 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
Questions and Answers
Regarding the Atonement
and Resurrectional ResponsibilityBecause "Truth requires few words, but refutation of all the errors put forth in the name of truth, a vast multitude."
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:25-26)
- Why do you believe the subject of the atonement deserves so much attention?
- Is the atonement complicated?
- What are the important principles of the atonement? (under development)
- Debate over the atonement has waged for too many years. It's negative. Let's preach positive doctrines.
- Can we discuss the atonement using only Bible words and Bible phrases?
- Is it necessary to quote from the writings of John Thomas, Robert Roberts and others? Isn't this just 'man-worship'?
- Why did Robert Roberts say, "Blood shedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin"
- Robert Roberts wrote, "The phrase 'sin in the flesh' is metonymical. It is not expressive of a literal element or principle pervading the physical organization." This quote proves you teach something different.
- Is it true, as it has been asserted, that Robert Roberts taught "Since Christ had no personal sins to atone for, he had nothing to atone for in his own sacrifice"
- What does the term 'mortal' mean?
Are mortality and immortality exact opposites?
- What is the relationship between 'sin' and 'death'?
- Is 'death' a uniquely active principle in the flesh which is the cause of mortality?
- Are the lower animals under sin and death? What about the rest of the creation?
- What is the law of sin and death?
- What about the word 'implanted' and who put the law of sin and death in Adam's body? Did Yahweh or Adam?
- Does our 'sinful physical nature' need forgiveness?
- What does the phrase 'Adamic Condemnation' mean?
- What are the propensities and lusts and are they equivalent to the diabolos?
- Where do the terms "clean flesh", "renunciationism" and "partial atonement" come from?
- What is the premise of "clean flesh" teaching? What are the consequences of "clean flesh" teaching?
- Is it true that prior to J. J. Andrew Christadelphians believed that baptism was "just for forgiveness of sins"?
- Is it true that J. J. Andrew came up with the idea that "We are condemned because of [our] sinful nature inherited from Adam, and not from our personal sins alone?"
- What is 'the law of condemnation' mentioned in clause 8 of the Statement of Faith?
- What is the difference between the 'brain' and the 'mind'?
- Brother Roberts said that Christ "ceremonially condemned sin". What does that mean?
- Is "the law of sin and death" equivalent to "the Law of Moses"?
- Does Judaism teach anything similiar to Christadelphian teachings on the nature of man?
- Is there a commonality between Unamended teaching and clean flesh?
- Do you believe the doctrine of "total depravity" is a Biblical doctrine?
- Why do you believe the subject of the enlightened rejecter deserves any attention?
- Is there only one resurrection?
- Do the Amended believe that Jews had to offer sacrifice or be circumcised to come under Divine covenant?
- When does a person receive the 'call' from God to submit?
- 'How much knowledge' makes a person liable to the judgment seat?
- Is it true that in regards to the enlightened rejecter that "two opposing ideas existed for a long time" and that it was "not thought to be a first principle"?
- Is it true that the enlightened rejecter was an "open question" till Birmingham Amended their Statement of Faith?
- When was the enlightened rejecter made a test of fellowship? Was it 1898 as I have been told, and as it appears by the amendment made in 1898?
- With the 1898 amendment, why were "none of the supporting verses... changed for the amendment."?
- Is it true that just 6 or 10 years after brother Thomas' death 'most Christadelphians did not believe in the enlightened rejecter'?
- Is it true that during the conflict with J. J. Andrew that Robert Roberts "went much too far in changing his positions in order to support the enlightened rejecter idea, and went into error on such subjects as the nature of man, the nature and sacrifice of Christ, atonement, the purpose of baptism"?
- Is it true, as it has been asserted that "In 1898, while Robert Roberts was traveling in Australia, the Birmingham ecclesia officially amended their statement"?
- Why do the Amended not use the term 'alienation' in regards to the condition that exists between God and man in relation to man's physical nature?
- Is there a legal change that occurs between a man and God at baptism?
- Brother Roberts said "our sonship at this stage is only legal and probationary". Why do the Amended tend to avoid the use of the word 'legal' in discussing our relationship to Yahweh and His Christ? What is the history of the phrase "out of Adam"?
- Brother Roberts wrote "Christ having died and risen, those who have identified themselves with the condemnation that has been accomplished in him (in being baptized into his death,) do not need to die so far as the mind of God towards them is required, but die only because the time has not arrived for the change of their physical constitution" (The Christadelphian, 1876, p. 43). Is this saying that because of baptism we are uncondemned by law?
- How do the Amended understand Romans 8:1-2?
- Unamended Claim: "J. J. Andrew taught the truth most of his life."
- Unamended Claim: "J. J. Andrew was not publishing The Sanctuary Keeper when he developed the wrong ideas he held as expressed in his last booklet Christ's Death Resurrection and Intercession..."
- Where did J. J. Andrew go wrong in expressing his ideas?
- What is the difference in "God will not raise the enlightened rejecter" and "God cannot raise the enlightened rejecter"
- Why did J. J. Andrew insist that Adamic condemnation had to be removed at baptism for the grave to be 'unlocked'? Why did he require a person to be associated with the blood of Christ before the grave could be 'unlocked'?
- Was the Mosaic Law a shadow?
- Was the Law of Moses a comparison or a contrast to the work of Christ?
- How do we know the Lord Jesus offered for himself? Is this just speculation or do we have direct testimony?
- What role did obedience play in the offering of the Lord? What role did sacrifice play in the offering of the Lord?
- Did early Christadelphians use the word "cleanse" in relation to the human body and a change from mortality to immortality?
- You have claimed J. J. Andrew didn't get everything wrong. OR I think his understanding of the atonement was always wrong.
- H. P. Mansfield said, " ‘Sin in the Flesh’ cannot be atoned for, reconciled to God, or redeemed”. I agree with this and do not believe that 'sin in the flesh' requires atonement or redemption.
- Those you accuse of teaching "substitution" repeatedly say that the Lord's offering was a "representative offering".
- Those you accuse of teaching clean flesh admit that Christ was involved in his own sacrifice. How then can they teach clean flesh?
- What proof do you have that clean flesh is being taught?
- The Australian Unity Book doesn't support what you teach. Nowhere does the AUB teach that we require a cleansing of our nature.
- In the presentation made by Jim Luke, John Martin and Brian Luke they claim to have fought clean-flesh. Is this true?
- Brother John Thomas said 'sin' was a synonym for human nature. I think this was a slip of the pen. Brother Roberts called it a metonym. That's what I believe. Sin being a synonym of flesh is an old heresy that we separated from when the Bereans and Old Paths left us.
- Is the physical principle of sin or "sin in the flesh" "separate but equal" to transgression? Can they be classed in one category?
- What is 'metonymy'?
- Paul says "the body of sin" must be destroyed. You say the body requires atonement. How do you reconcile Paul's statement with your beliefs?
- When do we receive the "covering" you speak of, or atonement?
- What is "atonement for nature"?
- What is meant by the phrase "sinful nature"?
- Robert Roberts wrote, and it's quoted by John Carter, "A disregard of metonymy and ellipsis in such statements, has led to most of the errors of the apostasy; and is leading some back to them who had escaped." What was the context of this statement?
- H. P. Mansfield wrote, "There is no such thing as a physical substance called ‘sin’ in man, but the lusts of the flesh." What was he saying?
- If clean flesh is really being taught in Central, why don't leading brethren deal with it?
Summary of Amended Definitions
Personal Questions
General Questions
Question: Why do you believe the subject of the atonement deserves so much attention?
Answer:
- Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest... (this verse points forward to what His Christ would ultimately accomplish and not merely the birth of the Messiah)
- Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth (future fulfillment)
- Psalm 96:11 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fullness thereof. {the fullness..: or, all it containeth} 12 Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice 13 Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth. (future fulfillment)
- Psalm 148:2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. 3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. 4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.. 7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: 8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word: 9 Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: 10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: {flying...: Heb. birds of wing} 11 Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth: 12 Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children: 13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven. (future fulfillment)
- Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (future fulfillment)
- The first and most wide reaching principle is the condemnation of sin. The condemnation of sin is so pervasive in God's plan (for man was the rebel) that it was to be the basis upon which God acted through the sacrifice of His Son (Rom. 8:3). Circumcision, cutting off 'the flesh' typified what God requires of all His children: moral circumcision and sacrifice.
- The second principle is salvation -- which, as we just noted, comes through the condemnation of sin. We can look back at the work of Christ as an example of what God is doing. Looking at the life, death and resurrection of Christ brings the principles of atonement alive as he is a practical demonstration of what God is doing. Christ is the first fruits and therefore others, we hope to be included in that group, will follow the same pattern. Romans 3:25-26 makes a very important statement regarding Christ. It says that God has set forth Christ "to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Notice that twice we are told that Christ declared God's righteousness. Why is this emphasized? To impress upon our minds that in the death of Christ is to be found the declaration of God's righteousness. Notice also that it plainly says that He might be just (shown to be right) and the justifier (the one who shows another to be right) of those that believe in His Son. And further we are told, that the remission of sins comes through the forbearance of God. Forgiveness is forbearance, or the overlooking of sins. If, as some claim, our actual transgressions were laid upon Christ at his crucifixion then why do we need the forbearance, or forgiveness, of God? To say our transgressions were literally laid upon Christ is to join the harlot Church (Rev 17:5) in teaching substitution, and is a demonstration of receiving the mark of the apostasy in the forehead (Revelation 14:9).
Question: Is the atonement complicated?
Answer:
No. The principles of the atonement are simple -- the implications though are profound. Two things have made the study of it more complicated:
- Unscriptural ideas, which are natural to the thinking of the flesh, are introduced and therefore have to be dealt with in the course of studying the subject. As one brother wrote, "Truth requires few words, but refutation of all the errors put forth in the name of truth, a vast multitude."
- People who hold unscriptural ideas have a fleshly habit of trying to make their ideas sound Scriptural, so either wittingly, or unwittingly, they use subtleties of language to make their doctrinal expositions sound correct. The apostle Paul addresses this when he tells the Ephesians "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14 ).
- Sometimes you will hear Christadelphians refer to the subject of the atonement as being similar to the story of the six blind men who each touched a different part of an elephant. This was originally an Indian fable and was then made into a poem which has been graphically demonstrated in picture. The blind men argued about what the elephant was, based on its individual parts. None of their descriptions of the elephant were complete and so all were in one sense 'right' and in another sense 'wrong' and so the poem ends with the words:
"And so these men of Indostan,It then moralizes
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion,
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!""So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance,
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant,
Not one of them has seen!"
The first reason this story is chosen to represent the atonement is because the story of the atonement is so large in Scripture -- it's the 'elephant'. The atonement is played out hundred of times throughout the Scriptures in type and antitype: from the lamb slain by Adam and Eve to the final pictures of redemption in the earth found in the Revelation. And then, there has been no lack of dispute about the atonement. It is interesting to note that the blind men were acting upon sensory perceptions. How people feel, be it physical touch or mental emotion, is not a sound basis on which to judge the atonement. That is a recipe for disaster though it is often, sadly, a factor. Furthermore, the story says that "not one of them has seen" the object of investigation. Now, if someone is forthright enough to admit that they do not understand God's way of salvation who are we to argue with their self-confessed "blindness"? But this is not the idea they intend to convey. In referring to this story what some brethren really want to do is justify brethren ("the six blind men") holding diverse, sometimes God dishonoring, ideas on the atonement. But it is easy to see, even in the story of the blind men that the elephant did not have swines' feet.
Question: What are the important principles of the atonement? (under development)
Answer:
This list is under development.
There are certain principles of the atonement that are first principle foundations of all Biblical truth.
- The most important feature of the atonement, presented in Scripture, that should guide our understanding is that God is declared to be right and just in His ways towards man. A failure to acknowledge this principle as the guiding principle of God's ways is the first foundational flaw of all apostate systems.
- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." (Romans 3:23-27)
- "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."(Deuteronomy 32:4)
- "The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. "(Zephaniah 3:5)
- "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. "(Zechariah 9:9)
- "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. "(Revelation 15:3)
- "I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation." (Psalm 40:10)
- "And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah." (Psalm 50:6)
- "The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory." (Psalm 97:6)
- "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth." (Psalm 119:142)
- The next principle is, and this is a principle that many people have a hard time accepting but the logic and proof of it are overwhelming to good and honest hearted people, and that is the fact that God's purpose is not merely human salvation, but God manifestation. It has been pointed out: If God "chose to make apostolic demonstrations every two hundred years, He could doubtless obtain a hundred fold more for the kingdom than upon the present system; but He does not so operate. It is fair, then, to conclude that His purpose does not demand so many, and that, therefore, He only employs means adequate to what He desires."
- "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." (Acts 15:14)
- "This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise." (Isaiah 43:21)
- "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it... and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off." (Isaiah 55:11-13)
- "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name" (Romans 1:5)
- "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:36)
- "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: "(1 Peter 2:9)
- "Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."(1 Peter 2:10)
- "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."(Isaiah 43:7)
- "They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this." (Psalm 22:31)
- "And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. "(Exodus 29:43)
- "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah."(Psalm 4:2)
- "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."(Isaiah 42:8)
- "For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another."(Isaiah 48:11)
- "For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory."(Isaiah 66:18)
- "And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles."(Isaiah 66:19)
- "And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them."(Ezekiel 39:21)
- Any system of the atonement which teaches, or which logically leads to substitution is a product of the carnal mind because substitutionary sacrifice is, by definition, infliction of a penalty due to others upon an innocent. Stated another way, it is an injustice committed against one who is innocent, due to crimes (transgressions) committed by others -- it is a case of doing evil to one, on behalf of many, that good, according to a fleshly view of the matter, may come. (cp Romans 3:8: "whose damnation is just"). The "good", according to false systems of the atonement, is "human salvation". The only way to conclude that human salvation based on substitution is good is to start with the premise that God's purpose is primarily to save lost creatures (made under His omnipotence and with omniscience of their inevitable failure) and that putting to death His son (or Himself according to the apostasy) because of other people's sins is His self-imposed requirement for saving them. There is no logic or good to be educed out of such a system other than unprincipled human salvation (accomplished through injustice). If human salvation is the primary purpose of God, then afflicting and crucifying an innocent man, His Son no less, for things other people have done cannot reflect positively upon God's honor and righteousness. Therefore while it is undoubtedly a truth that the Lord Jesus Christ "died for us", it cannot be the dominant principle upon which God has chosen to work. And indeed when we study the Scriptures we come to see that there is something more to it than just human salvation.
- A first principle of approach to God is a recognition that God requires the condemnation of sin as part of the basis of His acceptance. God accepts those who recognize, repent from and confess their sins. Sin must be cut-off, destroyed. This is a pervasive principle that starts with the introduction of sin into the world and does not end until death (and thus that which has the power of death) is totally removed from the earth. There is a voluntary destruction of sin or an involuntary destruction of sin. Self-sacrifice or an imposed 'sacrifice'. There is no getting around God's condemnation of sin.
- "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Romans 3:9)
- "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19)
- -
- -
- Since the true light of Jesus Christ came, no man is accepted by God who does not recognize His work in condemning sin in the body of His Messiah. Those who only take this point to mean a symbolic condemnation of our transgressions belong to a class of men who teach substitution, even if they lack the courage to admit it, and who "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ":
- "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1st John 4:3)
- "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." (Romans 7:23)
- "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (Romans 8:3)
- "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2nd John 7; 1st John 2:18)
- "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." (Colossians 2:11)
- "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5)
- "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)
- -
- -
- A mediator between God and man is required.
- "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:"(Acts 13:38)
- -
- God's ways do not revolve around human convenience or fleshly ideas of judgment and justice.
- Any principle which impugns His righteousness or diminishes the evil of sin must be false and is the product of carnally-minded reasoning.
Answer:
Question: Can we discuss the atonement using only Bible words and Bible phrases?
Answer:
- Words are the vehicle by which ideas are communicated. Some people are content to have the right "form of words", the right word formula, while neglecting the fact that it is ideas, not mere words, which are of both present and eternal value. True Spiritual children of God desire honest words and phrases that accurately convey the mind of God as expressed in Scriptural doctrines.
- Sometimes, for different reasons (eg. derivation, etymology etc), some words or phrases are best avoided, while other phrases more accurately represent the ideas we wish to express.
- The King's English was not inspired. The King James translators sometimes selected words and phrases which do not accurately represent God's ideas including: "Holy Ghost", "everlasting fire", devil, "many mansions", hell and "hell fire". I have yet to met a Christadelphian who thinks we should be reading "Holy Ghost" and not "Holy Spirit".
- More here on the "Bible Words and Phrases Only" argument.
Question: Is it necessary to quote from the writings of John Thomas, Robert Roberts and others? Isn't doing so just 'man worship'? Isn't this just "elevating the pioneers above the Scriptures"?
Answer:
- The Unamended want to justify their doctrinal position (eg. March 2006 Advocate magazine) and
- Clean fleshers in Central want to try and rewrite Christadelphian history so they can silence or 'disfellowship' any who do not hold their erroneous views (eg. Australia since the death of H. P. Mansfield).
- "You are elevating these early writings above the Scriptures"; or "My opponents worship men". OR
- "It doesn't matter what they wrote. The question is, 'what do the Scriptures teach'. Errorists then give a list of verses, without any exposition, that even Christendom would 'endorse' because they are Bible verses!
Question: Why did Robert Roberts say, "Blood shedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin" in #406 of the debate with J. J. Andrew?
Answer:
Ironically two different groups quote #406 out of context: clean fleshers and some Unamended. They never reference what brother Roberts says in a follow up question that explains his answer:
720. Andrew: Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to shed his blood for himself? Roberts' Answer: That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a new Adam altogether.
That sheds a little light on his answer! Notice they also never quote these questions and answers that immediately precede 720 either:
711. Andrew: Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up for himself for the purging of his own sin nature? Roberts' Answer: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, and a son of David, yes.
712. Andrew: First from the uncleanness of death that having by his own blood obtained eternal life himself, he might be able to save others? Roberts' Answer: Certainly.
713. Andrew: Then he died for himself apart from being a sin-bearer for others? Roberts' Answer: I do not admit that: I cannot separate him from his work.
714. Andrew: Was he not so separated 20 years ago to refute the free life theory? Roberts' Answer: Not by me, it might be by you.
715. Andrew: 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? Roberts' Answer: He could not.
716. Andrew: Then he offered for himself as well as for us? Roberts' Answer: Oh, certainly.
717. Andrew: Is it not clear then from this that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power? Roberts' Answer: Certainly.
718. Andrew: That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh? Roberts' Answer: No doubt of it.
719. Andrew: And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection? Roberts' Answer: Certainly, I have never called that in question in the least.
Brother Andrew confused by all this asks,
720. Andrew: Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to shed his blood for himself? Roberts' Answer: That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a new Adam altogether.
Question: Robert Roberts wrote, "The phrase 'sin in the flesh' is metonymical. It is not expressive of a literal element or principle pervading the physical organization." This quote proves you teach something different.
Answer: This quote occurs three times in The Christadelphian magazine. It is most instructive to look at all three occurrences:
- First there is the original quote as written by Robert Roberts in March 1869. The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin & Death (The Christadelphian, 1869, p. 83) Here are some of the other comments made by Robert Roberts, in the same article, which must be reconciled with the snippet:
- "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, which, drawn from the veins of Mary, was 'made sin.' Again, in Rom. 8:3, we are informed that 'what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God (hath done) in sending forth his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for (or on account) of sin, condemned sin in the flesh.' The word 'likeness,' in this statement is taken hold of by some to suggest that Christ was not the real nature of Adam, but a different nature, bearing a mere resemblance to it. The answer to this is that in testimony quoted further on we are informed it was ' the same,' a fact irresistibly apparent on the face of his origin; secondly, the word 'likeness' will bear the sense of generic identity.—(See Gen. 5:3.) Paul’s statement necessitates this view in the present case, for it must be evident that sin could not be 'condemned in the flesh' if the flesh under the dominion of sin was not the subject of operation. Paul further says 'Both he (Jesus) that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified, are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.'—(Heb. 1:22.) That this has reference to nature, is evident from the words immediately following: 'Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same * * * He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.”—(Heb. 2:17.)" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1869, p. 83-84).
- "By the Spirit, God took hold of the condemned nature in begetting for himself a son in the flesh of Mary. The son so begotten was, 'in all points,' like those he was manifested to save. He was of the same flesh and blood; was under the same condemnation, and exposed to the same temptations, but—thanks be to God!—through the power derived from his high origin, he was without sin, that is, he was not a transgressor. He was obedient in all things, even unto death, and when he died the death due to our common nature, he was not given over to its perpetual dominion, but was granted a glorious liberation from its bonds, and exaltation to a position of glory beyond the angels. The supremacy of God having thus been vindicated in the condemnation of sin in its own flesh" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1869, p. 84)
- Two correspondents which touch on, by objection, the original quote a mere two months later, June 1869. Apparently brother Roberts thought the objections were worthy enough to address in print. If you have The Christadelphian in Libronix format you can view these two objections here: "In What Sense was Christ Unclean?" and "Apparent Contradictions Reconciled" (The Christadelphian, 1869, p. 242). These two quotes are more than worthy of notice because brother Roberts
- Does not deny "the physical aspect of sin" any more than he did in the original article. (That very phrase was used)
- He teaches that Christ was unclean in a physical sense
- He teaches that there were unlawful "impulses which lead to sin" and, please note this, which is the cause of mortality, and are hereditarily (physically) transmitted. This stands in contrast to the death only or mortality only teaching of clean flesh.
- The quote is raised in the June 1921 Christadelphian, p. 257. The reason? The Suffolk Street Fellowship kept in circulation a pamphlet by J. J. Hadley entitled "The Nature and Sacrifice of Christ". A correspondent had a copy of the above quote "placed in our hands" as well as a copy of Hadley's book. The quote from Robert Roberts was being used to support J. J. Hadley's pamphet. Brother C. C. Walkers response is worthy of note:
- "The estate of Adam before he sinned provides a first-class theological battle-ground on which great wars of words have been fought, with singularly little resultant illumination of mind and comfort of soul. Brother Roberts became much more conservative on this matter in after years, and so does everyone who, like him, has a great respect for the Word of God. Some of his latest utterances on the matter are found in the record of his travels a year or two before his death. In Melbourne and Sydney there has been much controversy on the subject. In 1896 in Melbourne brother Roberts encountered a certain Mr. Cornish, and was moved to publish the following “Synopsis of the Spirit’s Teaching Concerning the Death of Christ.” It necessarily touches on the original estate of Adam and the entry of sin and death into the world. Here is the extract from The Christadelphian, 1896, pp. 339–341" (C. C. Walker).
- It is therefore safe to conclude that those who quote this as supporting their clean flesh contentions:
- Have a deficit of knowledge concerning what the Word of God teaches about the nature of man, what the devil is and the cause of death.
- Have a deficit of knowledge about history: They are ignorant of what brother Roberts taught both before and after this quotation; are ignorant of brother Roberts own comments on the quote itself; and are ignorant of C. C. Walker's judgment of the quote. We can excuse ignorance when it is due to immaturity or unintentional, but when it is due to convenience, self-will, laziness or deception it is a fault.
Question: Is it true, as it has been asserted, that Robert Roberts taught "Since Christ had no personal sins to atone for, he had nothing to atone for in his own sacrifice"
Answer:
This is suggested by two different groups: clean fleshers and some Unamended.
704. Andrew: What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place in regard to Christ? Roberts' Answer: Cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly.
Note that the antitype of something is the actual fulfillment and therefore brother Roberts, even in the debate said that the fulfillment of the atonement for the holy place was "Cleansing and redeeming" Christ "from Adamic nature utterly."
I should also note that "atonement" is a process that culminates in immortality. Brother Roberts understood that Christ's sacrifice was the means or mode by which Christ redeemed himself (Heb 9:12). He saw immortality as the culmination of that process. Furthermore, the atonement was ultimately something that God did, but it was done, as the Scriptures teach, on the basis of the Lord's sacrificial offering. This is validated by Hebrews 9:12 and Romans 8:3. Finally, notice that brother Roberts applies the word 'atonement' to Christ himself. If modern clean flesh arguments are true, and they really think that Christadelphian doctrine is that the term atonement is only used morally, then by their own argument brother Roberts must have taught Christ needed moral atonement! This we know is not true and so their doctrine and history are both wrong. Brother Roberts saw the fulfillment of the atonement as physical in Christ's case, in which it logically follows that atonement has historically been viewed as inclusive of both physical and/or moral issues.
"Under apostolic guidance, we see Christ both in the bullock, in the furniture, in the veil, in the high priest, and in brief, in all these Mosaic 'patterns,' which he says were 'a shadow of things to come' (Heb. viii. 5 : ix. 23 : x. 1 : iii. 5). All were both atoning and atoned for (Lev. xvi. 33)."
The Unamended who claim that brother Roberts said "he had nothing to atone for in his own sacrifice" do so because they have to prove that brother Roberts was astray in dealing with J. J. Andrew. The clean fleshers who make the same claim do so because they want to portray brother Roberts as subscribing to their ideology. However, brother Roberts set the precedent of not fellowshipping them when the clean flesh heresy arose in 1873 and he maintained this position to his death.
Question: What does the term 'mortal' mean?
Answer:
Answer:
This question has been a source of disagreement. The quote above (under "What does the term mortal mean?") from brother Roberts indicates that there is a sense in which the two words are opposites: the former means under the sentence of death and the latter means eternal life. In that sense (duration of existence) they are opposites. But it is not true they are exact opposites in the sense that if you are not immortal then you must be mortal.
An article was printed in the 1941 Christadelphian magazine authored by L. G. Sargent. He contended that the two terms were exact opposites as follows:
"The bare terms, stripped of the qualifying and amplifying phrases with which Dr. Thomas defines his meaning, have sometimes been thrown into the bald proposition that 'Adam before the fall was neither mortal nor immortal'; which (to quote Euclid and Dr. Thomas) is absurd. A thing is either X or not X; there can be no 'neutral' position between. A man cannot be neither mortal nor not-mortal; and he cannot be neither not-mortal nor not-not-mortal. A thing is either black or not black, white or not white; it is either in the class of objects which have in common the quality of blackness, or it is in the class 'not-black' which includes every other kind of colour, shade or tone. But it must come in one class or the other: there can be no neutral position between those two classes." (L.G. Sargent, The Christadelphian, 1941).
Now, to give you an idea of how this argument was used, it will help to point out that this article by L. G. Sargent was termed "splendid" by The Shield in Australia and given space in The Shield, February 5th 1947, p. 29. Clean-flesh has argued that if you are not immortal then you must be mortal.
L.G.S. claimed "it must come in one class or the other: there can be no neutral position between those two classes." And again, "A thing is either X or not X; there can be no 'neutral' position between." L.G.S. begs the argument assuming that if you are not immortal you must be mortal on the assumption that the two are strict opposites. Let's examine his logic:
It is true that a man is either mortal or not mortal. A man is either immortal or not immortal. A thing is either black or not black. A thing is either white or not white. What L.G.S. does not say is that a thing may be black, white, red, purple, green or some other color altogether. Just because something is not black does not logically mean it is white. It just means it is not black. A thing which is not white is not necessarily black. L.G.S.'s statements show a confusion in basic logic.
Mortal means destined to die; to be physically under the the law of sin and death. Adam was not in a state of "dying thou shalt die" prior to the transgression. Therefore he was not created mortal. Immortal means destined to live; to be physically under the sentence of eternal life. Adam was not created in an immortal state, else he could not have been made mortal after the transgression. He had an animal body, but he was neither sentenced to death nor to eternal life. This was the unique state Adam was created into. He was "corruptible" -- not in a state of "corruption". That is to say, he was capable of dying but not in a state of corruption -- not in a state of "dying thou shalt die". L.G.S. claims that to say 'Adam before the fall was neither mortal nor immortal' is a 'bald proposition' and in some unspecified way quoting brother Thomas, an absurdity. Unfortunately for L.G.S., brother Thomas states the 'absurd' (L.G.S.) and 'bald proposition' (L.G.S.) himself in a number of places:
"The following propositions, we consider, as invoking principles, which are in strict harmony with the inspired teachings of the Prophets and Apostles. We present them to our readers, in the hope, that if they have any thing more scriptural to offer, they will favor us with it... 1. Man was modelled from the dust, a living creature, 'very good,' 'upright' or innocent, BUT neither mortal nor immortal." (Herald of the Future Age, vol. 1, p. 24)
"But, if they were not mortal in their novitiate, it is also true that they were not immortal. To say that immortals were expelled from the garden of Eden, that they might not live for ever by eating of the tree, is absurd. The truth is in few words, man was created with a nature endued with certain susceptibilities. He was capable of death; and capable of endless life; but, whether he should merge into mortality; or, by a physical change be clothed with immortality, was predicated on his choosing to do good or evil. Capacity must not be confounded with impletion. A vessel may be capable of holding a pint of fluid; but it does not therefore follow that there is a pint in it, or any at all. In the Paradise of Eden, mortality and immortality were set before the man and his companion. They were external to them. They were to avoid the former, and seek after the latter, by obedience to the law of God. They were capable of being filled with either; but with which depended upon their actions: for immortality is the end of holiness (Rom. 6:22), without which no man can see the Lord." (Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 74)
"What, then, do you make of Adam, exclaims a third; if he be neither mortal nor immortal, what was he then ? The answer to this question is, that Adam, when in Eden's garden, was placed there on probation. The probationary state was necessary, and seems to be in conformity with God's moral government throughout." (The Apostasy Unveiled, p. 77)
"Our eighth proof says 'the wages of sin is death or mortality;' but Adam had not yet sinned, therefore he had earned no such wages, and mortality consequently was not a part of his constitution before his fall." (The Apostasy Unveiled, p. 77)
H.P.M. teaches the same writing,
"Adam and Eve were thus placed on probation, and though they were not immortal, neither were they at that time mortal as their descendants are today, for they had not then been brought under the power of the 'law of sin and death' which afterwards worked 'in their members' to inexorably bring them to the grave (Romans 7:20–25)." (Key to the Understanding of the Scripture, p. 36)
Romans 5:12 states,
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin..."
Answer:
The Greek words are closely related but they are not synonyms:
- Mortality is a term that describes a state of life which is destined or sentenced to death which will, of necessity, end in death unless interupted by Divine intervention. In the garden of Eden, prior to the Edenic sin, if Adam's head had been severed from his body it would have meant death as his blood would have spilt on the ground and his animal life would have terminated or ended in death. But a thing may be capable of death and yet not be destined or sentenced to death which is the sense that the word mortality carries. Strongs-2349 thnetos From 2348; liable to die: - mortal (-ity).
- Death: Strongs-2288 thanatos From 2348; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): - X deadly, (be . . .) death . Strongs-2348 thnesko A strengthened form of a simpler primary word thano (which is used for it only in certain tenses); to die (literally or figuratively): - be dead, die.
Question: What is the relationship between 'sin' and 'death'?
Answer:
Question: Is 'death' a uniquely active principle in the flesh which is the cause of mortality?
Answer:
- Therefore it is unscriptural to view death as a uniquely active principle in the flesh which is the cause of death.
- See also: Disregard For Metonymy which has quotes from R. R. and John Carter which speak to the issue of sin in the flesh being the cause of mortality or that which has death's power.
Question: Are the lower animals under sin and death? What about the rest of the creation?
Answer:
- "Who said that mortality can only be affirmed of sin? That is totally wrong. Mortality exists where sin has not entered. Does a lobster die because of sins? Do fish die because their flesh is defiled by sin?" (Clean-flesh author quoted by HPM, Logos, March 1971, p. 207).
- The power of death is held by 'sin' (Hebrews 2:14). Therefore in the absence of sin, mortality and its result, death, should not exist.
- We are told in Genesis, "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee" (Genesis 3:17-18). Death does not cause "thorns also and thistles" to grow. It is neither logical as a literal truth, or as a symbolic expression of death. But thorns and thistle that blight the earth are typical, or a good symbol, of indwelling sin that blights human life.
Question: What is the law of sin and death?
Answer:
- As the power of death; as that which makes the flesh mortal (Romans 7:24; Hebrews 2:14) - Physical
- As a power that wars against the mind (Romans 7:22-23) - Moral
Answer:
Early Christadelphan expositions occassionally used the word 'implanted' in relation to the law of sin and death and the human body. For example:
“When their sin was perfected, the propensities, or lusts, having been inflamed, became a law in their members;’ and because it was implanted in their flesh by transgression, it is styled the ‘law of sin’" (Elpis Israel, p. 91)
In modern English when we think of something being 'implanted' we think of it in terms of modern medicine where the body of the patient is opened up and something is put into the body. This is not what early Christadelphian expositions were suggesting. The idea intended was that something which had hitherto not been an element of the human nature was, following the Edenic transgression, now a physical element of the body. The use of this word in the context of the law of sin and death has caused much confusion and would be best avoided for a clearer explanation.
H. P. Mansfield was asked the question, "Who put the law of sin & death in Adam's members? Did Yahweh or Adam?". This was part of his response:
"My answer would be, Nobody in that strict literal sense. Yahweh established a law; it is the law of sin & death. He warned Adam that if he sinned he would come under the influence of that law, Adam sinned and mortality was the result. We can illustrate this best by taking any law in existence today. For example if smallpox is raging, and you have not been immunized, you will contract smallpox if you act stupidly. Who put the law of smallpox in you? God did not, though He created the bacteria; you did not, though you acted foolishly in failing to take proper precautions. In other words, where there is a 'law' established, you will come under the influence of that law, if you put yourself in opposition to it. If you leap out of an aeroplane, you will injure yourself because of the law of gravity; but where the law of gravity does not exist (as in the case of those who rocket outside of the earth's pull) you can throw yourself out without risk.”
“In the case of Adam, God created a law that sin would be followed by death. Adam defied the law, and incurred its penalty. So in the narrow strict, strict, literal sense, neither Adam nor God put it there. God merely established the law, and Adam through sin incurred its penalty. The law was a physical law, so that once it took possession of Adam, it became a physical law of the flesh, and so, carried on in the bloodstream, it affected his posterity. So Paul says that "By one man (not by God) sin entered into the world, and so sin passed on all men for that all, have sinned”. By this Paul means that Adam sinned and the law of sin took possession of him, and that all men (being his posterity) inherited the results of sin, the mortality that is their lot.” (HPM)
God, but really the angels by extension because they were the actual agents that moved to shape creation, ordered things to happen in a certain way if certain conditions were met. Take rain, sunshine and gravity for a few examples of the effects of those conditions. Now, the angels had told Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the forbidden tree, muth te muth: “dying, thou shalt die”. That is, Adam and Eve had been told, in advance, that the process of death would begin on the day of their disobedience. That process of death (by sin) would become a physical reality in their bodies on that very day. So it was ‘implanted’ in the sense that it was an external factor which was now part of their physical existence. It was not 'implanted' in the sense that a needle may inject something into the veins of a man.
This question touches on a point that has caused some brethren problems (and has caused them to go astray from the Biblical Christadelphian position): are we suggesting (or claiming) that God ‘put sin’ into mankind? The right explanation comes down to explaining things accurately: None but God had the power to physically order the creation, to establish laws and their consequences. But then it was man alone who rebelled and he did so with a knowledge of the ultimate consequence of disobedience. So, who put the law of sin in mankind? My answer would be, Nobody in that strict literal sense.
Question: Does our 'sinful physical nature' need forgiveness?
Answer:
It is often an assertion of clean-flesh sympathizers that if we say our physical nature is 'sin' (second acception) that therefore we must need forgiveness for our nature. They also, not understanding the word atonement, will claim that 'atonement' always includes forgiveness. Both these ideas are false and are non-Christadelphian in origin.
- Forgiveness indicates guilt. Guilt means that either a person either committed an offense, failed to perform something expected of them by God; or the guilt belonging to someone else was imputed to them.
- Edenic sin brought death upon all mankind. There is no imputation of guilt upon mankind born into that state of death. Likewise, there is no imputation of guilt to mankind born under 'the law of sin and death'. "It is our misfortune, not our crime."
- If the 'devil' that Jesus condemned in his sacrifice was 'our sins' (and not his physical human nature) then he was a substitute and clean-flesh teachers ought to openly embrace the doctrine substitution. Why was it necessary that he be born of a woman sharing the same physical nature as those who came to save?
- Atonement under the Mosaic Law was not always associated with forgiveness.
"Since the purification related to the removal of ’sin’ contracted through death, it is apparent that cleansing and atonement are required even when a personal transgression is not committed. This is an important aspect of the offering in relation to Christ. He offered for himself, but not because he was a personal transgressor or because he was alienated from his Father, but because He was defiled by the uncleanness associated with human nature and death."
Putting 'shadows' aside, if atonement were only for forgiveness then it would have been very easy for God to structure Mosaic sacrifices to always associate forgiveness with atonement. Instead we find atonement associated with a significant number of issues outside of transgression (such as childbirth and dedication). The idea of atonement is pervasive and included atonement for many elements of the Mosaic order that were not involved in transgression. But here the clean-flesh teachers say, 'ah, well, you know that is just because the Mosaic Law was a shadow and we cannot force our ideas onto the Law' OR 'ah, well, you know that's because the things atoned for were associated with sinners and therefore accounted as legally unclean by the Mosaic Law'. But that's arguing in a circle trying to explain away a significant Mosaic feature. As a matter of fact, the Law taught through shadow purification from 'sin' contracted through death as stated above by brother Ron Abel. God could have clearly made the ceremonies of atonement very clear if forgiveness for transgression were the only thing He wanted to teach. Instead He chose to involve physical cleansing as an element of the teachings, a thing which clean-flesh teachers try and explain away before serious students take notice.
Studies in the Atonement Rod Ghent and Ron Abel p 21
Question: What does the phrase 'Adamic Condemnation' mean?
Answer:
The answer depends completely upon the context and person using it.
- "Well, if there had been a Jew who had kept the law in all things, having done the will of the Father from the very beginning of life to the end of his life, he would have been in the very position of the Lord Jesus himself; it would then have been in his power, by dying, to cleanse himself from the Adamic condemnation, and his righteousness would have caused his resurrection from the dead. It is by the righteousness of one that resurrection has come (Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:21)" (The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 442) Notice that the cleansing from Adamic Condemnation is incumbent upon a physical death (and a physical resurrection).
- "But the fact that diabolos takes hold of the seed of Abraham, is a sufficient reason why he whose mission it was to destroy diabolos, through death, should be made like the children of Abraham in all things. The apostle, in effect, says, That the fleshly seed of Abraham are under sentence of death; therefore their Redeemer must be made like them in 'all things.' The sentence of death is evidently among the 'all things;' otherwise, being, as it is, the principal thing pertaining to the race in connection with his argument, we cannot doubt that he would have made it an exception. This is equivalent to a positive statement that Jesus Christ was born under the Adamic condemnation." (J. J. Andrew, The Christadelphian, 1874, p. 127).
- “Is it possible to be of Adamic nature and not to be under Adamic condemnation? Or is the Adamic nature under condemnation wherever found?”—(M.L.S.)
"Answer.—It depends upon the meaning intended by 'Adamic.' If it means the nature hereditarily derived from Adam, the answer is clear: 'That which is born of (Adamic) flesh is (Adamic) flesh,' and since Adamic flesh is characterised by the quality of death physically implanted (2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:2–4: Rom. 5:12) it follows that it is in this sense; 'under condemnation wherever found,' which harmonises with universal experience. Adamic nature in the sense of a nature like that produced in Eden could be produced again. God who made an uncondemned Adamic nature from the ground could make another Adam in the same way, and we should then have Adamic nature not under condemnation. But such a case is not before your mind. You are thinking of Christ. He was not made of the ground, but 'made of a (condemned) woman,' and being born of her, was what she was, on the principle defended above and illustrated in other Scriptures.—(Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5.) If Renunciationist contention were right, Christ ought to have been made straight from the ground as Adam was." (The Christadelphian, 1875, p. 88)
Notice that so long as death is physically "implanted", the nature is under Adamic condemnation. Note: "implanted" is a term that is now normally not used because of misunderstandings regarding it. It can be misleading as to what occurred in Eden
Following the Andrew controversy a difference in how the term 'Adamic condemnation' was understood became 'set in stone'. Andrew redefined it to mean a legal defilement taken away at baptism. Thomas Williams endorsed the same erroneous application in his writings as well. Today, when Unamended brethren use the term, they usually use it to mean what J. J. Andrew taught. Yet, like the apostle Paul, even after baptism, they still have 'sin in their members' -- that which has the power of death. It is therefore, despite ideas to the contrary, still Adamic flesh and under the Adamic condemnation of death. "As in Adam they all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive... It is obvious that the apostle is not writing of all the individuals of the human race; but only of that portion of them that become the subject of “a justification of life'" (Elpis Israel, p. 132)
If, as the Unamended teach, 'the law of sin and death' is a legal condemnation which is wholly or partially removed at baptism, then what do the Unamended call the physical law of the body which the Amended, and the Apostle Paul, calls 'the law of sin and death'? I don't know and I don't think they do either. Therein is their confusion.
Question: What are the propensities and lusts and are they equivalent to the diabolos?
Answer:
- "And he said unto them, With desire (epithumia) I have desired (epithumia) to eat this passover with you before I suffer: "(Luke 22:15)
- 1) Operating upon the brain [physical],
- 2) it [indwelling sin] excites the 'propensities', and
- 3) these set the 'intellect' [mental], and 'sentiments' [moral] to work.
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, "Operating upon the brain [physical], it [indwelling sin] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
excites the 'propensities', and Then when lust hath conceived, warring against the law of my mind, and these set the 'intellect' [mental], and 'sentiments' [moral] to work it bringeth forth sin: bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.O wretched man that I am! and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:13-15) who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. "(Romans 7:21-25)
Question: Where do the terms "clean flesh", "renunciationism" and "partial atonement" come from?
Answer:
"Any doubt as to the necessity of bestowing so much attention to the topic discussed, will probably be dispelled by a perusal of the Introductory chapter, to which the doubting reader is referred for evidence, that the question ramifies into every department of divine truth; and that its comprehension is therefore necessary for a due understanding of the matters set forth in God’s word—as a whole. That this comprehension may be attained and promoted among honest-minded searchers after the truth, is the object of the present publication, which is sent forth with the prayer that it may be instrumental in delivering many such from the trammels of demoralising superstition, and opening their eyes to the glories of the neglected Book of God." (The Christadelphian, 1872, p. 599)- On page 41 of that book the following paragraph appeared:
- Just a few selected points from Turney's exposition:
- Jesus' nature was "flesh and blood" (physical not "moral")
- The likeness "was sin's flesh"
- "sin is identical with human nature" ("flesh and blood")
- "it was imperative that he should be invested with a sinful body in order that sin might be condemned in sinful flesh"
- "it was 'filled with a loathsome disease' which is sin"
- "it is undeniable then, that sin was an element of the flesh of the Son of God, unless we had rather take the apostacy than Paul for our guide in the matter".
Question: What is the premise of "clean flesh" teaching? What are the consequences of "clean flesh" teaching?
Answer:
- One wonders why every single clean flesher finds himself subject to the same principle of corruption that the 'rest of us' are under. Surely, if their assertion was true, mankind could produce one good example of a purer form of life from that which is born of the flesh? 'Perfect obedience' advocates have as many examples of this 'clean flesh' as evolutionists have found 'missing links'.
- One wonders then why Messiah had to be son of Adam (Luke 3:38), son of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16; Matthew 1:1), and son of David (Matthew 1:1). If their premise was true, wouldn't a crucified angel serve the purpose of being a substitute-- see Hebrews 2:16? Or perhaps even, as the apostasy teaches, God could have killed Himself because his creation sinned against Him (!), and then He would, despite a slight logical problem, raise Himself up to life from the dead?
- Using the prior false assumption, if his body was free of the 'diabolos' or devil (contrary to Heb. 2:14), then the only sin he could 'condemn' was our personal transgressions. He was therefore a substitute, just as the apostasy teaches.
- Furthermore, clean fleshers cannot explain how our sins could be condemned in the Lord's crucifixion, except by claiming there was a symbolic 'transfer' of our sins to him. Thus, they make him a substitute sacrifice for our transgressions.
- Now, if that were true, they then have to explain how God's righteousness was declared in putting an innocent man, free of any condemnation or 'sin', to death. If Messiah's body had no 'sin in my members', it was an act of injustice.
- Further, if the purpose of Christ's sacrifice was to condemn and therefore literally bear away our transgressions, there is no need for the forbearance, or forgiveness (Romans 3:25), of God.
- If however, Christ bore our sin nature (Heb 2:14-16), and he came to 'condemn sin in the flesh' (Heb 2:14), to take away 'the sin of the world' (not 'the sins' of the world; see John 1:29) which is is the root cause of our transgressions -- James 4:1: "come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?"; members = gr. melos, see Romans 7:23 -- and God offers salvation on the basis of recognizing the declaration of God's righteousness <
