The Latest Atonement Error

The Latest Atonement Error

I have struggled with how to handle this particular problem concerning the atonement that has arisen in recent years. Some of this material has been posted to my web site and then removed. Yet, here and there I find that the advocates of this false doctrine have been busy promoting their erroneous views. Should they be allowed to spread false doctrines without challenge? I think not.

The problem with these latest false teachings on the atonement is that, at the core, the teachers of it do not really understand what sin in the flesh is. Just like clean flesh, they believe death can exist absent sin in the flesh. Just like clean flesh, they claim the lower animal creation is under "the law of death" but not under the physical law of sin. They have invented or taken hold of a number of bizarre teachings which hold no weight in Scriptural examination.

There are a number of false ideas put forward by the advocates of this new system of thought such as: Christ arose from the grave without the diabolos but with mortality. Oddly enough, this idea, as best I can tell, was an idea which originated by clean flesh teachers against the true doctrine of sin in the flesh. Yet, now some have embraced it. Then there is the claim that all the blood of Christ was drained from his body at his death. That Christ's cranium (those are the bones which enclose the brain) was "fixed", whereas ours is "deformed" and that this was the reason Christ did not obey the lusts of the flesh. That there are "two principal laws" (an adulteration of the phrase "two principal acceptations of sin"): the "law of sin" and "the law of death". And that these two laws were joined in the conception of Cain.

There have been three leading advocates of this new system of doctrine, John Wilson and Graeham Mansfield of the Vines ecclesia, and Keith Cook who began advocating these things just prior to his death. I have nothing personally against these brethren.

My problem is that 1) the doctrines they now advocate are false doctrines which undermine the truth of the atonement. The ideas are supportive of false ideas found in both clean flesh and Unamended teaching. 2) The doctrines they now advocate have been the cause of division where none should exist. One advocate is happy to claim that their ideas are non-essential, yet they are promoted with a vigor that suggests otherwise. Keith Cook, prior to his death, claimed his views were a matter of fellowship. Since we did not subscribe to his views, and we would not be strong armed into them, he was uninvited from visiting us as we could not subscribe to his personal basis of fellowship.

If the teaching were relegated to some small corner of the globe and its advocates kept their doctrine to themselves it would not merit notice. But, sadly, its chief advocate is the current editor of the Logos magazine.

Graeham Mansfield's Leading and Misleading Questions Answered

The Claims of JW/GEM/KC Answered

Response from Graeham Mansfield August 23rd 2007

Graeham Mansfield
vs
John Thomas and H. P. Mansfield

[Notice how Graeham confuses a physical law of the body with moral sin]

"Animal nature is subjected to the law of death, but not to the law of sin — since mortality was the only consequence resting upon the animal world. Animals are amoral, and not subject to sin; but they are still subject to death."

"I do not understand how the animal creation can be under a law of sin in the way that Paul describes the law of sin as the force that causes him to transgress. Animals do not transgress for they are under no such law of obedience."

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, ‘the transgression of the law’; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of death’; and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression… The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing.” (Elpis Israel, p. 126)

"The clear evidence of Genesis 3 is that sin had a physical reaction on creation: the serpent crawled upon its belly; all other animal creation was cursed (v. 14 — above all cattle); the woman found her sorrow and conception multiplied; the earth brought forth thorns and thistles; man was made subject to death. (HP Mansfield, Atonement: Salvation Through the Blood of Christ, p. 243).

“When the Lord bestowed the faculty of speech upon the Serpent, He enabled it to give utterance to its thoughts. The possession of this power did not, however, confer upon it moral accountability. This depends on a different constitution of ‘the flesh’. Where no ‘moral sentiments’ exist as part of ‘the flesh’, or brain, there is no ability in the creature to render an account for its aberrations from the requirements of moral, or spiritual, institutions.” (Elpis Israel, p. 88)

[Notice the repeated claims that 'sin' was 'joined' with 'death' in Adam's descendants, not in Adam himself]

"But when these conditions of sin and death were incorporated into Adam’s descendants, the two elements found in Adam were co-joined in his descendants as the 'law of their being' so defined in the BASF. Thus the cause and effect in Adam became a 'sentence' or 'law' in his seed, in which both elements were included in the one physical condition, and thus called “the law of condemnation."

"I certainly believe that the law of sin came about by Adam’s transgression and that the law of death came about by Yahweh’s judgment on sin. I do not believe that Yahweh brought into being the “law of sin,” but do believe that He instigated the “law of death.” And that both these elements became FIXED in human nature as a result, called “the law of sin and death,” and manifested in the conception of Cain."

"The law of sin and death is one law in sin’s flesh which came about because of the sin of Adam and the death judgment of Yahweh. In Cain the law was one factor through conception."

“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’; and death being the wages of sin, it is also termed, “the law of sin and death”; but by philosophy, “the law of nature”. (Elpis Israel, p. 90)

“Sin and death are inseparable. It was for this reason that death under the law was defiling. Brother Roberts’ remarks in The Law of Moses (ch. 23: ‘Death’) on this point are weighty, and should be studied. Those who advocate the ‘Clean Flesh’ theory seek to throw ridicule upon the subject by asking foolish questions. Say they: Is sin a tangible quantity?” (The Atonement, Logos, page 247)

"It must be also said, that the removal of the law of sin in the flesh does not change the nature of that flesh, any more than removing the law of sight changes a person's nature" (GEM)
"Now, a spiritual body is as material, or substantial and tangible, a body as that which we now possess. It is a body purified from 'the law of sin and death.' Hence it is termed 'holy,' and 'spiritual,' because it is born of the spirit from the dust, is incorruptible, and sustained by the ruach, or spirit, independently of the neshemeh, or atmospheric air." (Elpis Israel)

"If the reader understand these things, he will fully comprehend the saying of the apostle, that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither can corruption inherit incorruption.” It is a physical impossibility. Can mortal men possess an everlasting kingdom, the priesthood and royalty of which are not to be left to successors?" (Herald)

"The spirit of man is no better than his body, for it is naturally, at evil as his body is physically corrupt" (Herald of the Future Age)

Last Update: September 3, 2007

Graeham Mansfield	vs	John Thomas and H. P. Mansfield
[Notice how Graeham confuses a physical law of the body with moral sin] "Animal nature is subjected to the law of death, but not to the law of sin — since mortality was the only consequence resting upon the animal world. Animals are amoral, and not subject to sin; but they are still subject to death." "I do not understand how the animal creation can be under a law of sin in the way that Paul describes the law of sin as the force that causes him to transgress. Animals do not transgress for they are under no such law of obedience."		“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, ‘the transgression of the law’; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of death’; and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression… The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing.” (Elpis Israel, p. 126) "The clear evidence of Genesis 3 is that sin had a physical reaction on creation: the serpent crawled upon its belly; all other animal creation was cursed (v. 14 — above all cattle); the woman found her sorrow and conception multiplied; the earth brought forth thorns and thistles; man was made subject to death. (HP Mansfield, Atonement: Salvation Through the Blood of Christ, p. 243). “When the Lord bestowed the faculty of speech upon the Serpent, He enabled it to give utterance to its thoughts. The possession of this power did not, however, confer upon it moral accountability. This depends on a different constitution of ‘the flesh’. Where no ‘moral sentiments’ exist as part of ‘the flesh’, or brain, there is no ability in the creature to render an account for its aberrations from the requirements of moral, or spiritual, institutions.” (Elpis Israel, p. 88)
[Notice the repeated claims that 'sin' was 'joined' with 'death' in Adam's descendants, not in Adam himself] "But when these conditions of sin and death were incorporated into Adam’s descendants, the two elements found in Adam were co-joined in his descendants as the 'law of their being' so defined in the BASF. Thus the cause and effect in Adam became a 'sentence' or 'law' in his seed, in which both elements were included in the one physical condition, and thus called “the law of condemnation." "I certainly believe that the law of sin came about by Adam’s transgression and that the law of death came about by Yahweh’s judgment on sin. I do not believe that Yahweh brought into being the “law of sin,” but do believe that He instigated the “law of death.” And that both these elements became FIXED in human nature as a result, called “the law of sin and death,” and manifested in the conception of Cain." "The law of sin and death is one law in sin’s flesh which came about because of the sin of Adam and the death judgment of Yahweh. In Cain the law was one factor through conception."		“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’; and death being the wages of sin, it is also termed, “the law of sin and death”; but by philosophy, “the law of nature”. (Elpis Israel, p. 90) “Sin and death are inseparable. It was for this reason that death under the law was defiling. Brother Roberts’ remarks in The Law of Moses (ch. 23: ‘Death’) on this point are weighty, and should be studied. Those who advocate the ‘Clean Flesh’ theory seek to throw ridicule upon the subject by asking foolish questions. Say they: Is sin a tangible quantity?” (The Atonement, Logos, page 247)
"It must be also said, that the removal of the law of sin in the flesh does not change the nature of that flesh, any more than removing the law of sight changes a person's nature" (GEM)		"Now, a spiritual body is as material, or substantial and tangible, a body as that which we now possess. It is a body purified from 'the law of sin and death.' Hence it is termed 'holy,' and 'spiritual,' because it is born of the spirit from the dust, is incorruptible, and sustained by the ruach, or spirit, independently of the neshemeh, or atmospheric air." (Elpis Israel) "If the reader understand these things, he will fully comprehend the saying of the apostle, that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither can corruption inherit incorruption.” It is a physical impossibility. Can mortal men possess an everlasting kingdom, the priesthood and royalty of which are not to be left to successors?" (Herald) "The spirit of man is no better than his body, for it is naturally, at evil as his body is physically corrupt" (Herald of the Future Age)