Who is the Devil?

Hebrews 2:14  Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death,+ that is, the Devil,

Romans 6:9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. 11 Likewise also YOU: reckon yourselves to be dead indeed with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:3 For, there being an incapability on the part of the Law, while it was weak through the flesh, God, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh,

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one man many will be constituted righteous. 20 Now the Law came in beside in order that trespassing might abound.

From the Christadelphian Statement of Faith and Doctrines to be rejected:

5. That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken-a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.
Gen. 3:15-19, 22-23; 2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:2-4; Rom. 7:18-23; Gal. 5:16-17; Rom. 6:12; 7:21; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4.

6. That God, in His kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals.
Rev. 21:4; John 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 2:25; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:2; Rom. 3:26; John 1:29.

7. That He inaugurated this plan by making promises to Adam, Abraham and David, and afterwards elaborated it in greater detail through the prophets.
Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Psa. 89:34-37; 33:5; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 25:7-9; 51:1-8; Jer. 23:5.

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, though 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.
1 Cor. 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. 2:15; 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; John 5:21-22, 26-27; 14:3; Rev. 2:7; 3:21; Matt. 25:21;Heb. 5:9; Mark 16:16; Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:22; (Psa. 2:6-9; Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 11:15; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 14:9; Eph. 1:9-10) -- [Publisher's Note: These passages in parathensis must be considered together.]

9. That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God.
Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Isa. 7:14; Rom. 1:3-4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15.

10. That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifested in the flesh-yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam's transgression including the death that passed upon all men, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature.
Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:17.

11. That the message he delivered from God to his kinsmen, the Jews, was a call to repentance from every evil work, the assertion of his divine sonship and Jewish kingship; and the proclamation of the glad tidings that God would restore their kingdom through him, and accomplish all things written in the prophets.
Mark l:l5; Matt. 4:17; 5:20-48; John 10:36; 9:35; 11:27; 19:21; 1:49; Matt. 27:11-43; John 10:24-25; Matt. 19:28; 21:42-43; 23:38-39; 25:14-46; Luke 4:43; 13:27-30; 19:11-27; 22:28-30; Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44.

12. That for delivering this message, he was put to death by the Jews and Romans who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done-namely, the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, as a basis for the remission of sins. All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam's disobedient race, are forgiven. Therefore, by a figure, his blood cleanseth from sin.
Luke 19:47; 20:1-26; John 11:45-53; Acts 10:38-39; 13:26-29; 4:27-28; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:10; Rom. 3:25; Acts 13:38; 1 John 1:7; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2:24; Heb. 9:14; 7:27; 9:26-28; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 3:25; 15:8; Gal. 3:21-22; Gal. 2:21; 4:4-5; Heb. 9:15; Luke 22:20; 24:26, 46-47; Matt. 26:28.

http://www.logos.org.au/pages/BASF.html

 4. We reject that Christ was born with a “free life”. [A “free life” signifies that Christ’s nature was not under Adamic condemnation as is that of all other members of the human race, and that therefore his sacrifice was a substitute for the “lives” of others. However, he needed to obtain redemption himself in order to redeem his “brethren” — Gal 4:4; 1Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:12.]

 5.  We reject that Christ’s nature was immaculate, or that he was of a different nature from other men. [Through his birth he inherited a nature sin-affected, and destined to death, being mortal, as all others — Heb. 2:14.]

11.  We reject that the devil is a supernatural personal being. [The devil is variously manifested as that which falsely “accuses.” It is the manifestation of the ungodly characteristics of sin’s flesh, and will cease to exist when sin is ultimately destroyed — 1Pet. 5:8; Rev. 20:10.]

27. We reject that there is no sin in the flesh. [The flesh is hereditarily related to sin, caused by the transgression of Adam, the effects of which have passed upon all men, including the Lord Jesus Christ — 2Cor. 5:21.]

37. We reject that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was not required for the cleansing of his sin nature. [The Lord's sacrifice was necessary for his own redemption. His sacrifice was a public demonstration that his flesh was rightly related to death and a declaration of the righteousness of God that required the offering of his life in devotion to Him. By his sacrifice the ungodly propensities (diabolos) of his nature was destroyed (Heb. 2:14; 9:12; 7:27), thus providing for the granting of immortality.

http://www.logos.org.au/pages/Errors.html

Christ Destroys The Devil Through Death

We make the acquaintance of the abstract phase of the subject (in which all other forms of Bible diabolism have their root) in the contemplation of a statement we had occasion to quote earlier viz., that Jesus partook of the flesh and blood of his brethren "that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, THAT IS, THE DEVIL -- Heb. 2:14). The Revised Version alters this wording a little, but not the meaning. "Destroy him that had the power of death" is changed to "Bring to nought him that had (or "hath", see margin) the power..." If possible, this is stronger, for to bring to nothing is to annihilate. The statement before us is that the annihilation of the devil was achieved by the death of Christ. This was what he died for: "that through death he might bring to nothing him that had the power of death, that is, the devil". If the devil of this statement is the popular devil, how are we to understand it ? Did the death of Christ accomplish the annihilation of the devil? If so, how? How could being killed by the devil kill the devil? And how if he killed the devil, can the devil in that case be still alive; and how are we to understand the devil having the power of death in view of the fact that the power of death rests with God, and with God only, who inflicts it at His pleasure? (Deut. 32:39).

Whichever way the statement is considered, it cannot be made to yield an intelligible idea if we attach the popular meaning to the word "devil". There must be another meaning. There is another meaning.

Sin and Death

We begin to find it in the consideration of other statements as to what was accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ. We cannot do better than calmly look at a number of these statements:

"He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:26).

"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3).

"He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities" (Isa. 53:5).

"His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24).

"He was manifested to take away our sins" (1 John 3:5).

"Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all

iniquity" (Titus 2:13, 14).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this

present evil world" (Gal. 1:3, 4).

"This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

(Matt. 26:28).

"Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood" (Rev. 5:9).

These are divinely inspired definitions of the result achieved by the death of Christ. Who can read them without perceiving that the work accomplished was a work in relation to men themselves, and that the thing destroyed in the death of Christ was sin? It is of the highest importance that we should here seek to realize how this result was accomplished. We cannot become enlightened in this matter except by considering the history of sin. This is a very important history in relation to our race, though made light of by most men. It is told very briefly by Paul, whose words are the utterance of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:12). He says, "By one

man sin entered into the world, and death by sin". He is referring to Adam's disobedience at the beginning. How death came "by" this disobedience is very plain in the reading of the divine narrative in Genesis. Adam having been created in a good and happy state, it was said to him that he should abstain from eating of a certain tree, with this intimation: "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17). In the course of time he broke the command; he did what he was told not to do; he disobeyed, and this was sin; for sin and disobedience (in their primary sense) are interchangeable terms. It is the consequence we have to consider: sentence of death was passed: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19). This sentence took effect upon Adam's nature, and became a law or quality of it, which was henceforth "corruptible" and "mortal". His nature became physically a dying nature, and therefore a death-nature, because of sin. Afterwards, children were born to Adam with the result of multiplying men who, having his nature, had also the "sentence of death in themselves" ( 1 Cor. 1: 9), which came originally by Adam's sin, and who in their moral manifestations revealed the effects of their inheritance.

Now God purposed in Himself to bring good out of this sore evil. He purposed to bring the human race back into harmony with Himself (not every individual of it—comparatively few individuals of it—but ultimately the entire race as a race). He purposed to abolish death and to bring life and immortality to light (2 Tim. 1:10). But how was this to be done? Sin had brought death and sin reigned. It was to be done by putting away sin—by not imputing sin—by forgiving sin. But was this to be done in an arbitrary manner without ceremony or condition ? Was it to be forgiven in the way a man might suddenly forgive a debt owing by a friend? The death of Christ (prefigured by a long established ritual of sacrifice is the answer. Forgiveness was to be offered in a way that secured the recognition of justice—the humiliation of man and the exaltation of God. It was to be made conditional upon a recognition and submission to what was

accomplished in Christ. "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:38).

But let us pause for a moment to consider what was accomplished in him. The orthodox doctrine of the death of Christ creates great difficulty and confusion here. It proclaims the death of Christ as a payment of debts due by others—a suffering of punishment that ought to have been inflicted on others. If this be the case, there is an obliteration of the doctrine of forgiveness; for debts cannot be said to be forgiven that have been satisfied. And there is no explanation of the fact that believers die. If Christ died instead of them, believers ought not to die. And there is then confusion caused in our conceptions of the moral government of God by the idea that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty, as was certainly the case if Christ suffered a punishment which was due to us and not due to him.

The difficulty is removed if we contemplate Christ as a partaker of the death-stricken flesh and blood of Adam's race which died in him. That he is so to be contemplated is evident from the apostolic declaration that he was made in all things like unto his brethren, and that he partook of their precise nature that he might destroy death in it conformably with the moral requirements involved (Heb. 2:14-17). When we look at Christ thus as partaking of our death stricken-nature, we are able to comprehend in what way his death was fitted "to declare the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:25). In the days of his flesh (Heb. 5:7) which were days of "weakness" (2 Cor. 13:4) he was a man suffering with all his brethren the effects that came by Adam's sin. It was on our account still, as a matter of fact, that "he was made sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); made of a woman (Gal. 4:4); "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3); "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). Consequently, when he died, "he died unto sin"(Rom. 6:10): sin was condemned in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). The righteousness of God was declared (Rom. 3:23).

But in his own character, he was absolutely sinless, due to the fact, that though the Son of David through Mary, he was the Son of God by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). In this, his perfect obedience (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8), he was the spotless Lamb of God.Without this, his offering for sin would have been of no avail, for dying, he would have remained dead. It was in his resurrection to life immortal, after the suffering of death, that lay the great victory of the scheme in him. Without his resurrection, his death would have been in vain (1 Cor. 15:17), and without sinlessness, his resurrection would have been impossible.

Without sinlessness he would have been in the position of Adam's race whom he came to redeem with himself, for he also participated in the redemption wrought out in himself (Heb. 9:12, R.V. ; 5 :9).

When we look at the Son of God after his resurrection, free from all further dominion of death (Rom. 6:9), we look at a Son of Abraham in whom the power of sin has been destroyed—its moral power overcome, for he was tempted as we all are (Heb. 4:15), but overcame (John 16:33; Rev. 3:21); its hereditary claims extinguished in death ("body of sin destroyed", Rom. 6:6); and its physical hold on human nature obliterated and destroyed by a resurrection to eternal life and glory. We look at a representative of the race—God's own work—God's own Son—in whom the relation between God and man has been rectified; in whom the calamity of Eden has been repaired. But as we look, we see that so far this result is limited to himself. He only is delivered: he only has obtained eternal redemption. But is it the purpose of God to extend the

glorious result to many others? It was with this purpose He raised up such a saviour. It but remains to glance for a moment at the principle on which the result is extended. It is all "through this man" (Acts 13:38). "There is non other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). God offers to all who believe and obey him (putting on his name in baptism, and observing all things that he has commanded—Acts 2:38; Matt. 28:20) the forgiveness of their sins for his sake (Eph. 4:32) and eternal life by his hand at his coming manifestation in the earth in power and great glory.

The Meaning Of The Word "Devil"

In all this we may seem to have wandered far from the subject of the evil one, but it is not so.

We cannot speak of the result of the sacrificial work of Christ, without speaking of the devil, though we may not mention his name, because the object of that work, in scriptural language, was, as we have seen, to destroy the devil and his works. What is manifest is that sin and the devil are in their radical relations equivalent terms. What we have to consider is, how it comes that sin in the abstract should be spoken of and personified as the "devil". The answer is to be apprehended in view of the meaning of the word. It is a common noun, such as enemy, liar, thief, etc. This would be seen if the word were translated. Strictly speaking, it is not translated, but lifted out nearly unchanged from the Greek and set down into English. In one or two cases it is translated, such as in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be

slanderers (the word in the original is the word elsewhere rendered Devil). Here we get a peep at the real meaning of the word as given to us by Parkhurst in his Lexicon, where he tells us that diabolos (the word translated devil) is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. "The Devil" therefore, for purposes of understanding, is best to be read in English as The Liar, The Slanderer, or The Accuser; and then the way lies open to ask, Why sin should be personified as a liar, a slanderer? The answer to this will be seen in the nature of sin. It is the doing of that which God has forbidden, not because God has forbidden it, but because gratification or advantage will come of it. When Adam disobeyed in the garden of Eden, it was not from a bad motive, as mentalk; it was from a conviction that the forbidden tree was good, and would open his eyes and make him wise. So the narrative informed us in Eve's case (Gen. 3:6). A man may not commit sin from sheer wickedness, but to get some good for himself. The good he seeks cannot come of it. Hence, sin universally is a lie, and, when personified, is a liar. It is also a slanderer, and a slanderer of God. It so to speak presents itself to its victim, and says, "Listen to me; do as I tell you and you shall have great enjoyment and benefit. God is unkind in putting restrictions upon you: He keeps you from much happiness. Life and joy are in my ways and not in His". Thus it slanders God and utters falsehood to the ruin of those who listen; for destruction and misery are in the ways of sin; and the highest joy and purest well-being are connected with that loving submission to God in which we are exercised in the keeping of His commandments.

Sin, as the great deceiver of mankind, is there well spoken of as the Liar, the Accuser, the Slanderer of God—alias the Devil. In its literal aspect, it is, of course, an impersonal thing, tempting without being a conscious tempter, as expressed by James. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed; then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death" (James 1:14)

An Evil Heart

There is another case where the sinful action of the human heart is described as the inspiration of "Satan" (Acts 5:3). Ananias and Sapphira went into the presence of the apostles with a lie on their lips; Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" The meaning of Satan filling the heart crops out in the next sentence but one; "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?" (verse 4); also in Peter's address to Sapphira who came in three hours after Ananias. Peter saidunto her, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" (verse 9). But supposing we had not been thus informed that the lie of Ananias was due to a compact with his wife, from selfish motives, to misrepresent the extent of their property, we should have had no difficulty in understanding that Satan filling the heart was the impulse of the flesh, which is the great Satan or Adversary, moving him to the particular line of action which evoked Peter's rebuke.

As we have seen, James defines sin as the outcome of a man's own lust. Hence, the action of lust in the mind is the action of the New Testament Satan, or Adversary. All sin proceeds from the desires of the flesh. This is declared in various forms of speech in the Scriptures, and agrees with the experience of every man.

Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies . . . (Matt. 15 :19).

The carnal mind is enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7).

Now the works of flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like (Gal. 5:19, 21).

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life . . . is of the world (1 John 2 :16).

Sin Personified

Christ, through death, destroyed the Bible devil. He certainly did not destroy the popular devil in his death, for that devil is supposed to be still at large; but in his own person, as a representative man, he extinguished the power of sin by surrendering to its full consequences, and then escaping by resurrection, through the power of his holiness, to live for evermore. This is described as "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death.

This is the devil having the power of death, as the following testimonies show:

By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin (Rom. 5:12).

By man came death (1 Cor. 15:21).

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Sin hath reigned unto death (Rom. 5:21). Sin bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:15).

The sting of death is sin (1 Cor. 15:56).

Having regard to the fact that death was divinely decreed in the garden of Eden, in consequence of Adam's transgression, it is easy to understand the language which recognizes and personifies transgression, or sin, as the power or cause of death. The foregoing statements express the literal truth metonymically. Actually, death, as the consequence of sin, is produced, caused, or inflicted by God, but since sin or transgression is the fact or principle that moves God to inflict it, sin is put forward as the first cause in the matter. This is intelligible: but what has a personal devil to do with it? He is excluded. There is no place for him. And if he is forced into the arrangement, the result is to change the moral situation, alter the scheme of salvation, andproduce confusion: for if the power of death lies with a personal power of evil, separate from, and independent of man, and not in man's own sinfulness, then the operations of Christ are transferred from the arena of moral conflict to that of physical strife, and the whole scheme of divine interposition through him is degraded to a level with the Pagan mythologies, in which gods, good and bad, are represented to be in murderous physical hostility for the accomplishment of their several ends. God is thus brought down from His position of supremacy, and placed on a footing with the forces of His own creation.

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07satan/the_evil_one.pdf

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 colours. 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.7:12,13,17,18). This is the accuser, adversary, and calumniator of God, whose stronghold is the flesh. It is the devil and satan within the human nature; so that "when a man is tempted, he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed". If a man examine himself, he will perceive within him something at work, craving after things which the law of God forbids. The best of men are conscious of this enemy within them. It troubled the apostle so much, that he exclaimed, "0, wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death" (Rom. 7:24), or, this mortal body? He thanked God that the Lord Jesus Christ would do it; that is, as he had himself been delivered from it, by God raising him from the dead by His Spirit (Rom. 8:11).

Human nature, or "sinful flesh", has three principal channels through which it displays its waywardness against the law of God. These are expressed by "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life". All that is in the world stands related to these points of our nature; and there is no temptation that can be devised, but what assails it in one, or more, of these three particulars. The world without is the seducer, which finds in all animal men, unsubdued by the law and testimony of God, a sympathizing and friendly principle, ready at all times to eat of its forbidden fruit. 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" believed; so that we "are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (1 Pet. 1:5). This testimony ought to dwell in us as it dwelt in the Lord Jesus; so that, as with the shield of faith, the fiery assaults of the world may be quenched (Eph. 6:16) by a "thus it is written", and a "thus saith the Lord".

The kingdom of Satan is manifested under various phases. When the Word was embodied in sinful flesh, and dwelt among the Jews, the Kosmos was constituted of the Roman world, which was then based upon the institutions of paganism. After these were suppressed, the kingdom of the adversary assumed the Constantinian form, which was subsequently changed in the west to the Papal and Protestant order of things; and in the east to the Mohammedan. These phases, however, no more affect the nature of the kingdom than the changes of the moon alter her substance. The lord that dominates over them all from the days of Jesus to the present time is SIN, the incarnate accuser and adversary of the law of God, and therefore styled "the Devil and Satan".

http://www.christadelphia.org/books/elpis03.htm

The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, "the transgression of the 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. It is that in the flesh "which has the power of death" and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled "sinful flesh," that is, "flesh full of sin"; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh "dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:17,18); and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him. Operating upon the brain, it excites the "propensities", and these set the "intellect" and "sentiments" to work. The propensities are blind, and so are the intellect and sentiments in a purely natural state; when therefore, the latter operate under the sole impulse of the propensities, "the understanding is darkened through ignorance, because of the blindness of the heart" (Eph. 4:18). The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing.

Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written, "How can he be clean who is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." (Job 14:4) "What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Behold, God putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water?" (Job 15:14-16) This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, "God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); and this he explains in another place by saying, that "He sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3) in the offering of his body once (Heb. 10:10,12,14). Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and "not one" can bring a clean body out of a defiled body; for "that", says Jesus himself, "which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6).
According to this physical law, the Seed of the woman was born into the world. The nature of Mary was as unclean as that of other women; and therefore could give birth only to "a body" like her own, though especially "prepared of God" (Heb. 10:5). Had Mary's nature been immaculate, as her idolatrous worshippers contend, an immaculate body would have been born of her; which, therefore, would not have answered the purpose of God; which was to condemn sin in the flesh; a thing that could not have been accomplished, if there were no sin there.
Speaking of the conception and preparation of the Seed, the prophet as a typical person, says, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). This is nothing more than affirming that he was born of sinful flesh; and not of the pure and incorruptible angelic nature.
Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin; especially as he was himself "innocent of the great transgression", having been obedient in all things. Appearing in the nature of the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16-18), he was subject to all the emotions by which we are troubled; so that he was enabled to sympathize with our infirmities (Heb. 4:15), being "made in all things like unto his brethren". But, when he was "born of the Spirit", in the quickening of his mortal body by the spirit (Rom. 8:11), he became a spirit; for "that which is born of the spirit is spirit". Hence, he is "the Lord the Spirit", incorruptible flesh and bones.
Sin in the flesh is hereditary; and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam's violation of the Eden law. The "original sin" was such as I have shown in previous pages. Adam and Eve committed it; and their posterity are suffering the consequence of it. The tribe of Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec many years before Levi was born. The apostle says, "Levi, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham". Upon the same federal principle, all mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, being in the loins of Adam when he transgressed. This is the only way men can by any possibility be guilty of the original sin. Because they sinned in Adam, therefore they return to the dust from which Adam came -- says the apostle, "in whom all sinned". [This marginal reading of the A.V. cannot be sustained. The Revised Version has struck it out.] There is much foolishness spoken and written about "original sin". Infants are made the subjects of a religious ceremony to regenerate them because of original sin; on account of which, acoording to Geneva philosophy they are liable to the flames of hell for ever! If original sin, which is in fact sin in the flesh, were neutralized, then all "baptismally regenerated" babes ought to live for ever, as Adam would have done had he eaten of the Tree of Life after he had sinned. But they die; which is a proof that the "regeneration" does not "cure their souls"; and is, therefore, mere theological quackery.
Mankind being born of the flesh, and of the will of man, are born into the world under the constitution of sin. That is, they are the natural born citizens of Satan's kingdom. By their fleshly birth, they are entitled to all that sincan impart to them. What creates the distinction of bodies politic among the sons of Adam? It is constitution, or covenant. By constitution, then, one man is English, and another American. The former is British because he is born of the flesh under the British constitution. In this case, he is worthy of neither praise nor blame. He was made subject to the constitution, not willingly, but by reason of them who chose that he should be born under it. But when he comes of age, the same man may become an American. He may put off the old man of the political flesh, and put on the new man, which is created by the constitution of the United States; so that by constitution, he becomes an American in every particular but the accident of birth. This will be exact enough to illustrate what I am about to say.

http://www.christadelphia.org/books/elpis04.htm

Note: The Stockport Christadelphians have renounced this teaching they mentally abused me and disfellowshipped me for speaking out against their false doctrine which is called the clean flesh teaching. Many other christadelphians also have renounced the truth or they have not been given the chance to hear the truth

For more information see this link The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjbGVhbmZsZXNodGhlcGFydGlhbGF0b25lbWVudHxneDoyYmQ1NjY3MGJhMzgzMw

'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