Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 1 of 33 pages 2 February 2001 25 February 2001 To:     Brother Stephen Genusa To: Ray Edgecombe, David Evans, James Luke, Des Manser, James Mansfield and Peter Weller. Tyler-Longview Ecclesia, TEXAS USA CC: Enfield Ecclesia Cumberland Ecclesia Yagoona Ecclesia Tyler-Longview Ecclesia From: Brethren: Ray Edgecombe, David Evans, James Luke, Des Manser, James Mansfield and Peter Weller. From:   Stephen Genusa Dear Brother Stephen, Dear brethren, Greetings in the name of our Lord. Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Having carefully considered the matters you raised in your original and revised papers entitled “Transgression and Sin”, we found it difficult to frame a reply.  Not because of any compelling case you presented, but because it was difficult to know where to start with so many matters about which one could take exception. Brethren, unfortunately you did not wait for the final copy of the booklet which appeared after your letter was written. It is unfortunate because there is much to be addressed which you failed to address. I cannot consider your reply an answer to Transgressions and Sin because you did not address the fundamental arguments made against your position. 1)    Because of the unsound position you have taken – unsound both historically and more important, scripturally – you spend pages affirming that which is not denied: “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” and that he died “for us”. No one denies this in the brotherhood, so far as I am aware. You have given the semblance of response but without any substance. 2)    Furthermore, you are careful not to deny too much. To do so could be damaging to your position. To state the obvious positives: Christ died for us, and so forth. Yes, we know and believe these first principles very strongly. But why did you not state your other doctrines so clearly? 3)    You spend paragraph after paragraph attempting to discredit me by trying to align me with those outside of the Central fellowship. It is a bogey because Central would be willing to have unity with the Bereans on the basis of the BASF. My brethren, can you not make your case from the Scriptures without pointless personal disparagement? 4)    You fail to answer a single quotation used against your position from the Pioneer
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 2 of 33 pages writings but try to discredit the use of them by again aligning me with non-Central fellowships or brethren who quote the same or similar passages. Why not admit that you do not agree with those pioneer quotations rather than using diversionary devices? 5)    You fail to address why it is that you make the condemnation of sin’s flesh in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ merely symbolism. The reason: because you only recognize one acceptation of the word sin. 6)    There are two acceptations of the word sin in the Bible, and according to the pioneer writings, yet you fail to reconcile how there are two while according to your personal twist on the word metonymy there is only really one. 7)    You do not state why you reject the expositions of the Christ-Altar and Christ High Priest – antitypes found in the writings of brethren J. Thomas and R. Roberts. To do so, as you know, would expose your position’s deformity. Nor do you mention the fact that your interpretation of the altar and high priest agree with both AD Strickler and H. Fry. 8)    But worse than that, you fail to address how it is that your doctrines parallel those of AD Strickler, H Fry, J Bell and other clean- fleshers without coming into conflict with the expositions of all the pioneer brethren. 9)    You fail to take up the word atonement and prove that the pioneer brethren were wrong in their use of the word. 10)  You fail to prove that the pioneer use of the words “unclean” and “defilement” are wrong yet by your changed definitions it is proven you do not agree. 11)  You fail to define the diabolos in Christ and demonstrate how the pioneer brethren were wrong in their understanding despite your obvious difference with them. 12)  You fail to explain how it is that Christ could literally have born our personal transgressions in his body. 13)  Men are made sinners hereditarily according the Bible and the pioneer expositions. You fail to explain how men are “made sin” hereditarily in the argument you put forward – that the reality of sin is only
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 3 of 33 pages transgression. 14)  You, as all PA theorists have done, freely admit that Christ benefited by his own death but you fail to state specifically how Christ benefited from his own offering. I suspect that is because the ruse has been exposed: “for us” and “obedience”. 15)  You fail to address the fact that you substitute the term “mortality” for “sin’s flesh” in various arguments. 16)  You confuse the physical uncleanness of sin-nature with the “washing of hands” – an argument that would be humorous if the subject were not so serious. And then you take the argument one step farther by suggesting that those who teach sin-nature are as the Pharisees! Sadly, your doctrines seem to have been taken from the book Echoes of Past Controversies by bro. H. Fry – a brother that was disfellowshipped in 1898 for teaching that the Lord’s offering was not for himself for the purging of his nature, but rather that it was ceremonial symbolism. I have John Martin’s handwritten notes such as “AMEN!”, “True”, “Yes” throughout bro. Fry’s book. Are you not aware that H. Fry was disfellowshipped for teaching these false doctrines? Those who have picked up on H. Fry’s teachings include John Hensley and Richard Stone. Besides brother Hensley’s book I have a transcript of 3 discussions conducted by Richard Stone in which he and John Hensley advocate the very same teachings as H. Fry and yourselves. And at the bottom of the transcripts are a large number of Bible quotes and pioneer quotes which are in direct opposition to their false doctrines. Copies available on request. You are very critical of a number of Brethren but particularly Bro. John Martin who is well known to us all for something like 50 years. You incorrectly accuse him of changing his view, an argument which we think you ought to treat with some sensitivity.  But as far as your doctrinal position is concerned we summarise it as follows.  You believe: I do not need to accuse brother Martin of changing his views. He openly admitted it, in the presence of a number of brethre, when confronted with his Hebrews notes some years ago. There were more witnesses than the 2 or 3 brethren required by the Law (and a sound policy to follow) to establish a matter. But if you question my assertion I have the audio of a talk he gave in 1971 in Queensland: The Relationship of Jesus to His Own Sacrifice. It is a fiery lecture in which he openly advocates two forms of sin: sin nature and transgression. In fact he goes so far as to say that those who do not understand the atonement properly are not Christadelphian.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 4 of 33 pages He notes that the doctrine of Christ offering for himself (because of his sin-nature) is a doctrine unique to the Christadelphians – that this doctrine is “a dynamo driving us to the kingdom of God”. He’s quite bold on the tape in condemning your teachings and what he now teaches in Saved by His Life. Copies of the audio, if you don’t have it, are available upon request. å  Sin is found in two forms, moral transgression and our nature (physical sin). å  The Australian Unity Book teaches the same thing: “Sin used as a literal term, and ‘sin’ used by metonymy, cannot be classed in one category.” (Unity Book, p. 63) The literal term “sin” is transgression. Sin used by metonymy – what else is it but “sin that dwelleth in me” or sin-nature. Will you invent a 3rd form of sin to explain away the 2nd? Brother Sulley wrote, “there are two classes of sin from which the human race needs deliverance. First, those to which men are related by racial descent (Rom 5:12- 14); second, individual trespasses. In immersion there is a recognition of the first; and, by the offering of sacrifice, there is a confession of the second.” (The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy, 1887, p. 76). You apparently no longer teach this. Christadelphians have taught since the Christadelphian community was founded that sin is used in two acceptations or senses in the Bible. It has been the clean-fleshers who have regularly challenged this doctrine since brother Roberts day. By using diversionary tactics with the word metonymy, you teach one acceptation of sin, not two. “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... 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.” – bro. J. Thomas, Elpis
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 5 of 33 pages Israel, p. 129, Logos ed. Two: 1 + 1 = 2 Principal: “First, or highest, in rank; most important” (Oxford English Dictionary) Acceptations: “A particular sense, or the generally recognized meaning, of a word of phrase” (Oxford English Dictionary) “But men are not only made, or constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam, but they become sinners even as he, by actual transgression.” (Bro. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 133) “Thus men are sinners in a two-fold sense, first, by natural birth, and next, by transgression.” (Bro. Thomas, Elpis Israel Logos ed., p. 133) å  Just as a sacrifice was required for moral transgression so a sacrifice is required for the flesh of sin; both forms of sin require atonement. å  Likewise, this is what brethren J. Thomas, R. Roberts, CC Walker, J. Carter, and HP Mansfield all taught. Take for example this from brother John Carter: "That there was a sense in which he must offer for himself would appear from the fact that Aaron had so to do before he offered for the people; and Jesus is the antitype. If it should be said that this was a necessary preparation in Aaron's case, it might be asked, was there no necessary preparation in Christ's case? There was; and the Scriptures give the reason. We get a clue in the words of Peter: 'who his own self bare our sins in his own body on a tree' (1 Peter 2:24). He was there as a representative, partaking of the nature that was common to all - a nature under sentence of death because of sin.” (Bro. John Carter, Letter to the Hebrews, p.83 3rd edition) Brother Roberts wrote, “That Christ through his own atonement has been raised from the dead, to die no more, and consequently none can rise to die no more except through the same means, but they may rise to mortal life without atonement, as shown by several historical cases of such resurrection, and by the testimony that God will bring to judgment every responsible soul of man that doeth evil whether he be Jew or Gentile.” (R. Roberts, Resurrection to Condemnation)
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 6 of 33 pages “the Altar prefigured the Lord Jesus Christ. Contact with him through baptism constitutes us ‘holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling’ (Heb. 3:1). As the altar had to be cleansed, atoned for, anointed and sanctified, and as it typed the Lord Jesus, it is obvious that he was involved in his own sacrifice.” (HP Mansfield, The Atonement, The Power of the Altar, p. 185, 186) "Paul's statement (Heb. 7:27) is that Jesus did ONCE what the typical high priest did daily. What was that? 'Offered first for his own sins and then for the people's'. It follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under adamic condemnation, inhering [to be inherent or innate in] his flesh." (Bro. Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 405) Brother Don Styles in the March 1994 Tidings magazine published an article entitled Sacrifice for Human Nature. Do you accuse brother Don Styles of teaching Andrewism? See the reprint at http://www.genusa.com/atonement/. å  Metonymy is used in Scripture to identify flesh as ACTUAL sin.  Metonymy describes a literal relationship rather than a relationship, such as cause and effect. å  You do not quote me accurately, and have actually misstated what is explicitly spelled out in Transgressions and Sin. “Actual sin” is transgression. You even quote me later in your letter where I wrote that sin-nature is not “actual sin”. “Mortal flesh in the Bible is called sin. It is not “literal sin” or “actual sin” in the sense of transgression.” Transgressions and Sin, page. 4 å  You have misframed the definition of metonymy by your explanation. More on the word metonymy later. å  Because flesh IS sin, it is justifiable to use moral terms such as atonement or sacrifice for nature. å  As the pioneer brethren taught, the word atonement is not exclusively a moral term. The Bible does not use kaphar in a strictly moral sense as you should be aware of by now – despite brother Luke’s contention in the Yagoona meeting. So it is not a matter of it being “justifiable” in your view but a matter of how the Bible uses the word that means, “covering”.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 7 of 33 pages Brother Roberts wrote, “That Christ through his own atonement has been raised from the dead, to die no more…” (R. Roberts, Resurrection to Condemnation) Your assertion is not a new one and you find a unity of thought with others who have gone before: “Christ’s human nature did not make him unclean. Christ had no sins to atone for. His sinful flesh or flesh full of sin could not be atoned for” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light”, p. 26). å  To not accept that a sacrifice is required for human nature is to deny Heb 2:14 and several of the types under the Law and is to teach “partial atonement” which is akin to “clean flesh”. å  Your explanation is poorly worded but I think I understand what you wrote. To deny the 2nd acceptation of sin necessitates that you teach clean flesh. Herein is the problem PA theorists face. Brother Thomas wrote explicitly that there are two principal acceptations of the word sin found in the Bible. Your position is somewhat aided by the fact that the word “acceptation” is no longer a commonly used word. But the Oxford English Dictionary makes the meaning clear. Therefore you use the metonymy argument, which is just a subtle argument employed in the face of facts to reduce the 2nd acceptation of sin to something other than sin. What you would call it I do not know but it takes on the sense of “symbolic sin”. I suspect this is an apt description since you reduced the sacrifice of Christ to CEREMONIAL SYMBOLISM as H. Fry did. I cannot find symbolic sin in the Bible. However I do find in the Bible the diabolos of which Christ partook by heredity being made not of the nature of angels but rather as a son of Adam. To contrast your list, here is an incomplete summary of your teachings and their results: 1.    That the traditional Christadelphian teachings of the types of the High Priest and Altar are wrong. That brethren J. Thomas, R. Roberts, CC Walker, HP Mansfield, and J. Carter did not understand properly the types of the High Priest and Christ-Altar. Yagoona’s exploratory work and public statement
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 8 of 33 pages made that clear. 2.    Christ’s offering was for transgressions only, so not for himself (ref. p.7 and p. 8 of your letter) except through the “obedience” and “for us” arguments. 3.    Ergo, Christ was a substitutional sacrifice since he only offered “for us” in “obedience”. Bro. John Martin made this same argument against clean-flesh (partial atonement) in two talks – one in 1970 and another in 1971 in Queensland, so forgive the lack of originality. 4.    Sin is transgressions only and therefore the word is used in the Bible, not in two principal acceptations, but one only. Words used by metonymy cannot be a reality. 5.    That “defilement” is of the conscience only, because that is the only way The Great Teacher uses the word (J. Luke’s argument). Therefore defilement is only a moral matter despite what the rest of the Bible teaches. 6.    That physical human nature is mortality only. i.e. it has only the ‘law of death’. 7.    Ergo, that there is no law of sin in physical human nature. 8.    That uncleanness and defilement are not terms associated with our physical nature in the Bible. 9.    Ergo, flesh is clean at birth being free of transgression. 10.  Ergo, that babies may die because they are mortal, not because they are sin’s flesh. 11.  That the terms “sin prone”, “propensities”, “diabolos” and “sin in the flesh” all have moral meanings only. 12.  That Christ literally bore our personal transgressions in his body to the tree. 13.  That atonement is purely moral and all the pioneer brethren were sadly mistaken about this fundamental word of the Gospel. 14.  That the condemnation of flesh is mortality only, and not the crucifixion of Christ for he was only (literally) bearing our transgressions.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 9 of 33 pages Your magazine, "Lampstand" published an article by Bro. J. Carter stating clearly that the terms of Romans 8 in regard to sin are only moral terms (including Romans 8:3). Is this what you teach in regard to "sin's flesh"? To support your case you quote extensively from the Pioneers, you use some Scriptural references and cite the meeting between the Arranging Brethren of the Enfield and Cumberland ecclesias with the Yagoona ecclesia.  All but one of us are Arranging Brethren of either the Enfield or the Cumberland ecclesias with most of us being present at that meeting. You likewise have your selected quotations with this difference: that when checking the context of your quotations many are plainly lifted out of context and misused for teaching PA doctrines. I am preparing another document to prove this. I am embarrassed, for your sakes, in seeing how many quotes PA theorists have misused; how selectively the pioneer works must be used; and how within a matter of a few words or sentences the context is made clear. Brother Martin has done this repeatedly in the course of his writing and I will prove this (both from Saved by His Life as well as from his handwritten notes I have). Page 40 of Transgressions and Sin is but a sampling. I will of course provide names and sources of both the original quote, along with where and how it has been misused by showing that within a few words or sentences the PA use is patently wrong. I believe many in the brotherhood will find it interesting reading. In citing this meeting you have been given selective transcripts as your source material.  You fail to record that the outcome of the meeting was that the Yagoona ecclesia “found no departure from the Truth in (Enfield and Cumberland’s) understanding of the principles of the Atonement as defined in the accepted basis of fellowship”.  Further, in the discussions which lasted something like 8 hours, “no evidence of error of fundamental doctrine” was found in “Bro. John Martin and Bro. Jim Luke who were in attendance”.  Yet you use an incomplete record to conclude differently! Yes, they are selective. Would you have me republish the source material in full with comments for examination by brethren and sisters? Furthermore, would you please provide me with the tapes of the Yagoona meeting for distribution (with Yagoona’s consent)? I will do that at my expense. There will be no need for anyone to worry about quotes being taken out of context when the full context is available to the brotherhood. I also note that you have not denied any of the quotations used. Which extracts do you feel do not represent your teaching correctly? As to the outcome of the meeting maybe you should be a little more forthright and mention the fact that you brethren from Enfield and Cumberland worked on the original Yagoona statement, which they offered you, for well over 2 hours, reshaping it phrase by phrase, word by word, into something you could take home. You can confirm this by listening to tapes 5, 6 and 7 which are almost exclusively dealing with the Yagoona statement. You will find by listening to those tapes that the original statement they
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 10 of 33 pages offered you was completely different from what you fashioned after over 2 hours of word- smithing. The Yagoona brethren were kind enough to allow flexibility for your sakes and now you capitalize on that kindness. Furthermore, conspicuously absent from the statement was a joint statement over the basis of the BASF and Unity Book. You pressed hard to get this but Yagoona repeatedly rebuffed your request. Why is it missing brethren? The brotherhood would be well served to know. Furthermore, the clause that Yagoona included about the differences in types was so poorly received by you, that their statement was almost completely rejected on that basis alone. Why was that the case? Again the brotherhood would be well served by having the facts brought before it. There is a doctrinal difference brethren. You know it. I know it. But most importantly brethren, the Father and Christ know it, so why hide it? Your letter (with no other source material – and there is much) proves it. I hope the Yagoona brethren will follow up on that meeting and report to the Australian ecclesias their findings, including the disagreements as to types and antitypes, and their application to Christ, which are evident between your two ecclesias. If you have nothing to hide then I ask you to immediately release the full tapes to the brotherhood. You know why these tapes are being sequestered so please do not try and represent the meeting in a light which is inconsistent with the truth of what occurred. There would be no need for me to state the obvious if your letter had not misrepresented the meeting. It is worth noting that this meeting was called by the Enfield and Cumberland Arranging Brethren to interview Bro. Keith Cook over his book, “The Theory of Partial Atonement Examined” with its accusations against Brethren H Tennant, M Ashton, J Martin, J Luke and J Hensley that they teach “errors of doctrine destructive of the Truth”. Bro Keith refused to attend the meeting. Brother Cook did not “refuse to attend the meeting.” You were present at the meeting. You know his sister-wife had passed away, and that he had need to seek some quietness at that time, away from the stresses that were being inflicted upon him. You claim to be in possession of the facts and yet here is a misrepresentation designed to discredit brother Cook. Why do you need to do this if Truth is on your side? Our great concern about your paper is what Whether any supposed errors are inexcusable or not
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 11 of 33 pages appears to be your lack of understanding of what we, whom you call “PA theorists”, actually believe. Your misrepresentation of the Truth is a great disappointment.  You may be excused on the basis of ignorance, yet you make yourself inexcusable on the basis of your own stated painstaking research. will be decided by The Just Judge in a soon coming day. I do not expect the approval of brethren who no longer stand with the BASF and traditional teachings of the Central community. Let us demonstrate the internal inconsistency of your argument. You state on page 7 that Brother Martin correctly understood 1 Peter 2:24 when he wrote his Hebrew Notes.  You cite his notes: “Jesus was ‘made sin for us’ (2 Cor 5:21) by reason of his being born with our nature, and thus ‘bearing our sins in his own body’”. In stating that he “correctly understood this verse when he wrote his Hebrew Notes” (in 1967) you infer that this no longer represents his belief.  In presenting what you see as his changed view you frequently refer to his later publication, (to which you take exception) “Saved by His Life” (published in 1989). In testing whether Bro John has changed his view he states in “Saved by His Life”: He has admitted a change as already noted. “And so he was of our nature made sin for us.  He died unto sin.  He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself and in his flesh condemned the principle of sin.” (Page 7) “So representing his brethren as the son of man, to taste death for every man, he took that nature sinlessly to the cross and finally and irrevocably put it to death … and in that sense the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” were quieted in death.  And so in a metonymical sense Paul could say in Hebrews 9:26, ‘He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ because in that body were the propensities that troubled every other man and woman.  These lead inevitably to acts of transgression, but not in him.  And because he did not sin he was able to ‘condemn sin in the flesh’.” (Page 76) You have failed to demonstrate the inconsistency of my argument. Furthermore, testing brother Martin’s quotes must extend beyond a single quotation. “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” It is the whole system of doctrine that brother Martin teaches and believes that is of concern. It is what is behind the words used that is at issue. If brother Martin would have come clean years ago by stating clearly what he believes, the controversy would have taken another path. But as it is, he cloaks his language in phraseology designed to create a form of union rather than unity of mind (cp. His comments on this from the 1971 Queensland lecture). You have already taken issue with the idea of atonement for nature or sacrifice for nature (a phrase I prefer not use for it is easily misconstrued). So do not represent brother Martin as teaching the same things Christadelphians have taught since the days of brother J. Thomas. Brother Martin apparently once did teach these things (as in his talk in 1971), but now claims that he has changed. And certainly it is evident that he now says things completely differently
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 12 of 33 pages from then. Brother Roberts wrote, “That Christ through his own atonement has been raised from the dead, to die no more…” (R. Roberts, Resurrection to Condemnation). You clearly do not agree with this. Why not be honest in Christ and admit it? Surely a fair comparison of these statements would, rather than indicate that Bro John has changed his view, demonstrate his consistent teaching on this matter.  Or if there was any doubt would it not be reasonable to ask him?  Bro John’s own affirmation is that he has not changed his view and today still stands by what he wrote in both publications!  Further, is John’s description any different to yours on page 8? Your testing of my argument in regards to John Martin fails from the start. Brother Martin has publicly stated, before a number of witnessing brethren, that he would have to revise his Hebrews notes if republished. That he decided revisions are not necessary now does not take away from the fact that he saw the “internal inconsistencies” in his prior teachings in comparison to his newly adopted ideas. “The truth is that by a figure the Lord Jesus Christ bore our sins: that figure being the physical sin- nature, which he bore by his flesh decent from Mary.” The difference is clear and it is this: that I employed the term “figure” to mean that the “bearing of our sins” is the figurative language. The literal is that he was made of a physical sin- nature common to the sons of Adam. Instead you make the nature that he bore a figure or symbol and the literal is our transgressions which you are forced to put in his body and thereby confuse the figurative with the literal. Yet you would have your readers understand that we believe: “Any flesh, that of an angel or of a man made fresh from the ground, will suffice for PA theorists for it would be free of personal transgressions and therefore able to “bear OUR SINS”, or our transgressions!  This shows the absurdity of the partial atonement theory”; (your emphasis). Any flesh will NOT suffice.  It is these extrapolations which are totally unfounded and unjustifiable that quickly remove credibility from your paper.  It is sad when such blatant misrepresentation finds a place in the Brotherhood from one who professes “a duty to declare God’s righteousness”.  We find such misrepresentation inexcusable.  Firstly because we are sure you must know that we do not believe it.  And, as one who professes to understand Bro. John’s teachings, your ignorance of his view is inexcusable. They are not mere extrapolations. They are the logical conclusions of the PA theorist’s teaching and founded upon your own arguments. Maybe I should refer you to Michael Edgecombe’s advocacy of the PA theory where the extremes of the PA theory are even clearer? I never claimed you would openly admit that “any flesh will do”. It is necessary for you to call it a “blatant misrepresentation” as any good Christadelphian would. But facts are stubborn things. Facts are related to conclusions as cause and effect where facts are the cause and effects are conclusions. And the logic of your position is that any flesh will do so long as it is free of personal transgression for there is only one acceptation of sin according to your position;
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 13 of 33 pages and therefore to be made sin-nature is an impossibility – thus “made sin for us” is merely symbolism. Instead of merely denying it be specific. Tell me on what basis you do not believe it. You preach a Christ who merely condemned sin by a ceremonial and symbolic act. This is straight from the teachings of H. Fry. See page 26 of his book for example. You preach a Christ who was without sin (nature) and therefore a substitutional sacrifice. How do you reconcile your statement with Bro. John’s description when he had this to say? Reconciled above. You quote extensively from the Pioneers.  The Dawn, Old Paths, Berean, Family Journal, etc., all quote extensively from the Pioneers in support of what are obvious doctrinal differences.  How can this be so?  Brother Carter described this as “the battle of quotations”.  How can the Pioneers be said to be supporting opposing views?  The answer must be in the way we are reading them; we assume that an inflection is made to support our doctrinal position.  Surely the ultimate test is the Bible.  But do we shy away from our Pioneers?  Of course not!  For there is a further test we can use when one says they are teaching one thing and another says they are teaching some thing different.  That test is the consistency of the extended logic of each argument.  The test we can use is; “with which argument is there a total consistency of Pioneer teaching?”  So let’s test your statement further. This is one argument that PA theorists have held to dearly for the pioneer brethren’s writings witness against the error of the PA theorist’s doctrine. PA theorists cannot meet these quotations head-on but must use these diversionary tactics to discredit – without acknowledging the things quoted! When brother J. Thomas wrote, “Sin is a synonym for human nature” there is no room for equivocation. Either it is or it isn’t. He isn’t referring to transgressions here and I see no mention of the word metonymy. There is no battle of quotations, brethren. Why pretend so unashamedly that you are upholding pioneer teachings when you know full well that you are not? Admit that you do not uphold the pioneer teachings concerning the high priest and Christ-altar. Admit that you do not uphold the pioneer teachings concerning sin-nature and sacrifice in relation thereto. Admit that you do not uphold the pioneer teaching of sin in its two principal acceptations. Admit that you do not uphold the pioneer teachings concerning physical defilement and uncleaness. Admit that you do not uphold the teachings of the pioneer brethren on the definition of diabolos as in the nature. Admit that you do not uphold the teachings of the pioneer brethren on how Christ bore our sins in his physical body (ie. flesh and blood with the same propensities as we have) — for which sins an offering is needed. Admit that you do not uphold the teachings of the pioneer brethren concerning the cleansing of human nature resulting from the Lord's sacrificial offering. Admit that you do not uphold the teachings of the pioneer brethren concerning the law of sin which is hereditary.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 14 of 33 pages Admit that you do not uphold the teachings of the pioneer brethren concerning Christ offering first for himself, as is also indicated in the BASF, clause 8: "for himself AND for those who should believe and obey him". Admit that you do not uphold the teachings of the pioneer brethren concerning the use of the word atonement. You mention the consistency of argument of the pioneer brethren and yet you yourselves have deviated on every one of these teachings! Brethren, you mistake assertion for reality; the claim of relationship for the substance of relationship; and union for unity. You state “sin is used in two ways in Scripture: transgressions and sin-nature.  Both require a sacrifice for atonement to be made”; page 6.  If that be the case, and we know that through baptism our personal transgressions are forgiven, what Pioneer writer say that “baptism is for the atonement of sin- nature”?  Search Romans 6 and find an application to us of “sacrifice for nature”.  We find that “the old man is crucified”, how? by not letting it “reign … (in) obeying it in the lusts thereof”—moral.  If sacrifice for nature was an essential aspect of our Lord’s crucifixion, and we being identified with his crucifixion and resurrection through baptism, surely it should have its counterpart in Paul’s most detailed exposition on this subject. Brother Roberts, as noted above, said “Christ through his own atonement…”. Do you suggest that brother Roberts was making Christ a moral transgressor? Your “one acceptation of sin” doctrine is explained as follows: “It could not be said (of Christ) that he had sin dwelling in him as Paul said of himself. If sin is a synonym for human nature, it must be so in the primary meaning of the word ‘sin’. It cannot be sin as ‘sin in the flesh’, or sin as a metaphor, because that is human nature itself when considered as a moral thing.” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 83). Furthermore, there is an obvious error in your logic. You attempt to portray the issue as the interchangeability of words where “baptism” can be substituted for “atonement” in any place in the Bible. This is not true and no one would argue this. But baptism is a step in the process of atonement. Prayer is also a step in the process of atonement and would you venture to substitute the two words in every context? Where did I write, “baptism is for the atonement of sin-nature”? This is a trap to catch those who subscribe to the teachings of JJ Andrew for the phrase is easily misunderstood. But indeed baptism does have something to do with our sin- nature. Paul’s “most detailed exposition” of the subject includes this: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 15 of 33 pages baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? … For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection …  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body (gr. soma) of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Romans 6:3-6) “’The body of sin’ is ‘our mortal body’ (Rom. 6:6; 8:11), mortal because of sin (Rom. 5:12). ‘He hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Cor. 5:21).” (CC Walker, The Atonement). Peter says: "to us are given great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine NATURE, having escaped the CORRUPTION that is in the world through lust" (2Pet. 1:4). And again, have ye not read, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Now brethren, I don’t know about you, but when I was baptized it was my hope not merely to have my transgressions forgiven but to one day be delivered “from this body of death” (Rom. 7:24). Do you accept the forgiveness of transgressions and refuse the “house from heaven” or immortality, which necessitates the cleansing of human nature? And how else to receive it except by entering into the Constitution of Righteousness through baptism? Thus baptism has something to do with the physical redemption of the body. Frankly, your argument is not one I would expect to hear from those who claim to know the Truth. It is a narrow trap intended to misrepresent or paint your opposition into a corner while unwittingly doing damage to The Truth. “The two aspects of the double typical offering were combined in one act. He had not twice to offer for himself… ‘He was made sin for us who knew no
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 16 of 33 pages sin;’ and does not sin require an offering?” (R. Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1875, p. 139) “That statement that he did these things "for us" has blinded many to the fact that he did them "for himself" first--without which, he could not have done them for us, for it was by doing them for himself that He did them for us. He did them for us only as we may become part of him, in merging our individualities in him by taking part in his death, and putting on his name and sharing his life afterwards. He is, as it were, a new centre of healthy life, in which we must become incorporate before we can be saved.” (R. Roberts, The Law of Moses, p. 173). Our differences stem from the fact that we believe the Word teaches that our nature and transgressions stand related as cause and effect, and as such by metonymy, our nature with the lusts thereof, although not literal sin is put for sin, hence its description “sin’s flesh”.  It is the “flesh of sin” because it has a bias to sin; a propensity to evil and when left unrestrained it will commit acts of sin, for in it dwells the enmity.  You, on the other hand, see our nature and acts of transgression as literally two forms of sin—literal sin being both moral and physical, both therefore having to be addressed by sacrifice.  You have a different understanding of what is meant by “metonymy”.  We will come back to the word “metonymy” later.  Metonymy aside, these differences are seen to be sufficient for you to accuse us of departing from Central teaching. Let us now “test” what is, and what is not Central teaching. I deny your mischaracterizations. The Bible calls our nature “sin” (“sin that dwelleth in me”, for example). Brother Thomas calls our nature “sin incarnate”. The Bible says that Christ put to death the diabolos. You have a choice. Either 1.    He was a moral sinner 2.    He literally bore our personal transgressions – each one! 3.    He was of a sin-nature Brethren, sound in the truth, have chosen item #3 for 150 years now. PA theorists have no choice but to accept #2. In 1958 when unity was effected in Australia the Cooper-Carter Addendum was adopted as an explanation of clauses 5 and 12 of the BASF.  The effect of the Addendum was to more narrowly define terms such as “defiled” and “sin in the flesh” and introduce phrases such as, “nature prone to sin” and moral terms such as “defiled conscience”; “by our own actions we become sinners”; “forgiveness and reconciliation God has provided by the offering of His son”.  The introduction of these moral terms is an action to which you take exception.  On page 4 of your paper you suggest our move to the “ambivalent phrase ‘sin prone nature’” is a change in language designed to move “the term into the moral realm—a consistent feature of partial atonement theories”.  Further, and rather damningly, you state on page 6; “‘Defiled’ (BASF Clause 5) and ‘unclean’ must also be changed (by the PA theorists) to describe moral qualities only.” By your own argument, the addendum did not “more narrowly define terms”. You wrote, “the INTRODUCTION of these moral terms…” So by your own argument, in some cases it may have unwittingly done the very opposite by widening the definition. For example, take the word “defiled” and compare with “defiled conscience” which is listed as an addition. Now, compare that with Clause 5 of the BASF in which defiled is associated with a physical law of his being. Furthermore, The term “sin prone” was not intended to be defined as a moral matter, in the way the PA theorists have done. Brethren Carter and Cooper never visualized that the Addendum would be seen or used as a change to the BASF. Brother John Martin states in
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 17 of 33 pages Stephen, do you realise what you are saying? Brother PO Barnard, in advocating against the Central reunion process in Australia took an identical position to you.  In speaking of the Addendum he said: a 1971 Queensland talk that he was in personal contact with brother Cooper (?) and had assurances from him that it was never intended to change the BASF. It was to define “what we’ve always believed in our Central group” – John Martin 1971. Now, if you want to know what “we’ve always believed in our Central group” I suggest you listen to John Martin in the 1971 Queensland talk and compare your own doctrines to what he clearly teaches there – The Relationship of Jesus to His Own Sacrifice. You will find that your official ecclesial stance has changed since 1971 and now finds itself in a position which brother Martin adamantly condemns in this talk. Finally, brethren Carter and Cooper expected the addendum to fade into disuse after about 5 years from 1958. It is a misleading argument to say that because brother PO Barnard said it, therefore it is wrong. As brother Carter said, referring specifically to brother Barnard’s letter “Of course, this correspondence in the writings of these brethren would not mean of itself that in these particulars the point of view advanced is wrong. That is determinable by Scripture.” This statement is curiously missing from your Unity Book, which shows only  "…", but is clearly in the original article in "The Christadelphian" To omit these significant and definitive words is to make Bro. Carter imply something he never did! It makes him deny his very words! “We have no objection to a statement which seeks to paraphrase the BASF as long as it states the whole truth… Unfortunately this cannot be said of the Carter-Cooper Addendum. … the part of the Truth that has been left out… concerns the need for redemption from a sin-cursed nature which the BASF calls ‘defiled’.  Search as one may, the Carter-Cooper Addendum omits any reference to the uncleanness of the flesh of men and of Christ.” “Search as one may, the Carter-Cooper Addendum omits any reference to the uncleanness of the flesh of men and of Christ” – you quote this in the context of a refutation of PO Barnard and my own position as well. Brethren, are you finally admitting that you believe in clean-flesh? But even if you do not, note this important fact: The arguments you have selected all happen to be Scriptural thus evidencing your disagreement with The Truth.  We are left to draw our own conclusions in the absence of your admission. “God’s righteousness was declared by the condemning of sin in the flesh.  Great lengths are Brother Barnard at this point is referring to clean-
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 18 of 33 pages gone to, so as to restrict sin to transgression, and to emphasise that the impulse to sin is called sin only by a figure of speech … ‘sin by metonymy’.” fleshers and PA theorists. Here are a few quotes you will find agreement with: “The Scriptures nowhere connect Christ with the word ‘sin’, only in its primary sense…  The original word translated ‘sin’ in 2nd Corin. 5:21 means ‘transgression, guilt’. We have no right to say that his individual flesh was ‘flesh full of sin’ or ‘sinful flesh’. (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 84). “Christ’s human nature did not make him unclean. Christ had no sins to atone for. His sinful flesh or flesh full of sin could not be atoned for” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 26). “The suffering of Christ, ending in death, were for sin, transgression of a personal character, and not for constitutional sin.” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 27). “There is not a single statement anywhere…. That Christ died for his ‘sin in the flesh’” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 50). We cite this material because it clearly demonstrates the doctrinal position adopted by Central, and the position of Central as perceived by OTHERS involved in the Reunion process who could not accept the teachings of Brethren Carter and Cooper to their own hurt.  There were two views on the teaching of the BASF.  The Addendum was added to EXCLUDE as Central teaching the view that our Lord made an “offering for nature”.  The argument in your paper is very akin to bro PO Barnard’s case against Central. This is called revisionist history and you should be ashamed for advancing such a brazen untruth. If I had nothing else to prove that with (and the material is plenteous), I would bring forth John Martin’s talk, 1971 Queensland in which he specifically addresses this in the context of the Unity Book. I will make copies of the audio available to anyone who requests it (audio CD, audio tapes or via the Internet). Let the brotherhood compare that 83 minute talk with your current claims! Brother Barnard’s condemnation of the unity agreement was due to what he saw as a lack of clarity on the subject. He saw the unity agreement as expansive and not a “narrowing of definitions” as you claim (and yet demonstrate to the contrary!). Indeed the Unity Book clearly speaks against your doctrine, and more importantly, BASF clauses 5-12 are obviously different from your teaching. Further to your accusation on “defiled” and “unclean” being words which we “must change to describe moral qualities only” (on page 6 of your paper) followed by your citation of Bro. Thomas: You say I “confuse ceremonial uncleaness with moral qualities”. Here you confuse assertion with fact. Brethren, please reread what I said. I assigned NO MORAL uncleaness for the “filth of
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 19 of 33 pages “‘The filth of the flesh’ was defilement by contact by touching any thing forbidden to be touched, or pronounced unclean by the law… It had nothing to do with the conscience”, is to identify your misapplication of Scripture.  What you are doing is the very thing that the Jews at the time of our Lord did; they could not get above the works of law.  You confuse CEREMONIAL UNCLEANNESS with MORAL qualities.  The quote you gave from Bro. Thomas makes this very point.  He speaks of the “carnal ordinance(s)” which brought about the “cleansing”, did not impact the heart (or conscience) of the Judaiser.  He is speaking of CEREMONIAL defilement not impacting the conscience.  This point is also made in Hebrews. Heb 9:13-14; “For if the blood of bulls and of goats (The Day of Atonement; Lev 16) and the ashes of an heifer (Water of Separation, cleansing from defilement from the dead, Num 19) sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh (the cleansing from CEREMONIAL uncleanness): How much more shall the blood of Christ … PURGE YOUR CONSCIENCE FROM DEAD WORKS to serve the living God.” the flesh” – this is the very point brother Thomas is making. Your quotation, once again is selective and out of context. But here is what appeared in the final copy: “Defiled” (BASF Clause 5) and “unclean” must be changed by Partial Atonement advocates to describe moral qualities only.” (Transgressions and Sin, p. 21). The argument is completely against your position for as brother Luke argued in the Yagoona meeting: “Defilement under the law has a moral connotation” (PA teacher, Yagoona–E/C meeting; Feb 5 2000). Brother Thomas’ comments are in direct conflict with brother Luke’s.  There was nothing MORALLY defiling about accidentally touching a bone. The confusion is completely on your part. Furthermore, this section of your letter sounds like the teachings of brother Luke. His teachings on defilement are by his own admission, confined to only the words of Christ explicitly recorded in the Gospels! Please either recall to your memories what was said there when brother Luke stated his case (a bit strong as you might recall where another brother, I believe it was D. Evans had to smooth over bro. Luke’s comment “that’s what the Pharisees were saying, ‘look my hands are dirty!’”) or review the tapes. Go learn what this meaneth: “almost all things are by the law PURGED with blood for it was necessary that the PATTERNS of things in the heavens should be PURIFIED with these … which are FIGURES of the true … but now once in the end of the age hath he appeared TO PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF.”  Note how Paul takes all the symbolism and types and ceremonial cleansing and sees them as but “figures” of what was accomplished in our Lord’s sacrifice for our SINS—moral! That is your misconstruction upon Paul’s argument. The patterns of the things in the heavens are figures of the True: Christ, then his brethren. “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (gr. soma; literally body) is of Christ.” Note how Paul takes the symbolism and “translates that into actual terms”. There are a number of words such as “cleanse”, “purify”, “purge”, “defiled”, “atone”, etc., which are given BOTH a moral and a ceremonial application in the Old Testament.  When we come to the New Testament we find that our Lord is at pains to lift the nation above the works of law, [“the carnal ordinance(s)” as described by Bro. Thomas] and give them their appropriate moral application, for God’s desire is to put His “law in their inward parts, and write it in their heart” (Jer 31:33).  Take the No doubt Christ was trying to raise the minds of the nation from the Letter to the Spirit. No one disputes this fact. Nor did he say to ignore the letter of the Law but to go and do that which Moses had commanded (Luk 5:12). You moralise it all; you spiritualise it all, which is a great leap to the apostasy. According to the apostle Paul, there is the natural and the spiritual
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 20 of 33 pages occasion when the scribes and Pharisees complained to Jesus that his disciples “washed not their hands when they eat bread” (Mat 15:1-20; Mk 7:14-23.  See also Jn 2:6.)  Our Lord’s response was, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man”.  In giving a more complete explanation of what true “defilement” was, he said; “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man.”  This is the Son of God’s definition of “defilement”.  He takes the CEREMONIAL application and lifts it into the MORAL sphere.  He wants God’s principles to affect the heart and conscience.  So he concludes: “to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man”. Furthermore there is obvious confusion on your part as to the supposed defilement (according to the Jews) of unwashed hands and defilement that comes from the sin-nature and its works. I note the emphasis on the words ceremonial and moral – words H. Fry stressed as well. I thank brother Luke for his comments but I’ve reviewed his doctrines along with those of H. Fry and AD Strickler, in the scales of the Scripture and found them sorely deficient. We find further use of these words in a ceremonial sense in the Gospels in the following places: Are we now New Testament Christadelphians brother Luke? Is it now forbidden to gather the meaning of these words from the Bible as a whole? If brother Luke’s measure of doctrine is truly only that which comes out of the mouth of The Great Teacher himself, I suggest his list of doctrines is going to be very scant indeed. When the Lord says, “if thy foot offend thee, cut it off”, I hope he can find a counterbalance in the Lord’s words to prevent him from physically cutting his foot off! This sort of reasoning is going to leave us all footless, handless and blind – typically and antitypically speaking. It may be asked is not our nature “cleansed” after the Judgement?  Interestingly enough, although this description is used in our literature, nowhere in the Word is our nature described as “cleansed” when this event occurs.  It is “changed”, 1 Cor 15:51-52.  We are told that “this corruptible” or “mortal” body “puts on” (is clothed with) immortality so that ”then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:53-54).  Or as it is described in 2 Cor 5:4, “mortality” is “swallowed up of life.” The description is accurate. The immortal is no longer flesh and blood but flesh and spirit. The body is cleansed. Various Mosaic types were a shadow of this cleansing. Once again, AD Stricker: “No where does the Bible represent sin in the flesh will be taken away from the body, leaving the body cleansed from it.” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 43). Upon what basis does this “redemption of the body” or granting of immortality occur (Rom 8:23)?: Eph 1:7; Col. 1:14 Do you really believe, as you are arguing, that the forgiveness of sins was the basis upon which Christ received redemption? Brother Roberts rightly wrote, “Christ required redemption [atonement, ed.] from adamic nature equally with his brethren, and the mode of redemption which God had ordained was a
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 21 of 33 pages perfect obedience culminating in a sacrificial death." (Bro. Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1895, p. 262) Redemption comes when we stand before our Judge and our SINS (moral) are forgiven by God’s grace.  Paul says nothing about “and our nature atoned for”. Nor does the Old Testament mention the word resurrection. But Paul does say, “this mortal shall put on immortality”. The word atonement is not exclusively a moral thing and since it refers to a physical covering such as the pitching of Noah’s ark there is a lovely typical and antitypical teaching which you sadly deny – and worse yet, you suggest that those who uphold it are Pharisaical! With this thought in mind let’s move to question your premise.  “Did God require of His son a sacrifice FOR the sin-prone propensities of his nature, as an element in its own right—a sacrifice for physical sin, ‘sin-in-the-flesh’, etc?”  If he did, he had a personal need outside his work for us.  So the question that follows is; “WHAT WAS OUR LORD’S SACRIFICE FOR?”  What does the Bible say? Here is how AD Strickler argued your position: “Never having any such kind of infirmity as the priests under the law, he (Christ) never made any offering for himself, either before or after he became High Priest, for where there is no sin, no offering is required, ‘in him is no sin’. What was the offering for? For the infirmity of the people. Heb 7:27” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 67) Further, he wrote, “The Bible gives no other reason for the death of Christ than for transgression.” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light, p. 60).. å  Mat 1:21; Mat 26:28; Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 15:3; Col 2:11; Col 2:13; Heb 9:14; Heb 9:28; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:17; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 3:5; 1 John 4:10 “he shall save his people from their SINS…. And their SINS AND INIQUITIES will I remember no more… Christ also hath once suffered for SINS, the just for the unjust… he was manifested to take away our SINS å  Brother Roberts wrote, “The forgiveness of personal offences is the prominent feature of the apostolic proclamation, because personal offences are the greater barrier. Nevertheless, men are mortal because of sin, quite independently of their own transgressions. Their redemption from this position is a work of mercy and forgiveness, yet a work to be effected in harmony with the righteousness of God, that He might be just while justifying those believing in the Redeemer. It is so declared (Rom. 3:26). It was not to be done by setting aside the law of sin and death, but by righteously nullifying it in one who should be authorized to offer to other men a partnership in his right, subject to required conditions (of their conformity to which, he should be appointed sole judge)…” (The Law of Moses, p. 172). The question that follows this is; “To what extent was our Lord involved in his own offering?”  Was it for himself first (to address a personal need—his SIN nature) and then for us?  Or was it a sacrifice “That statement that he did these things ‘for us’ has blinded many to the fact that he did them ‘for himself’ first--without which, he could not have done them for us, for it was by doing them for himself that
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 22 of 33 pages in which he was involved in and benefited from what he was doing as a representative on behalf of others; in the words of Peter; “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). Rom 5:8; Rom 8:32; 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 2:1; Eph 2:5; Eph 5:2; 1 Thes 5:10; Titus 2:14; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 2:21; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 Pet 4:1; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 3:16; Rev 1:5 “Christ died for US… delivered him up for US ALL… Christ our passover is sacrificed for US… “ He did them for us. He did them for us only as we may become part of him, in merging our individualities in him by taking part in his death, and putting on his name and sharing his life afterwards. He is, as it were, a new centre of healthy life, in which we must become incorporate before we can be saved.” (R. Roberts, The Law of Moses, The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons, 4th ed., p. 170- 172) His sacrifice was “for US” although he was involved in what he did for others. Of course he was “involved”. It was Jesus Christ who was crucified. But here you insert the “obedience” and “for us” arguments as the sufficiency of his involvement. It is here we try your doctrines and find them wanting in both the scales of the Bible and pioneer Christadelphian literature. Notwithstanding all the above quotations which clearly state that Christ died for our moral sins there is not one unambiguous Scriptural reference that says Christ had to make an offering FOR his nature—an offering to atone physical sin.  If this doctrine is so important why is Scripture so silent on the matter?  Of course we PA theorists are “fixated on the teaching that our nature must be destroyed” (your emphasis, my italics, page 14) as did Bro. HP Mansfield (Logos, volume 43, number 8; may 1977): I note the admission that you are in fact Partial Atonement theorists. You ask for ONE Scripture and I provide you with 3 which you will reject no doubt. Here’s one: John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. – Jesus Christ Why did Christ, the Great Teacher, choose to compare the lifting up of the serpent with the lifting up of himself? The answer is obvious to all the sheep of Christ who hear his words. Who can bring a clean thing from an unclean thing? None, save Partial Atonement theorists. “Sin in the flesh is hereditary; and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam’s violation of the Eden law.” (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, ch. 4, Logos ed., p. 131) Here is another: Heb 8:1 “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.” Here is yet another: “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”
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 23 of 33 pages You speak of consistency of the pioneer arguments. Here’s one to consider: "Paul's statement (Heb. 7:27) is that Jesus did ONCE what the typical high priest did daily. What was that? 'Offered first for his own sins and then for the people's'. It follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under adamic condemnation, inhering [to be inherent or innate in] his flesh." (Bro. Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 405). Do you in fact agree with this exposition of Hebrews 7:27? As to your quote from brother HP Manfield: Brother Mansfield was referring to human nature in the sense in which it can be said, “it must be destroyed”. This is covered in Transgressions and Sin, pages 34- 35. Consider the well know Scriptural references: Heb 2:14; Rom 8:3 In saying that Christ “destroy(ed) … the diabolos” in his “DEATH” Paul is not saying that he made a sacrifice FOR his nature.  How did Christ “destroy” the diabolos in his DEATH?  By not giving in to the propensities of the flesh; by nailing it to the cross in perfect obedience to his Father’s will. “Not my will, but thine be done.”  He condemned sin by not practicing it, by not succumbing to a nature wherein in all other men it reigned. You have confused the diabolos with the works of the diabolos in life. They are not synonymous as you mistakenly claim. He literally destroyed diabolos (physically) in himself in his death that the works of the diabolos (moral wickedness) would also be destroyed (not be permitted any fulfillment in any sense). Furthermore answer me this: those propensities, what were they: Moral or physical? If physical then were those propensities ‘the law of sin’? “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.” – Paul Answer the wrong way and you make Christ a moral sinner! And furthermore, were they defiling to his physical nature? Answer the wrong way and you openly teach clean-flesh. Use a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the questions and you answer them in default.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 24 of 33 pages The “sacrifice FOR his nature” argument is addressed in the book. The Unity booklet, or by its full title; “Christadelphian Unity in Australia: The Accepted Basis”, should not be seen as a publication relevant to Australia only.  It is an important document for the whole Brotherhood and is a historical lynchpin of Central teaching.  It is, by and large, a compilation of articles published in the Christadelphian in 1958.  It outlines the Addendum and the “Fellowship” Clauses (pages 13-15) with the balance of the booklet providing, among other things, an explanation of the Addendum.  It has a chapter devoted to quotations from the Pioneers which the Brotherhood agreed at the time were relevant to the issue, and which provided a balanced outlook on Pioneer teachings on this subject. Its importance outside of Australia is severely limited. Don’t rewrite history or change your expectations of brethren outside of Australia! I can assure you that we will not call a meeting any time soon to consider adding the AUB to our basis of fellowship. We meet on the BASF, not on the AUSTRALIAN unity book which was never designed or intended to replace the BASF or to be used in the U.S. Bro HP Mansfield saw the Unity booklet as being an essential document.  He makes this point on page 3 of a paper entitled: “Notes on the Atonement” under the heading; “Our Endorsement of the Unity Book”. Yes, it is in Australia and brother Mansfield was addressing Australian use of the book. “Unity was established in this country on the basis of the ‘Unity Book’.  This, therefore, constitutes a solemn pledge before God to endorse the Truth, and refuse to fellowship those who are in error on this vital doctrine.” (page 10 – see also page 11). Brethren, all who vowed a vow should keep the vow. I am amazed you would try and enforce an Australian agreement (which is against the PA theorists’ position anyway) in other countries. Brethren would be humoured if you came here setting forth the AUB as the basis of our fellowship! We meet on the BASF brethren and we do enforce clauses 5- 12 as traditionally understood. “What would we think of a person who signed a contract and then refused to carry out the terms thereof?  Would we not look upon him as a fraud, a liar?  But what if he claimed to carry out the terms, when in fact we knew that he did not – and what if he tried to justify his action by construing obvious terms to mean something else?  Would he not be worse?  These remarks relate to a contract or pledge entered into between men.  What of one entered into with God!  That is what the agreement in the Unity Book constitutes.” Central Brethren in Australia are bound by it. It is the AUSTRALIAN Unity Book. In fact, since you raised the subject I might point out that your teachings are in violation of not only the Australian Unity Book, but the BASF as well. “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery?” Let us come back to the word “metonymy”.  You say that “we must understand that we are not merely ‘prone to sin’ but that our very constitution is sin – not ‘actual sin’ in the sense of transgression. But it is called sin by ‘metonymy, and treated as sin (your emphasis) … because our sin-nature is the source of transgressions.”  Firstly, because you say “our very constitution is sin” we understand you to You understand incorrectly. “Literal sin” is a phrase which is employed to mean transgressions. I quoted from brother Growcott because his argument puts to silence the diversionary tactics that are being employed by PA theorists with the word metonymy (so I thought). I was fully aware of the fact that you might capitalise on the use of his quotation by trying to construe my position with that of someone who is
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 25 of 33 pages mean that just as our transgressions are sin so is our nature literal sin.  In defence of your position you quote Bro GV Growcott on page 21 of your paper being a citation from; “The Purifying of the Heavenly”, pages 38-38.  Whilst we cannot authenticate Bro Growcott’s dictionary definition, Webster’s (an American dictionary) describes the word as follows; “Rhetorically a figure by which one word is substituted for another on account of some actual relationship between the things signified, as when we say, ‘We read Virgil,’ that is, his poems or writings.”  Of course, as you say, it is describing a “material fact” but not a LITERAL fact.  When reading Virgil’s poems or writings we are not reading the person Virgil.  He is put for his poems, being the author, but he is not a poem.  In the same way our transgressions are sin, but our nature is put for sin, being the cause, but it is not literal sin as we read you to mean. Bro. HP Mansfield said: “There is no such thing as a physical substance called ‘sin’ in man, but the lusts of the flesh.”  (Refer “End Notes”.) not in Central. However the point he made – be he Berean or Central – was clear. You say you cannot consult Webster’s so I have consulted a dictionary you have access to: the Oxford English Dictionary (not the Americanised version but the full 21 volume set) There we read, “Metonymy: A figure of speech which consists in substituting for the name of a thing the name of an attribute of it or something closely related”. There is not a word about cause and effect but simply “substituting for the name of a thing the name of an attribute of it”. Furthermore the etymology of the word is given as ad. late L. metonymi-a, lit. ‘change of name’. In fact the OED shows the historical use of the word and includes usage from 1868, which shows that it was understood in the same way in 1868 as the OED defines it today. A metonym is different from a simile, hyperbole or a metaphor. A metonym is another name for a thing and that other name is an attribute of the thing. As brother Growcott pointed out, calling it a metonym is not a way of avoiding the reality. Thus sin’s flesh is not called sin because it is literally transgression but because transgression is an attribute of the flesh. When Paul says, “sin that dwelleth in me” he was not saying transgressions literally were within his flesh but the principle of sin was in his members – a thing which is passed on hereditarily and therefore physically; a law he says worked in his members. The word “sin” is used as a metonym and it is a reality. You deny the reality and thus reduce the sin that dwelt in Paul to a non-reality! Brethren, the failure on your part to rightly divide the word of Truth, as well as admit to the 3 lusts which dwell in your flesh and the flesh of your progeny, is patently obvious. You want to admit it but make it strictly moral: what do you then do with Christ Jesus? You not only give him clean-flesh but you impugn him morally. He also wrote in a leaflet called “Ecclesial Unity”, citing Bro. Sully: "This phrase (sin in the flesh), shorn of its context, has come to express ideas Yes, of course it wasn’t something injected in the flesh. This is a bogey argument you have picked up from the clean-flesh community which do not
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 26 of 33 pages subversive of the Truth.  When the apostle said that "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" (Rom. 8:3), he did not mean that God condemned 'sin' in the flesh as though sin was a something in the flesh, but that He condemned sinful flesh, for He sent His Son in the 'likeness of sinful flesh' (i.e., the same flesh - Heb. 2:14) in order to condemn sin.  'Flesh' was crucified and put to death in Jesus so that all emotions to sin arising from it in him should nevermore arise.” understand “flesh full of sin”, “sin's flesh”, sarx amartias. The book says specifically it is not something literally in the flesh (page 4). How readest thou? “He condemned sinful flesh.” It was flesh or diabolos, not something injected in the flesh that was condemned. Let us repeat what Bro. HP Mansfield said in Logos: “The bias in the flesh to please itself rather than God is styled “sin in the flesh”, because it was developed through sin, and is the root cause of sin. Sin in the flesh cannot be atoned for, reconciled to God, or redeemed, though its possessors may be.” It must be “mortified”, “put to death,” “crucified, “ and the nature “changed” (1 Cor 15:51), by the individual being clothed upon by his “house from heaven” defined by Paul as “mortality being swallowed up of life” (2 Cor 5:4).” No doubt about it. Brother Mansfield was exactly right in saying this. “Sin in the flesh” cannot be redeemed. The diabolos cannot be redeemed. But “sin in the flesh” is not always equivalent to flesh (Luke 24:39) unless you are taking on the pagan concepts of the immortal soul as well. Diabolos cannot be atoned for. Flesh can (Luke 24:39; 1 Ti 3:16). “Christ in his own body would destroy the diabolos or sin in the flesh through death, and by a resurrection from the dead recover the creature from the bondage of corruption. Paul styles this the 'redemption of our body' (Rom. 8:23)." (bro. J. Thomas, Phanerosis) How did our Pioneers understand metonymy? (The emphasis is that of the authors.) I have never found a place where brother J. Thomas uses the word metonymy. In brother Roberts’ case he says it is used to “express a literal truth”. Those are the two pioneers who we can turn to first for accurate definitions. Robert Roberts : “The foregoing statements express the literal truth metonymically” å  Bro. Carter: “The Apostle uses sin by Metonymy and immediately you say, he uses it by metonymy it isn't an aspect of sin.  It's a use of the word in another sense, used by a figure.  Let me give you one or two illustrations: you have aspects of a mountain, you look at it from one vantage point and you look at it from another vantage point and you see different aspects of it.  But you speak of a man's troubles and you say: he makes mountains out of molehills.  Would you say that a man's troubles was an aspect of mountains?  No!  You would say by a figure of speech, as describing his troubles as mountains; but they are not an aspect of mountains.  In a similar way we turn to another figure, the figure of metaphor.  The Lord said, "this is my body."  The Roman Catholic insists upon it in its literal terms and insists that the bread is the body of Jesus.  We say No!  That is the use of metaphor.  "All flesh is grass" is metaphor.  "All flesh is as grass" is the figure simile.  The figure
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 27 of 33 pages simile is literally true.  Figure metaphor is boldly true though not literally accurate.  Jesus said "this is my body" but would you say that there are two aspects of the body of Jesus, one of flesh and one of flour?  Because "all flesh is grass" would you say that there are two aspects of grass, one with roots and the other with legs?  You say No!  One is used as a figure and one is an expression of a literal fact. So it is with regard to this. We mustn't preach sin that dwells in us; which is a word used metonymically for the impulses within us, as being sin in that sense of lawlessness of which the Apostle speaks. I think that if we can get that clear in our minds, we are getting rid of some of the problems that have beset us in connection with this.” å  Bro. R Roberts: “Suppose a similar treatment of the word DEATH. Primarily, death means the state to which a living man is reduced when his life ceases. Now we read of one of the sons of the prophets saying, 'there is death in the pot'.  Does this mean there was a corpse in the pot? No, but that which makes a corpse of any living man. 'Death' literally meant 'that which would lead to death'.  Again 'death hath passed upon all men', means the condition that leads to death.  So, 'let the dead bury their dead', means, 'Let those who are destined to be numbered with the dead, bury those who are actually dead', 'Passed from death unto life', means 'Passed from that relation that ends in death, to that which leads to life'.” å  Exactly. And the PA theorist says, “Oh, it is not really death in the pot! Come partake of it my friend! Eat and enjoy for metonymy is not a reality!” “A disregard for metonymy and ellipsis in such statements, has led to most of the errors of the apostacy; and is leading some back to them who had escaped.” (Refer “End Notes”) Here you have given an example of how PA theorists use the Pioneer works against the Pioneer works and those who uphold them. In the end notes you refer to: The Christadelphian 1874 page 88-89 reprinted in the Unity Booklet page 80-81. There we read “Knowing that sin is the act of transgression, they read ‘act of transgression’ every time they see the term sin, ignoring the fact that there is a metonymy in the use of all words which apply even to sin… A disregard for metonymy and ellipsis in such statements, has led to most of the errors of the apostacy; and is leading some back to them who had escaped”. The mishandling of the quotation is therefore manifest for the book Transgressions and Sin makes no such argument that “everywhere the term sin occurs we read ‘act of transgression’”. In fact this argument is against your position because the only sin you recognize as a reality is transgression.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 28 of 33 pages Furthermore, later that same year brother Roberts wrote this: "Paul's statement (Heb. 7:27) is that Jesus did ONCE what the typical high priest did daily. What was that? 'Offered first for his own sins and then for the people's'. It follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under adamic condemnation, inhering [to be inherent or innate in] his flesh." (Bro. Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 405) “He was under Adamic condemnation inhering his flesh.” Now if your contention against me be right, then brother Roberts himself, in the very same year he wrote the previous, and till his very death, must have been steeped in the same error you accuse me of teaching: “That Christ through his own atonement has been raised from the dead…” (R. Roberts, Resurrection to Condemnation) You oppose this clear exposition of brother Roberts (and all the pioneers) and claim that the Lord Jesus Christ did not have to offer atonement for himself due to his flesh (nature) and yet accuse me of error! Worse than that, the statement of faith (BASF) you meet under condemns the position you have taken: "That the Lord wore our condemned nature, and that by dying, he abrogated the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey." (BASF, clause 8) “Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?” å  Bro. Roberts: “Now what is this element called 'uncleanness', 'sin', 'iniquity', etc.? The difficulty experienced by some in the solution of this question, arises from a disregard of the secondary use of terms. Knowing that sin is the act of å  Are there two senses in which the word “sin” is used in the Bible or one? You contend that transgression is the only form of sin as proved by page 1 of your letter. The element called uncleanness is the 2nd acceptation of sin you say
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 29 of 33 pages transgression, they read 'act of transgression' every time they see the term sin, ignoring the fact that there is a metonymy in the use of all words which apply even to sin..”  (Refer “End Notes”) is not really uncleanness – for to call it that is to be a Pharisee according to brother Luke. Was brother Roberts as confused and Pharisaical about “uncleanness” as brother Luke condemns his contemporaries of, by parity of reasoning? Bro. Stephen, you have come a long way since you left the Unamended Community.  You have rejected much of JJ Andrew’s teachings (pages 15- 16) and you have joined the Central fellowship.  We do not accuse you of being an “Andrewite” (although you hold some of his premises).  But we would appeal to you to consider your doctrinal standing.  If you do nothing else with this communication we would like you to do one thing; to compare your doctrinal position with that of the Bereans in your country.  As far as we are able to ascertain the Bereans in North America hold the same doctrinal belief on the Atonement as the Old Paths fellowship in Australia.  Neither the Old Paths nor the Bereans could fellowship Central because of our differences on this important doctrine.  Your obvious affinity with Bro. Growcott and “The Purifying of the Heavenly” comes through in your paper.  You cite him and you use many of the same Pioneer references as he does.  As we are sure you would be aware, they remained out of Central because of the non-acceptance of their 10 Point Statement.  Included in the 10 Points are the following: Brethren, I wish I could say the same in regards to yourselves. At a time when you ought to be teachers ye have need that one teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God and are in need of milk and not strong meat. The teachings you are now advocating are a return to the apostasy. H. Fry taught them and was disfellowshipped. E. Turney taught them and was disfellowshipped. J. Bell taught them and was not accepted by Central in Australia, and his successor (bro. C.P. Wauchope) was not accepted in Birmingham. AD Strickler taught them and was disfellowshipped. GV Growcott was quoted in ONE place and you say I have an “obvious affinity” with him. This is a political tactic and not a matter of known fact or substantiated evidence.  The purpose is to align me with a fellowship that is outside the purview of Central; to taint my name and destroy credibility. It is very similar to your attempt to misconstrue bro. Keith Cook’s lack of attendance at the meeting. In any case, the facts are that Central would have happily fellowshipped Bro. Growcott. It was he who refused to fellowship Central because he perceived it permitted clean flesh ideas within the Central brotherhood. If you would confine yourself to dealing with facts and with doctrines rather than engaging in polemical tactics I think both you and The Truth would be better served. Brethren who are in a position of leadership such as yourselves should set a better example for younger brethren such as myself. As to pioneer references used, I suggest that PA advocates should spend some time studying them and find out what our fellowship and system of religion were originally founded upon as contrasted with the apostasy – and what was rejected over and over again during our history – what Enfield, Cumberland, Brighton, Tea Tree Gully and Woodville rejected in the 1970’s with the HA Twine controversy.
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 30 of 33 pages As to the 10 points… I believe those are from a Berean 1960 document. Here are 10 other but related points you should be aware of: “In Defense Of The Truth Against Stricklerism Published by the Los Angeles ecclesia in 1940 as the Truth in contrast to Clean Flesh Stricklerism. It was taken up by Central and brother Carter (under the heading of "A Time to Heal'"), as a sound basis of reunion as regards the Sacrifice of Christ.” Under “Errors to be Rejected” FOUR ERRORS TO BE REJECTED “3.  That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurities only.” 2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ never made an offering for himself. 3. That Christ's offering was for personal sins or moral impurities only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that Christ needed cleansing. 4. That Christ died as a substitute.  That is, that he was punished for the transgressions of others, and that he became a bearer of sin by suffering the punishment due for sins. Under “Statements of Truth to be Received” SIX STATEMENTS OF TRUTH TO BE RECEIVED “2.  That the word ‘sin’ is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures.  It signifies in the first place ‘the transgressions of law’, and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its disease, death, and resolution to dust. 2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity. 3. That the word "sin" is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures. 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 causes of all its diseases, death, and resolution to dust. 5.  That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him.” 4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned nature. 5. That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him. 6. That the doctrine of substitution -- that is, that a righteous man can, by suffering the penalty due
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 31 of 33 pages to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty of his sin -- is foreign to Scripture, and is a dogma of heathen mythology. You must see that the very points to which you take exception, and the premise for your position is identical to the Bereans, and as we have demonstrated earlier, also to that of the Old Paths both of whom have a common belief on this important doctrine.  Your stand is not that of Central.  However, we make a very genuine and personal appeal for you to review your understanding of Scripture and your reading of the Pioneers.  Approach them with an open mind, and our prayer is that we may be found working together at the appearing of our Lord when he shall “change our vile bodies that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body”. I think you now see that it was a mistake to use the Berean Statement against me for you see now that brother Carter approved of those exact terms against Strickerlism in 1940. The "Time to Heal" articles were initially proposed in 1952/3 as a basis for reunion in Australia, but clean flesh opposition caused them to be discarded in favor of the Unity Agreement of 1958. But your case is far worse than merely brother Carter’s acceptance of the clauses you reject for the brother John Martin of 1970 had this to say in a talk at Cumberland: “And so there appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 1940 articles which were entitled ‘A Time to Heal’ and brethren from Los Angeles, realising that the truth was now held, generally speaking, throughout that country, and that they had no real cause for division with the brethren in England wrote for assurances for ‘The Christadelphian’ office that they would reject the ‘Clean flesh’ heresy and stand by the truth, and they received those assurances and those article were printed in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 40… there was a meeting convened in Melbourne in Albert Hall which later became known as the Horticultural Hall Ecclesia, a meeting was held in Albert Hall b/s where 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.” So brethren, brother John Martin of 1970, likely speaking before some of you, witnessed to the fact that 1) The Time to Heal articles represented THE CLARITY OF THE TRUTH HELD IN ENGLAND, AMERICA AND AUSTRALIA and 2) the TEN POINTS were THAT EXPRESSION OF TRUTH AND REJECTION OF ERROR. Now, once again I bring before your minds a few of those points which represented THE CLARITY OF
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 32 of 33 pages THE TRUTH: 2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity. 3. That the word "sin" is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures. 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 causes of all its diseases, death, and resolution to dust. 4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned nature. 5. That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him. 6. That the doctrine of substitution -- that is, that a righteous man can, by suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty of his sin -- is foreign to Scripture, and is a dogma of heathen mythology. Brethren, the facts cannot be ANY CLEARER: Your stand is not that of the pioneer brethren, not that of Central, not that of John Carter, not that of HP Mansfield and not that of bro. John Martin in 1970-71. In short, your doctrines are nothing new. It has simply taken the brotherhood time to recognize the subtle changes of language that have been occurring over the last 20 years, and locating the source of those false doctrines. That work is nearly complete. Brother Cook’s book has opened the eyes of many, and Yahweh willing, will continue to cause brethren to see that the “old paths” of Truth (Jer. 6:16) are being forsaken for doctrines compatible with the Christian apostasy. The more vigorously you promote these false teachings, the more vigorous response you will receive – all according to Yahweh’s will of course. It now remains for the brotherhood to examine the issues, perceive the error and act upon their
PA Response to Transgressions and Sin SG’s Response to PA Teachings 33 of 33 pages responsibilities. Whether it be few or many is not my business for none of the sheep will be lost as Christ has promised. I appeal to you to affirm the Truths that you have renounced. Reject the PA and clean-flesh heresies and return to sound doctrine while it is called today for Yahweh Elohim is “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” Finally, I note that brother John Martin has chosen not to include his signature on this letter. It is past time for brother Martin to speak plainly on his teachings. Let him step forward in an honest Christ- like way and clearly state what he believes. Let him openly admit that his doctrines do not represent the teachings of brethren John Carter, HP Mansfield, John Thomas, Robert Roberts etc etc. May His wisdom overshadow you in your endeavours in this matter. Amen. Your Bethren Blessings and glory and honor unto the Lamb, the High Priest of Salvation, Ray Edgecombe, David Evans, James Luke, Des Manser, James Mansfield and Peter Weller. Stephen Genusa