Justification from "Sin in the flesh"
"Lust, or the desire to do evil, is the offspring of the first sin and the cause of all subsequent sin. On this account it is denominated "sin in the flesh" (Rom. viii. 3), and, as a consequence, is the subject of divine reprobation. Sin has thus two aspects, moral and physical, and "the blood of the everlasting covenant" is required to take away the one as well as the other." (BOC, p. 3)
"That evil desire—denominated sin-in-the-flesh—is no longer accounted defiling; it has, by burial with Christ, partaken of his sacrifice for sin, and is henceforth described, not as sin-in-the-flesh, but as evil desire: Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust (i.e. evil desire) and enticed’ (Jas. I.,14)." (Sanctuary Keeper, December 1902, p. 85)
"The ‘sweet savour’ attending a believer ‘when he rises from baptism’ is incompatible with condemnation for inherited sin, and a ‘body’ which is then accounted ‘holy’ cannot at the same time be reckoned unclean." (Sanctuary Keeper, June 1897, p. 12)
"The point is, are those ‘sin tendencies’ (the result of Adam’s disobedience) still held against us? Or, have they been atoned for by baptism into Christ’s sacrificial death? If they have, they cannot lock us in the grave for ever." (Sanctuary Keeper, September 1898, p. 36)
"What we have said is, that a believer is, by baptism, justified from his sinful flesh—which is quite a different thing. If this form of expression has not always been used, the idea contained in it is what was intended. The Scriptural authority for this form of sound words is to be found in Acts 13:39: ‘By Him [Jesus Christ] all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.’ These things are various kinds of uncleanness, including sinful flesh." (Sanctuary Keeper, December 1902, p. 89) (See this ref in detail including preceding text for his justification of his words)
"The brethren of Christ now occupy in relation to those oracles, the same position; they have been "circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism" (Col. 2:11, 12). (BOC, p. 12) (Note: Brother Andrew confused "sins OF the flesh" with "sin in the flesh". But more importantly, baptism is a figure of the true circumcision. The true circumcision of the body is not accomplished till immortality, when the mortal shall put on immortality.)
Note: Brother Andrew is clearly confused in these quotes. Yes, there are two aspects to sin: moral and physical. Physical sin, or 'sin in the flesh' is the inheritance of all the sons of Adam, and leads to moral sins, that is, sins of our own committing (except in the case of Messiah). But brother Andrew then erroneously concluded that baptism changes 'sin in the flesh' to 'evil desire'. There is no Biblical proof. Just his assertion. Yet, the example of Christ, in light of Romans 8:3, alone would be sufficient to disprove such a claim for Christ was baptized prior to his crucifixion. Physical defilement is not removed at baptism. It is not changed at baptism. Its characteristics are not modified at baptism. The uncleanness or defilement of sin in the flesh is not removed at baptism. We are prospectively freed from the physical law of sin and death (Elpis Israel pages 40, 43, 90-91, 93, 140, 144. Logos ed; Eureka Vol 1 pages 247, 248, 249 Logos ed).
These quotes, and particularly quote #4 show that brother Andrew believed there was accountability, for all the decendants of Adam, for the Adamic transgression, which he equated to sin in the flesh. He thinks that at baptism the "sin tendencies" are no longer "held against us", as if any of the children of Adam are responsible for those tendencies. It is true that baptism is the first step, after enlightenment, to be released from those sinful tendencies. However, they still work in the body, and therefore render the body unclean and defiled. To deny that the physical body is unclean after baptism is to teach "clean flesh" through baptism.
Thus as Thomas Williams would later claim: "Baptism removes original sin." "Baptism justifies from racial sin." "I believe that federally and racially we are held guilty of original sin" (Thomas Williams, from Sin and Sacrifice by W.M. Smallwood, p. 84). Guilt is a moral term, which Thomas Williams incorrectly used. Thomas Williams, not being as insightful a Bible student, or as careful a writer as JJ Andrew, frankly spelled out the same doctrine JJ Andrew taught: "What we have said is, that a believer is, by baptism, justified from his sinful flesh [original sin]". "Consequently they cannot be delivered from the dust without being cleansed [by baptism] from the sin inherited from Adam." (JJ. Andrew, The Sanctuary Keeper, September 1897, p. 41).
Baptism not only justifies from personal sins, but it prospectively frees us from the law of sin and death. As brother Roberts wrote, "What is cancelled at baptism (and it is only cancelled potentially—for there is an 'if' all the way through) is the condemnation resting upon us as individual sinners, and the racial condemnation which we physically inherit." Preface of the disputants, Andrews Roberts Debate. It gives us a right to the tree of life, but not actual possession thereof. We maintain that right to the tree of life by faithfully abiding in Christ, though physically the law of sin and death still lives in our mortal bodies. The resurrection, the day when the High Priest comes forth from the Most Holy showing whether our sacrifices have been accepted, will be the actual Day of Atonement, where the uncleanness of the defiled nature is put away through the ascension to the Divine nature.