful and faithful high priest.
GOD MANIFESTATION NOT HUMAN SALVATION - A MISSING ELEMENT IN YOUR
EXPOSITION
So we must acknowledge the marvellous benefits we have in Christ. But the moment too much
emphasis is placed on US you will be out of balance because we are ONLY INCIDENTAL to God's
purpose TO MANIFEST HIMSELF. And, John, the subject of God manifestation is a subject which
is missing from your book. If the subject of the Atonement is looked at from man's point of view
rather than GOD'S you will get it wrong. It is that mistake that has led the churches of
Christendom astray on this subject. With respect you seem to making a similar mistake.
CONCLUSION
You will understand from what I have said John, that I feel very strongly about some aspects of
your book and the inevitable damage that the book will do.
The very best thing that could happen would be for the book to be withdrawn. I am fearful of what
will happen if it is not.
John, in view of the fact that you have taken the matter into the public arena, I want to respectfully
say, that I will be making my letter to you available to Ecclesias and brethren who I feel will be
interested in this most vital matter.
I trust that you will understand that nothing that I have said in this letter should be taken person-
ally. I am very sorry that it has been necessary for me to write this letter at all. I do not like con-
flict. I do not like having to disagree with someone of your standing in the Truth. But the Truth is
the truth, and I have a duty to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints".

Page 11

11.
I have thought for quite some time that you had started down a DIFFERENT ROAD on the subject
of the Atonement, and I blame myself for not speaking earlier, even though at that time I could not
see clearly the direction in which you were heading. I do see it now, and I believe it to be wrong,
and destructive of the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
It is my prayer that unity of thought may yet prevail on this most important subject.
Your brother in Israel's hope,