Wednesday, 2 July 2014
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,
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
The Teachings of Clean-Flesh a.k.a. Renuciationism
our physical nature was without (clean from) sin.
They taught sin was simply a moral problem.
They redefined "sin in the flesh" to mean "transgression".
Thus this teaching was called
"clean flesh"
by Christadelphians.
Doctrines to Be Rejected: ...
27. That there is no sin in the flesh.
...
Does anyone deny transgressions occur in the flesh? No. What then does this "doctrine to be rejected" mean if it does not refer to indwelling sin (Romans 7), that is to say the physical nature of all mortals?
(Edward Turney, Diabolism, p. 41)
What Edward Turney RenouncedPhysical Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
The Redeeming Power — Moral
In contrast, "Andrewism" was the invention of a legal condemnation which, it was argued, "locked" men in the grave. J. J. Andrew claimed (1892) that mankind was born under a legal condemnation of Adam's sin that must be removed by baptism. Thomas Williams (of The Advocate magazine) also taught this, and research suggests may have been the original source of this teaching.
J. J. Andrew claimed baptism took away this "inherited" legal condemnation of Adam's sin, thus unlocking the grave to resurrection for judgment. As J. J. Andrew's health declined he became increasingly confused in his teachings, often confusing legal, moral and physical matters, and by 1898 he equated "Adamic condemnation", or his legal condemnation of 1892 with "sin tendencies" (which arise from our physical nature and may become a moral problem through sin). By 1904 J. J. Andrew was teaching that we have a "spirit-body" following baptism. His 1904 writings are so unscriptural that some Unamended refuse to believe Andrew wrote the things he did. Careful readers will note that his latter writings frequently used legal, moral and physical issues interchangeably. This is obviously a serious mistake in logic and easily leads to doctrinal error.
Later generations of clean flesh teachers, who do not really understand this history, and who simply repeat the disinformation they've been told, portray the teaching about our physical "sin nature" as "Andrewism". The charge of "Andrewism" is regularly used by clean flesh teachers as a way to intimidate brethren into believing the error of clean flesh. Instead of doing the hard work of research, proper presentation of the history and doctrinal issues, or having to face their own doctrinal error, the charge of "Andrewism" serves as a convenient substitute for those who deny the Biblical teaching of what the "devil" of Hebrews 2:14 is — what "sin in the flesh" is.Bro. H.P. Mansfield noted the clean flesh confusion about what "Andrewism" actually is:Would clean-flesh teachers (who claim they are not clean-flesh teachers) please tell us which
"certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth"
brother H.P. Mansfield was referring to?
The answer, or lack thereof, would be most revealing...For brother Robert Roberts 1882 judgment of
J. J. Andrew's understanding of the atonement,
ten years prior to brother Andrew's doctrinal departure, 1892, click here.Jim Luke: Don't quote HP Mansfield or Robert Roberts: "men write all sorts of things..." (from the Yagoona/Enfield/Cumberland meeting)
If someone is going to accept clean flesh arguments from modern teachers,
they should know where they come from:
("Out of Darkness" by clean flesh teacher A.D.Strickler, page 74)
"perverted are those who suppose that because
God manifest in the flesh went through all these things 'for us,'
therefore he was not himself included in the entire operation"Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p 553
- Letter from June 29th, 1989. This letter was sent following a meeting which occurred shortly after the death of brother HP Mansfield. The meeting involved brethren from Australia, and England. They met with Petrie Terrace (Shield) to restore fellowship. Note that "very prominent brethren in Australia and England" had given assurances that "atonement for nature" was not only "unscriptural" but "unacceptable". Furthermore, certain Central brethren gave Petrie Terrace assurances that an "education campaign" would commence in Central. Notice that on page 1 the correspondent represents brother Roberts as teaching that Christ's sacrifice was PURELY OBEDIENCE. The arguments the Shield (clean-flesh) correspondent makes are the very arguments current clean-flesh teachers are making.
- Why Was A Man Who Committed No Sin Raised Up on A Stake? by bro. Keith Poole
- Transgressions and Sin – (PDF format1) by Stephen Genusa
- The Australian Unity Basis "Not Sufficient" — H.P. Mansfield, 1972
- "The Likeness of Sinful Flesh"
- Dispelling Confusion by John Ullman 1986
- Physical Cleansing
- What is the Cause of Mortality?
- The Tidings 1994
- The Testimony Magazine 1988
"two aspects" "sin... used in a secondary sense" "two principal acceptations" "two forms" "two classes" "a term of double import" "two principal ways" "two manifestations" "two ways" "two kinds" (HTML format) (PDF format)
- H.P. Mansfield's "What Is Sin", Logos, September 1970 (PDF format)
- The Truth Affirmed – (PDF format1) (HTML format2) by brethren Daniel Carroll and Stephen Genusa
- A 96 page book examining the errors of JJ Andrew on the doctrine of the Atonement. A thorough consideration of doctrinal errors including Resurrectional Responsibility, 'alienation' etc. Has been highly recommended to various brethren by John Martin in years past.
- "This is an excellent exposition of the doctrinal differences between Central and the Unamended and we thank you for it" -- H.D. Bartholemew (B.C.).
- "Your booklet is the clearest defense of the truth that we have seen in our generation... We need to read and reread Eureka and Elpis Israel year in and year out" -- Roy Styles (Detroit).
- The Yagoona/Enfield/Cumberland Audio Tapes (MP3 format).
- The Clean Flesh Doctrine in the Christadelphian Community (Macromedia Flash format)
- The doctrinal basis of clean flesh, and how clean flesh teachings have been modified. From David Handley and Edward Turney through modern day teachers. Discusses the foundation of E Turney's teaching and shows how H. Fry modified Turney's teaching while keeping Turney's foundation. Shows H. Fry defending J. Bell and A.D. Strickler. Fry's form of clean flesh has prevailed over Edward Turney's, A. D. Strickler's and John Bell's. Fry's clean flesh teachings have been adopted and promoted by John Hensley, Richard Stone, John Martin, John Knowles, Carl Parry, David Evans, Brian Luke, Jim Luke, Des Manser, James Mansfield, Ray Edgecombe, Peter Weller, Michael Edgecombe, and others.
- Historical chart presented at the classes outlines the history of clean-flesh/partial atonement.
- The doctrinal basis of clean flesh, and how clean flesh teachings have been modified. From David Handley and Edward Turney through modern day teachers. Discusses the foundation of E Turney's teaching and shows how H. Fry modified Turney's teaching while keeping Turney's foundation. Shows H. Fry defending J. Bell and A.D. Strickler. Fry's form of clean flesh has prevailed over Edward Turney's, A. D. Strickler's and John Bell's. Fry's clean flesh teachings have been adopted and promoted by John Hensley, Richard Stone, John Martin, John Knowles, Carl Parry, David Evans, Brian Luke, Jim Luke, Des Manser, James Mansfield, Ray Edgecombe, Peter Weller, Michael Edgecombe, and others.
- The Evolving Nature of the Clean Flesh Error (PDF format)
- "Error changes its form from age to age, but the dutiful attitude remains the same—the duty of individual repudiation and non-toleration in fellowship." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 66)
- A chart demonstrating how clean flesh has transformed itself from the time of David Handley and Edward Turney (1873) to the modern form of clean flesh.
- How words have been twisted in the attempt to appear to teach sound doctrine. Clerical error defrocked.
- Illustrative History Concerning David Handley et al. (HTML format)
- David Handley, the person who led Edward Turney to clean flesh, renounced clean flesh himself in 1881. He and others who were with him were reimmersed.
- Questions and Questions by Robert Roberts (HTML format).
- It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks: Central Christadelphian Teaching on the Atonement from 1906-1943 from the pages of The Christadelphian Magazine (PDF Format)
- John Knowles comments on a G. V. Growcott article (PDF format)
- A Letter Concerning the August 2005 Combined AB Meeting of Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully (HTML format)
- A Primer on Clean Flesh (HTML format). Also, Questions and Answers on the Atonement (HTML format).
- The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community (PDF format)
- Here are just a few examples of the doctrinal corruption occuring in the Christadelphian community. This other document partly explains why and provides a few more examples.
- "A Time to Heal": Historical Central Teaching on Christ Offering For Himself (PDF Format)
- The Tidings Magazine On Christ Offering For Himself (HTML format)
- Harry Fry, Dick Stone, John Bell, John Martin, AD Strickler (HTML format)
- A Brief Comparison of Atonement Positions (PDF format)
- One or Two Definitions of the Word Sin? (PDF format)
- Simple Questions Expose the Error of Clean Flesh (PDF format1)
- On the Nature of Man and The Sacrifice of Christ (PDF format1)
- Twelve point statement by brethren R. Roberts and HP. Mansfield.
- Letter from Graham Hill to John Martin, November 1989(PDF format1)
- Brother Graham Hill points out a number of serious problems with John Martin's book that have never been answered.
- A Very Good letter from Rene (GV) Growcott to bro. Roy Styles on Why the Phrase "Offering for Sin Nature" Should NOT be Used (PDF format1)
- The Language of clean-flesh teachers (PDF format1) (HTML format2) (updated August 1st 2001)
- How wordsmithing is being used to mislead brethren. A short "dictionary" which shows how clean-flesh teachers can use the right words or phrases and yet teach the clean-flesh doctrine (while denying that they teach clean-flesh).
- John Martin's 1970 Lecture at Cumberland, "Echoes of Past Controversy" (PDF format1) (HTML format2)
- John Martin gives an overview of the history of the clean flesh movements. John Martin endorses the Los Angeles ecclesia's 10 point unity statement as endorsed by brother John Carter in 'A Time To Heal' articles printed in the 1939 and 1940 Christadelphian magazine.
- "fifteen men representing the Central fellowship and fifteen men representing the Suffolk Street fellowship met together and found perfect agreement upon these doctrinal principles and they adopted the four negative points which the 'Time to Heal' article set out - that they would deny the doctrine of 'clean flesh' - and they adopted the six positive points which spoke of the clarity of the truth. And on the basis of rejection of error and wholehearted acceptance of truth by 1953 unity had been virtually achieved in Melbourne."
- This is the 10 point unity statement endorsed by brethren John Carter in 1939-1940 and John Martin in 1971 spoken of in the previous item.
- John Martin's 1971 Lecture at Brisbane, Queensland, "The Relationship of Jesus to His Own Sacrifice" (PDF format transcript1) (HTML format transcript2) (MP3 Audio format)
- "We’ve come here however to call a spade a spade and not a ‘digging instrument’. It’s one of the nerve centers of the controversy and it’s either got to be solved or there’s going to be problems. Now this is what I’ve been saying this afternoon, I’m going to continue to say this evening that we’ve got to come head onto the problem and we’ve got to handle this problem, and front up to it or else we are going to have a disaster. Anybody who feels that we can bury the points of controversy and cloud them over in nebulous language and have unity is a fool. Because you will never get unity on that basis. You will get union of a sorts which has got nothing to do with Divine unity and it will be that which will be destroyed at coming of our Lord Jesus Christ if it’s not destroyed by itself before his coming. Divine unity brethren and sisters is on the basis of Divine truth understood, believed, and acted upon. And upon no other basis. We have therefore to spell out in clear unmistakable terms what we believe to be the Christadelphian position. Not my opinion. The Christadelphian position on this very vital question of the Relationship of Jesus to His Own Sacrifice, and I use that term deliberately."
- "And consequently there’s no need for him to be involved in his own sacrifice and lay down his life for us… ‘he died for us’ [said in a reverential tone]. And you’ve got the substitutionary theory and you could put it in neon lights Jesus saves and join the salvation army because they believe that. And all of Paul’s epistles Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians and the majestic lofty writings of the apostle Paul and there’s no need, no need for them. Because all those lengthy explanations and expositions of lofty principles which Paul speaks about are useless. ‘He died for us’ is all we need to know."
- "The false theory says that if Jesus died for himself, here’s another twist to it, 'he died the natural death of mankind', which of course, just abrogated the law of mortality in the fact that he died. 'But in fact the physical death was only for you and I'. Now you listen to this! ‘Know ye not that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?’ We’re not just talking your own baptism as sometimes we imagine, we go down into the waters of baptism we say our old man died as if we died unto our own death. We’re not dying unto our own death at all! We’re baptized into his death. And if he wasn’t involved in that death, then you’d never be involved in his baptism. That’s Paul’s argument and what was his death? A sacrificial death and that’s what saved him and it only saves you because it first saved him, and so the apostle goes on to say, ‘therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life’."
- The source of modern clean-flesh teachers' teaching located.
- Fry's teachings made a matter of fellowship. Ecclesial Intelligence from May 1898 Christadelphian.
- The person disfellowshipped was H. Fry who later in 1923 would publish a book called Echoes of Past Controversies. This booklet is the tutorial for modern day clean-flesh teachers. The language and arguments are exactly those of the modern clean-flesh teachers.
- Another case of division over this issue appears in The Christadelphian July 1876 Ecclesial Intelligence where the PA teachers were also removed from fellowship.
- Christ Our Passover or True Christadelphian Teaching Concerning the One Great Offering (Booklet) (PDF format1) by Frank G. Jannaway
- "As opposed to the
- 'clean flesh,'
- 'free life', and
- 'substitution' heresies now rife in Australia, United States and Canada"
"The difficulty, if such it may be termed, is only apparent. Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures; it has a physical as well as a moral application." (W. H. Boulton, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 181)
For more quotes click here"Now look a little more closely at the manner in which the altar of Exodus 29:36 had to be cleansed. It was not by washing which might fittingly foreshadow baptism as you suggest, but by the shedding of blood, and that of a sin offering!... The altar was thus cleansed through the shedding of blood. Whose blood was shed to cleanse the Jesus-altar? None other than his own in spite of what the clean-flesh theorists might say."
Bro. H.P. Mansfield, The Atonement,"The Christ Altar", Logos Publications, p. 188 - Letter from the 1970's HA Twine Controversy – (HTML format2)
- Letter written in the 70's signed by Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield, Tea Tree Gully and Woodville ecclesias defending the position on the atonement as advocated in Transgressions and Sin,Theory of Partial Atonement and Conquest of Sin.
- From "Catechism of the Catholic Church", p. 175. (HTML format)
- Brother Henry Sulley on The Atonement (PDF format1)
- The Constitution of Sin from Elpis Israel (HTML format2)
- This is the section of Elpis Israel that clean-fleshers cannot fully endorse, or as in the case of others, they reinterpret it to suit their doctrinal error.
- Sacrificial Offering for Human Nature (PDF format1) (HTML format2)
- The Tidings Magazine March 1994, Reprinted Logos August 1994. The phrase "offering for human nature" is best avoided but here's Don Styles' own words not that many years ago. This is only another proof of what historical Central teaching is, "who changed" and who the modern-Babel Universal Church builders are.
- The Tidings Magazine, February 2000 Editorial (HTML format2)
- Admits and encourages the fact that a change in our understanding of the atonement is occurring:
- "Interestingly, it is our re-thinking of the atonement, by discussion in Bible schools large and small throughout the brotherhood, that has transformed the Christadelphians into (at last) an unstoppable international evangelical force. That re-thinking has involved no radical change of traditional doctrine. It is the personal theology of the doctrine of the atonement that is so exciting... It is our profound conviction that, overall, the Brotherhood is moving in a positive direction. It has never been healthier since the apostolic age. At last we are discerning the theological consequences of our doctrinal faith, and at last we are learning to love the brother and sisters in our ecclesia – the estranged, the wayward, the lost sheep, smokers, refugees, addicts, the heartbroken… those deemed to be guilty of some sexual sin, such as fornication or divorce… May the revolution continue until our Lord shall come.” (The Tidings, February 2000)
- Comments on the Enfield/Cumberland Statement on the Atonement (PDF format1)
- Enfield and Cumberland issued a Statement on the Atonement in an attempt to remove doubt about where they stood. They did the best they could to use the "right language" but read their full statement as contrasted with traditional Central teaching. They assert they do not believe in the "Clean Flesh" and "Substitutionary" theories but assertions and facts are not always synonymous. Test their statement using simple logic: If atonement is only for personal transgressions, as they plainly assert in #6, then for what did Christ offer? Certainly not for himself except in "obedience" "for us". This is what the Apostasy teaches -- ask your local clergyman.
- Class 1 (PDF format1)
- Class 2 (PDF format1)
- Class 3 (PDF format1)
| "The word ‘sin’ is used in two principal 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." (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 129) Hebrews 7:27-28 Who needeth not daily, 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. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. |
"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We do not deal in the low personalities that some regard as essential to their cause. Many whom we regard as the enemies of the truth and the advocates of error are unknown to us personally. As individuals we can have no quarrel against them. The fact that they advocate error is not proof that they do something else they should not do. On the contrary, we know some of them to be well-meaning and, apart from this agitation, well-doing men.
"Why some people are so anxious to jump into the cock-pit of personalities, as soon as their methods or opinions are questioned, is not always clear. The Scriptures are plain as to what our position in such matters should be, and we ought to be governed by them. It is a poor cause that has to be supported by attacks on the character of the opposition; and the history of such cases in connection with the Truth, proves that support of that kind is very frail and in the end deceptive." (The Truth's Warfare, May 1900, p. 6)
If the atonement controversy is only a "difference in how we express" the issues, why is it that those who do not know Andrewism from Turneyism accuse others of being "Andrewites", "Bereans," "Old Paths" &c -- that is to say they accuse their critics of holding error when it suits their argument and yet, when it suits their argument, they claim that everyone is saying the same thing using different words? You cannot have it both ways...
Did you ever notice that the people that want to dismiss quotations from Christadelphian expositors -- including John Thomas, Robert Roberts, John Carter, W.H. Boulton, H.P. Mansfield, Ron Abel or even old quotations from John Martin, Don Styles and John Hensley -- are always those who cannot reconcile the fundamental message of these quotations with their personal beliefs? They complain about a "war of quotations" which is really nothing more than an intellectually cheap way to dismiss the burden of historical evidence.
Last Update: November 27, 2010
A Primer on the Current Clean-Flesh Movement in the Central Christadelphian Community
With the passing of time a few things have become obvious to me about the controversy, and the state of the Christadelphian community.
- The atonement itself is simple. Doctrinal errors, and errorists' cunning (Ephesians 4:14) use of language are the only things that have made discussion of the topic complex. God has offered us salvation and it would seem obvious that God wants us to understand how He will save us (John 3:16) -- upon what basis He will save us (Romans 3:26).
- The present controversy has become hopelessly bogged down in arguments that divert attention away from the fundamental issue. Therefore it would help to lay out the fundamental problem and answer the question: "what is clean-flesh?".
- Simply stated, clean-flesh denies that there is "sin in the flesh". It does not deny that the death principle exists "in the flesh". In fact, clean-flesh teachers talk about 'death' to divert attention away from this:
- What is "sin in the flesh"?
- There are two acceptations or definitions of the word "sin". Sin is first transgressions (eg. Leviticus 6:2; James 4:17) and secondly it is a term applied to our physical nature (2nd Corinthians 5:21; 1st Peter 2:24).
- "Sin in the flesh" is that law in its physical constitution that inclines it to self-gratification. It is the evil animal principle which evolves transgression as well as natural corruption. It is that which has "the power of death" and personified in Hebrews 2:14 as "him".
- In other words, "sin" is first transgression. Second, "sin" is the evil animal principle of the body which evolves transgression as well as natural physical corruption which ends in death.
- How is "sin in the flesh" denied? In different ways:
- By making various arguments such as, "Romans 8:3 does not say sin-in-the-flesh" (notice the added hyphens). The added hyphens indicate sin and flesh are a single thing and therefore the comment suggests that flesh is not 'sin' (2nd definition).
- By claiming that the 2nd acceptation is "only" a metonymy. It isn't as Romans 7:23 shows. Because of the 2nd definition of the word 'sin', the flesh and blood body is sometimes spoken of as "sin" which is a metonymy. A metonymy is when you call a thing by a characteristic of the thing. In this case, 'sin' is put for 'flesh and blood'. If use of 'sin' as a metonymy made it 'not real' then something that is not real ought not be spoken of as 'sin in my members' (Romans 7:23). If it isn't real then Paul, and therefore the spirit of God, was mistaken when Paul wrote, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." If it was not real but only a figure of speech, how strange for Paul to say that this sin 'in his members' constitutes his body to be a 'body of death' (Romans 7:24) and for James to say that 'sin when it is finished bringeth forth death' (James 1:15).
- By claiming that God condemned "sin, in the flesh" (notice the added comma) -- that is, they claim that Christ condemned sin while he was mortal by not committing transgression -- or by Christ having our transgressions, somehow, symbolically 'transferred' to him -- just as the apostasy teaches. The problem here is that Romans 8:3 says that God did something the Mosaic law could not do... God condemned "sin in the flesh".
- By claiming that the 2nd acceptation of sin is "Andrewism". This accusation is made by those who, as brother HP Mansfield wrote, "do not know Andrewism when they see it, though they wax eloquent about the 'blasphemy' of certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" H.P. Mansfield,Logos, July 1971, p. 382. The suggestion that the 2nd acceptation of sin is "Andrewism" stems from the writings of Harry Fry who was disfellowshipped in 1898 for his erroneous teachings on the atonement. But his writings were redistributed in the 1980's by those who subscribe to his teachings.
- How are the same Scriptures interpreted differently?
- The 2nd acceptation of sin is denied, or they attempt to portray the second definition of 'sin' as something that is not real by hiding behind, and misusing, the word 'metonymy' and then...
- Errorists take Scriptural figures and interpret them literally. For example, Isaiah 53:6 says, "Yahweh hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Traditional Christadelphian teaching is that this is a figure. The figure is that of Yahweh laying upon Christ "the inquity of us all". The explanation of the figure is that Christ was "made flesh and blood" as common to all men -- under the physical law of sin and death. Errorists take the figure and interpret it literally: OUR actual SINS were ceremonially, or symbollically, laid upon, or imputed to Christ at his death. That makes Christ a subsitute. To believe this doctrine is to carry the mark of the beast in one's forehead (Revelation 14:9).
- Another example is 1st Peter 2:24. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Traditional Christadelphian teaching is that this is a figure. The figure is again that of Christ bearing our sins. He did this "in his body" by being made of the common flesh and blood nature which is subject to the physical law of sin and death. Errorists take the figure and interpret it literally: OUR actual SINS were ceremonially laid upon, or imputed to Christ at his death.
- Taking figures and interpreting them literally and taking the literal and interpreting them figuratively is the modus operandi of apostate Orthodox Christianity. They take, for example, the figures of the book of Revelation and interpret them literally. They take literal things, such as the kingdom of God and interpret them figuratively ("the Church"). Thus some turn to Gen 3:15, a figurative prophecy remote from the actual events and build from figurative language a chronology concerning the cleansing of Christ. Same mistake, same result.
- What is the problem with this different view of these Scriptures?
- "Lose the atonement and you've lost the atonement" (Rom 1:16; 2Co 11:4; Gal 1:6-7; Gal 3:3; Rom 10:3; Rev 22:15).
- Our basis of fellowship includes Doctrines to be Rejected #27: "That there is no sin in the flesh". Notice there is no comma in the phrase "sin in the flesh" and the statement as written would not make sense with the insertion of a comma.
- John Martin correctly claimed in 1970 that all Christadelphian doctrines can be found amongst different religious groups except one: Our teaching on the atonement -- specifically our teaching regarding Christ's nature and sacrifice. The claim that OUR actual SINS were ceremonially laid upon, or imputed to Christ at his death is Orthodox Christianity's teaching of substitution so that the one distinctive doctrine we once commonly held is now being lost. Some "Christadelphians" that subscribe to this error are intellectually honest enough to admit that this is substitution and have no problems with using the word. Can the Lord's return be much further off with such a dreadful state of things?
- Think about it: the very doctrine of "what is the devil?" is being challenged. Instead of "the devil" being the physical "flesh and blood" of man, the clean-flesh emphasis on the moral results of sin throws into question the very issue of "what is the devil" (in the personal realm). At the current pace it would take only one more generation and a majority of "Christadelphians" would be searching for a way to give meaning to the phrase "the devil"... and history tells us where it will lead. "Mater Ecclesia", Mother Church is waiting to give its deadly embrace (Rev 14:9). Church of God of Abrahamic Faith has gone through this very process. Their initial difference with the Christadelphians was immortal emmergence. But eventually, for unrelated reasons, a larger contingent in that community denied "sin in the flesh" which has lead to that larger group's recent acceptance of the apostate teaching regarding the devil.
- You can see how the two lines of thought run in this PDF chart. It will take a few minutes to download over a dialup connection.
- Where did this problem begin?
- It is instructive to go back to the beginning, to the time when this error began its most public promulgation in Christadelphia and to look at the issues as they originally appeared. If the modern day errorists teach the same thing Edward Turney taught, then despite their attempts to distance themselves from him, they are in fact in the same proverbial boat. Now, here is Edward Turney writing before he was disfellowshipped. This is the paragraph Edward Turney wrote that he later "renounced" giving name to his group, "the renuciationists". What he wrote, what he later renounced, is exactly what modern day errorists have problems with:
What Edward Turney Wrote That He Later Renounced 
Edward Turney, Diabolism, page 41PhysicalPhysical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Physical
Moral
It is worthy of note that the book Diabolism was endorsed by brother Roberts in The Christadelphian, vol 9 page 599. Brother Roberts served as one of two primary book agents in distributing the book. What Edward Turney teaches in this pre-renunciationist excerpt isoriginal Christadelphian doctrine. That to be "made sin" is to be made "identical with human nature"... "flesh and blood" or "sin's flesh". At first, Turney rightly interpreted the Scriptural language. Only a short time later he would renounce this paragraph and begin teaching the revised claims that "Jesus died for OUR SINS" -- a theme that is right in its place but when elevated above the doctrine of God being shown to be just (Rom 3:26) and God manifestation (1Ti 3:16, 1Pe 1:16), it becomes the mere refrain of humanistic Orthodox Christianity. Deny "sin in the flesh" and you are forced to adopt the teachings of the apostasy. But some latter-day "Christadelphians" would"rather take the apostacy than Paul for our guide in the matter"
- Sadly, most in the Christadelphian community neither care nor take the time to read and understand Christadelphian history. There is "nothing new under the sun" and certainly the errors that are being promoted today are old heresies (1Jo 4:3). It is sad that brethren have to repeat the errors of history (Jud 4:1) when we have the "history books" of the past generations showing what was rightly taught, what errorists taught, and how the original Christadelphian community handled errorists. Brethren are too beholden by the love of men (Phi 2:21), rather than the love of God. The price is greater than many are willing to pay (Joh 6:66). They have too much to lose (Mat 19:29) and therefore, in some cases refuse to look at the evidence (Isa 30:10). Some are too taken by union (2Ch 18:3; Jer 6:14) rather than Scriptural doctrinal unity (Rom 15:6). Too busy witnessing against the apostasy or debating with the apostasy (1Co 9:27) instead of teaching themselves basic Christadelphian doctrine first (Heb 5:12). Others are too busy with movies, football games and other gentile pleasures (1Pe 5:8). "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him" (Titus 1:16). "and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Yes, these are hard-sayings but have you never read, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts"?
- Sadly, some brethren who ought to know better (and who in fact seem to be straight themselves on the atonement) are unable to see the elastic words employed by the errorists -- though their elasticity has been documented. They therefore give aid and support to the errorists they are friends with, while the errors eat out the heart of the Christadelphian community, removing original Biblical Christadelphian teachings and substituting in their place the teachings they have acquired from, or never left with, orthodox Christianity.
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8).
For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed (Isaiah 9:16).
Type. Antitype? Selah.
For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed (Isaiah 9:16).
Type. Antitype? Selah.
Footnotes:
1 "Bro. [Richard] Stone had taken the day off in order to have a chat. He tackled me upon the sacrifice of Christ. He takes the stand adopted by the late Bro. [Harry] Fry that Christ died only for himself in the sense that the sins of his fellows were imputed to him. I told him, as is a fact, that his teaching would be looked upon as clean-flesh in Australia. He was shocked at this. I assured him that it was so, and then proceeded to question him as to why the altar had to be cleansed by blood before it could be used, why the tabernacle, and holy vessels, had so to be cleansed" (H.P. Mansfield, Logos, June 2001, p. 352).2 The duplicity of the NASU movement was demonstrated in the private mailing sent only to the Unamended community assuring Unamended brethren that the status quo of their Andrewistic beliefs were covered by the NASU statement where the two statements of faith are placed on equal footing. One answer in the mailing suggests that baptism is the basis of resurrectional responsibility -- which is exactly what Andrewism teaches. Of course the statement is carefully worded to apply to "the saints" leaving the NASU committee a very poor but convenient escape if pressed on the issue. But last I checked the Bible, the basis of resurrectional responsibility was exactly the same for the baptised and the unbaptised.
3The case is similar to that of an individual who stayed in the Unamended community (partly due to location) for many years, though the individual's beliefs were Central beliefs. The individual was given grief, accused of Clean-Flesh, by particular brethren in the Unamended meeting because the person would not accept JJ Andrew's ideas. The individual was a reader of John Thomas and Robert Roberts, not JJ Andrew. Years later the individual switched to a Central meeting and it would have seemed that the persecution was at an end. But some time later, some of the individual's accusers also joined Central, having been converted to Harry Fry's doctrine. The particular individual never changed their doctrine but was now accused of Andrewism -- by those "neither understanding what they say, nor whereof they affirm." Ignorance of doctrine or of history will be no excuse at the judgment-seat particularly when that ignorance is self-imposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)