The Teachings of Clean-Flesh
a.k.a. "Partial-Atonement" Considered...

 

"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

 

Some Don't Know Andrewism from Adam!
H.P. Mansfield, Logos, July 1971, p. 382

Would clean-flesh teachers (who claim they are not clean-flesh teachers) please venture to tell us which
"certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth"
brother H.P. Mansfield could have been referring to?
The answer 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.

 

New Is It Central Christadelphian Doctrine That
Sin is a Synonym for Physical Human Nature
Or Was It Just a 'Slip of the Pen'?

"'Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature hence the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean." (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., page 130)

John Bell responds “Yes, by Dr. Thomas, but not by God, in the Bible.” (John Bell, Feb. 1922, The Shield, p. 23) He went on to write, "The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture" (John Bell, The Shield, Feb. 1922, p. 42).

 

Some PDF files may require Adobe Reader/Acrobat version 7.x

 

  1. New"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)

    2.  

  2. NewJim Luke, Brian Luke and John Martin Indirectly Accuse John Thomas, Robert Roberts, H.P. Mansfield (and John Martin?) et al. of Being "Berean, Old Paths or Unamended" (HTML format) (PDF format)

    3.  

  3. An e-mail exchange with Jim Cowie (HTML format) in which he admits to changing his doctrinal position on the atonement.

    4.  

  4. NewCeremonial Condemnation of Sin or "Ceremonial Condemnation of Sin"? Same Words. Totally Different Meanings. What is the "devil" in Clean-Flesh Teaching? (HTML format)

    5.  

  5. NewThe Death / Mortality Only Clean-Flesh Doctrine (HTML format)

    6.  

  6. John Knowles' Notes entitled "The Constitution of Sin" (PDF format)
    • These notes are really about "the two forms of sin" which John Knowles calls "Andrewism".
    • Compared with H.P. Mansfield's writings from the Logos magazine where HP Mansfield uses the phrase "two forms of sin" as equivalent to the "two acceptations of sin".

    7.  

  7. Concerning Don Rucker's Position (HTML format)

    8.  

  8. NewThe Jim Luke, Brian Luke and John Martin Clean-Flesh Advocacy Video (HTML format)

    9.  

  9. H.P. Mansfield's "What Is Sin", Logos, September 1970 (PDF format)

    10.  

  10. NewThe Day a North American Clean-Flesh Teacher and Student of Harry Fry Became a Lauded Teacher in Australia (HTML format)

    11.  

  11. The Yagoona/Enfield/Cumberland Audio Tapes (MP3 format).

    12.  

  12. 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.

     

  13. 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.

     

  14. 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).

     

  15. 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)

    16.  

  16. John Knowles comments on a G. V. Growcott article (PDF format)

     

  17. A Letter Concerning the August 2005 Combined AB Meeting of Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully (HTML format)

    18.  

  18. A Primer on Clean Flesh (HTML format). Also, Questions and Answers on the Atonement (HTML format).

    19.  

  19. The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community (PDF format)

    20.  

  20. "A Time to Heal": Historical Central Teaching on Christ Offering For Himself  (PDF Format)

    21.  

  21. The Tidings Magazine On Christ Offering For Himself (HTML format)

     

  22. Harry Fry, Dick Stone, John Bell, John Martin, AD Strickler (HTML format)

     

  23. A Brief Comparison of Atonement Positions (PDF format)

     

  24. One or Two Definitions of the Word Sin? (PDF format)

     

  25. Open Letter to John Martin (John Martin has chosen not to respond) (PDF format1)

     

  26. Simple Questions Expose the Error of Clean Flesh (John Knowles has refused to answer these questions in writing) (PDF format1)

    • Though offered to take all the space he needs to explain answers to simple yes/no questions, John Knowles refuses to take a position in writing.
    • Uninspired writings or letters should not be published? I believe John Knowles is the author of a number of uninspired works.
    • The truth "isn't about signing documents"? Then why does the clean-flesh camp insist on getting signed letters of agreement? You can't have it both ways.

     

  27. Transgressions and Sin – (PDF format1) by Stephen Genusa

    1. Addendum (PDF format1) (included in the PDF above)

    2. A Response: From PA Theorists (including my reply) (PDF format1) (HTML format2) 

     

  28. On the Nature of Man and The Sacrifice of Christ (PDF format1)

    • Twelve point statement by brethren R. Roberts and HP. Mansfield.

  29. 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.

     

  30. 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)

     

  31. 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).

       

     
  32. The Language of PA Theorists (PDF format1) (HTML format2) (updated August 1st 2001)

    • How wordsmithing is being used to mislead brethren. A short "dictionary" which shows how PA theorists can use the right words or phrases and yet teach the clean-flesh doctrine (while denying that they teach clean-flesh).

     

  33. 1989 Petrie Terrace (Shield/Clean Flesh) Education Campaign (Images: Page 1 Page 2)

    • 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 the current PA theorists are making.

     

  34. 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."

     

  35. The 10 Point Unity Statement Endorsed by John Carter  and John Martin (PDF format1) (HTML format2)

    • 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. 

     

  36. 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’."

     

  37. The source of modern PA theorists' 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 PA theorists.

      The copy I have has handwritten notes in the margin by John Martin. Note: whereas Colin Badger of Canada has publicly taken exception to calling attention to John Martin's handwritten notes (without saying anything to me personally), I must take the time to point out that John Martin wrote the notes and then personally distributed them throughout Australia. What John Martin makes public, others are entitled to call attention to, despite the objections from the teachers of partial atonement.

      This is a book written by the same person disfellowshipped 25 years earlier for denying that Christ's offering was to condemn the sin-nature! Handwritten notes include: 

      • "No actual atonement made" (p. 23) in regards to cleansings under the Law. Fry called the Mosaic cleansings "fictitious" on page 23. “Surely no one believes that wood covered with brass (i.e. the altar) needed to be atoned for” (bro. John Martin).

      • "E.G. Atonement made for the altar etc" (p. 26) when Fry writes "it is here many stumble. They fail to recognise the distinction between the language of ritual symbolism and that of actual fact".

      • "AMEN!" (p. 39) when Fry represents Christ as merely "a subject of the ritual and ceremonial symbolism".

      • "How Christ bore our sins" (p. 41) Fry teaches that Christ bore our transgressions in his body.

      • "I.E. Going to one extreme in combating another" (p. 47) where Fry understands he is teaching a substitutionary sacrifice and so writes, "In our endeavour to get away from the substitutionary theory of Christ's sacrifice, let us not obscure the beautiful truth that it was 'on our account' that the Father appointed this merciful arrangement".

      • "Christ involved" (p. 106) where Fry states that Christ's involvement in his own sacrifice was to ritually ("fictitious", p. 23; "symbolism" p. 29) condemn sin and that obedience was required by the Father.

    •  Another case of division over this issue appears in The Christadelphian July 1876 Ecclesial Intelligence where the PA teachers were also removed from fellowship.

       

  38. Christ Our Passover or True Christadelphian Teaching Concerning the One Great Offering (Booklet) (PDF format1) by Frank G. Jannaway

    • "As opposed to the 

      1. 'clean flesh,' 

      2. 'free life', and 

      3. '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

     

  39. 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.

     

  40. From "Catechism of the Catholic Church", p. 175. (HTML format)

     

  41. Brother Henry Sulley on The Atonement (PDF format1)

     

  42. 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.

     

  43. 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.

     

  44. 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)

     

  45. 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.

     

  46. Transcripts of 3 class/discussions led by Richard Stone with John Hensley participating. H. Fry's teachings are found once again.

 

 

"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 and meretricious way to dismiss the heavy burden of historical evidence.

Jim Luke: Don't quote Robert Roberts or HP Mansfield: "men write all sorts of things..." (from Yagoona meeting)

"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. We may not in the 19th century have those particular questions to trouble us that agitated the first; but we have the same duty to perform towards the errors that may belong to our time. It is a distasteful duty and in every way an inconvenient one. For this reason, many with whom the apprehension of divine obligations may be weak, or susceptibility to human considerations may be strong, are liable to swerve and sacrifice truth and duty to friendship. Their amiability may lead us to sympathise with them in a sentimental sense: but their attitude is none the less of practical unfaithfulness, and to be sorrowfully refused (on their account), by true friends of Christ." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 66)

 

Last Update: July 6, 2007