The following is available in booklet form and can be obtained by contacting Sis. Henryetta Hagman at henryetta@beld.net

WHAT

CHRISTADELPHIANS

ORIGINALLY BELIEVED

A COMPENDIUM OF EXCERPTS

FROM EARLY
CHRISTADELPHIAN LITERATURE

ON KEY DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES

Take heed unto thyself and to the doctrine,
continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save

thyself, and them that hear thee (I Timothy 4:16)

PREFACE

It is reasonable to ask why there is a need for a work such as is before you. Of what benefit to our walk in the Truth is a review of early pioneer beliefs when the scriptures are surely our only safe and reliable guide? This project is undertaken with urgency at a time when the Unamended household is again at a crossroads. It is undertaken to strengthen brethren and ecclesias faced with difficult decisions impacting the beliefs our community has held so tenaciously these past 150 years. It is undertaken to defend and affirm our understanding and confidence in those things we profess.

Much is written regarding the revival of the Truth by Dr. John Thomas in the mid 19^th Century. The Truth was eagerly received by zealous brethren, anxious to turn from the error and ignorance pervasive in Christendom. Pioneer brethren sacrificed much in their personal lives to spread the Word through travel, lecture and pen. Successive generations have valued and benefited from the works of these brethren. Like many before us, we are fortunate to have access to these early writings, which not only constitute a record of their authors’ beliefs and efforts, but also proclaim the gospel with a depth rarely seen in modern times.

Dr. Thomas had an active association with the gospel beginning in 1834, but it was not until 1847 that he was re-immersed after becoming convinced as to what the “faith of the gospel” was, which would constitute a valid baptism. With that confession and re-immersion, he dedicated his life to proclaiming and teaching the “things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ”. With publication of the Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (1851-1861), believers and ecclesias multiplied in America and Britain. These early years were years of growth and peaceful fellowship. It was not until 1873 that the “Renunciationist Controversy” arose. Bro. Andrew and Bro. Roberts worked in cooperation to oppose this error, which later became identified by the terms “clean flesh” and “free life”. It was not until 1894 that divisions became apparent, when Bro. Andrew publicly took Bro. Roberts to account for the change in teachings which began to be published in The Christadelphian after 1883. Readers will note that the positions and quotations of Bro. Roberts are prominent in this work. The historical record regrettably notes a change in doctrine on his part, which has played no small role in the ongoing troubles and accusations that have plagued the household since that time.

Let it be known that this work is a defense and not an attack. Though it is necessary to identify those positions to which we take exception, it is done for the purpose of contrasting them to the beliefs of pioneer brethren and the Unamended community. Opposing beliefs cannot both be correct, and we cannot defer a defense nor allow the opposition to define us. Truth blurred or compromised is truth lost. The intent of this work is not merely to affirm, but to preserve.

It is recognized that this subject matter is uncomfortable for some and may be arduous for others in its lengthy comments and quotations. However, the presentation of early pioneer beliefs through written quotation may constitute the true value of this effort. It is hoped that the quotations provided would constitute a valued and ever present reference source for many who do not have access to original documents.

This writer is grateful for the many brethren who have encouraged this effort, and sincerely appreciates the recommendations and assistance with proofreading and publishing from brethren volunteering their time. Without this support and assistance, this work might not have come to fruition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface …………………………………………………………. 1

Table of Contents ………………………………………………. 2

Introduction ……………………………………………………. 3

The Problem of Sin – Chapter 1………………………………. 5

The Flesh of Man – Chapter 2…………………………………. 21

Adamic Condemnation – Chapter 3…………………………… 30

Legal Condemnation From Adam – Chapter 4.,……………… 37

Alienation – Chapter 5…………………………………………. 44

Out of Adam Into Christ – Chapter 6………………………….. 49

Why Do Men Die? – Chapter 7………………………………… 52

Baptism – Chapter 8.…………………………………………… 61

The Lord’s Participation in His Own Sacrifice – Chapter 9…… 68

Who Will Rise For Judgment at Christ’s Return? – Chapter 10… 75

Changes in Pioneer Christadelphian Works – Chapter 11………. 81

Epilogue ………………………………………………………… 86

Index of References……………………………………………… 88

INTRODUCTION

In the early 1850’s, a united body of believers received the then recently revived Truth. The unity of belief and fellowship that they shared, despite some challenges, continued for the better part of 40 years. However, at the end of that time differences in belief were being manifest and contentions and controversy grew. In 1898, an “Amended” Statement of Faith was formulated and utilized as a test of fellowship. Since that time there have been two bodies of believers operating under the name “Christadelphian”.

Brethren who supported the “amendment” to the Statement of Faith made the charge that their action was necessary due to the “changed” beliefs introduced into the body in 1894 by Brother J. J. Andrew. On the other hand, those brethren who elected to hold to the “unamended” Statement of Faith pointed to the “drift” in beliefs and writings within the community after 1883, away from the firmly declared teachings of the Christadelphian body prior to that time, thereby identifying the “change” to be on the “Amended” side.

This review is presented to address the charge that the Unamended community has departed from the beliefs and teachings of the pioneer community. It is intended to both defend the Unamended community from that false charge as well as establish the Truth as held by this community since inception around 1850. We recognize that the BUSF has undergone some changes over the years and it reads somewhat differently than when first formulated. We note there were minor changes made at various stages since the first Statements were issued in the late 1860’s, usually for grammatical or clarification purposes. However, no changes were made to the Unamended Statement of Faith to either “amend” a belief, or to exclude any person or group from fellowship. Readers are invited to examine the documentation for themselves to determine if the Unamended community is truly “in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10) with the early beliefs and writings of pioneer brethren.

The Christadelphian community is truly fortunate that so many early pioneer writings are available to us today. Readers will find extensive documentation from these early writings with which to evaluate the current Bible based beliefs to which our community attests. It is important to establish that the Unamended community has stood “steadfast” and “unmovable”, noting that scripture clearly foretells of a departure from the Truth in the “last days”. (Luke 18:8; I Tim. 4:1; II Tim. 4:3-4; Acts 20:29-30; II Peter 2:1-3) We must keep in mind that a change in doctrine is involved in departure, and scripture admonishes us to remain in the “old paths”. (Jer. 6:16; 18:15; Jude 3) God upbraided Israel as well as New Testament ecclesias for failing to do just that. We earnestly look forward to the return of our Lord, knowing that he will evaluate our performance to determine if we have remained steadfast and unmovable.

Unamended brethren have rightful concern regarding past and present reunion efforts with the Amended community. Where reconciliation efforts have been sustained, the Amended Statement of Faith has emerged as the sole basis of fellowship, thus chipping away at the Unamended community and Unamended Bible based beliefs. Shall it be that the Truth as recovered by pioneer brethren will disappear except in a small remnant community? Is the grim prediction of our Lord that, “shall he find faith on the earth” being played out before our eyes?

In a review of this nature, it is necessary that we examine the Amended positions and writings in order to define and contrast doctrinal positions and arguments. It is recognized that some of the quotations we will use from the works of the Amended/Central fellowship will not represent the doctrinal positions of 100% of the rank and file of that community today. They are, however, the positions of the Central leadership as well as the majority of members with whom this writer has had personal contact through the years. Many of these positions will be demonstrated to be departures from the teachings and writings of pioneer brethren. The comparison is not made in an attempt to establish Truth through the writings of fallible men, but rather to demonstrate who it was that changed their doctrine and departed from the first teachings of Christadelphia.

It is difficult to see brethren departing from any element of the gospel to join with those who have “gone out” from the body. In the example given in I John 2:18-24, John identifies false teachings as the problem, and admonishes us to, Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. Although the controversy attending the amendment to the Statement of Faith significantly impacts only one proposition, the writings and positions of the two Christadelphian households reveal that there is a surprising array of differences in belief that have grown out of original contentions, which are not reflected in the Statements of Faith. This review will identify and examine several differences in belief that have been the source of contention between our communities, for the purpose of contrasting those positions with the written record of pioneer teachings. We will begin in the first chapter with an overview of the problems surrounding the subject of “sin” which constitutes the basis for many of the doctrinal differences under consideration, and then move on to review individual subjects in greater detail in successive chapters.

May our Lord forbid that we should abandon “sound doctrine” when his return and the gift of eternal life is so near!

“Preach the word; be instant in season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” (II Tim. 4:2-3)

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM OF SIN

The focus of this review will be to examine published doctrinal positions from some of the leadership of the Central Amended, as well as remarks directed against the teachings of the Unamended community, and indirectly, against the teachings of the pioneers. In this first chapter we will, as briefly as possible, review documentation that establishes differences in belief on subjects which will be covered in greater detail in the following chapters.

Please note that bold print indicates words and sentences that this writer wishes to emphasize, while italics within quotations reflect the original presentation.

What Is Sin?

The concept and meaning of “sin” is at the heart of the doctrinal disagreements between the Amended and Unamended households. It will be obvious that the matter of “sin”, as it is treated within the Amended community regarding redemption, is based entirely upon the principle of personal transgression. The term “sin” as viewed by that community is not considered to have any relevance to the nature of this “vile” (Phil. 3:21) body of flesh. There is one point in the Andrew/Roberts debate that has served as a springboard for that position, and the Central brethren have carefully followed in the footsteps of Brother Roberts since that time. Our point of attention is question number 406. Brother Andrew questions Brother Roberts:

“406. Does it not teach that sin nature, which in the first instance has no moral guilt, requires blood shedding in order that it might be cleansed or justified? – Answer – Bro. Roberts: Blood shedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin.”

Let the reader ponder the answer to question number 406. If “blood shedding” is never spoken of other than regarding actual or personal sin, how did Christ benefit from his own sacrifice since he had no personal sin? It is no wonder that throughout Central Amended works, strong emphasis is placed on the position that Christ’s sacrifice was for himself only in the sense that it was for us; that his offering for us constituted obedience to his Father, and thus it benefited Christ. It should be noticed that it is insisted that Christ needed no atonement for anything within himself. This is the reason for their strong insistence that the term “sin” is often used in the sense of a metonymy, and that our physical nature is not actually the “flesh of sin”. It is obvious that such a doctrine is a departure from scripture as well as original Christadelphian teachings.

Let us be aware at the outset that we do not agree that in some passages the term “sin” is metonymy, i.e., that which is called by the term sin is not “sin”, but merely a reference to that which is associated or suggested by the term. God esteemed the circumstance to which He referred as being synonymous with sin, so it matters not. Even if we consider the term to be metonymy, God regarded it to be “sin”, or astray of the mark. Let us keep in mind an important Scriptural truth. God made it very clear that in the matter of physical uncleanness, He demands atonement just as certainly as in the matter of personal sin. If that is not correct, then we ask why it was that God prescribed that an atonement be made for the tabernacle, the altar, and the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, as well as for personal sins? Contact with the Israelites, all of whom were born of women (Job 25: 4), necessitated atonement. (Lev. 16:16, 19, 20, 33).

It is contrary to scripture to insist that God only requires atonement for our personal sins, for Job 14:4; 15:14; 25:4 all inform us that everyone born of a woman is unclean, and we again point out that God demands atonement for that which is unclean (See especially Leviticus chapter 14where even after the individual was declared to be healed, he had to be cleansed by atonement). Notice the phrase “he that is to be cleansed”, and, “make an atonement for him”, that occur all through the chapter after the individual is free of the disease. Only after atonement for uncleanness were individuals declared to have been cleansed. (Consider Heb. 9:13).

The pioneers’ position was that it is clearly taught in the law that this unclean body of death must receive atonement in addition to forgiveness of personal sins before it is acceptable to God.

The Scriptures:

Rom. 7: 20 - “Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

Rom. 7:23 - “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.”

Rom. 8:3 - “… God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

The Pioneers:

Dr. Thomas in The Ambassador (later named The Christadelphian) Vol. V (1868), P. 169 in an article entitled, “A Good Confession”:

“What do you think is meant by the devil in these pages?” Answer. “I think it means sin in the flesh.”

From The Christadelphian Vol. x, (1873) P. 361 Brother John Thomas writes:

“The logical consequences resulting from denying the true humanity of Jesus, are destructive of the mystery of the gospel; for if the Spirit did not take our nature, but a better nature; then is that better nature not our nature, and redeemed from whatever curse it may have laid under, and been reconciled to God. But if the human nature of Christ were immaculate (excuse the phrase, O reader, for since the fall, we know not of an immaculate human nature) then God did not send Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh; he did not ‘take hold of the seed of Abraham’, he did not ‘become sin for us,’ ‘sin was not condemned in the flesh’; and our sins were not borne in his body upon the tree.’ These things could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of the physical principle styled ‘Sin in the flesh’.

The Christadelphian Vol. x (1873) Page 460-468, Brother Roberts pens questions for Edward Turney:

“9. Why was Jesus ‘put to death in the flesh’ of Adam? Paul says it was that ‘THROUGH DEATH he might destroy that having the power of death.’ If ‘that having the power of death’ was not in his body, how could he ‘through death’ destroy it? On the other hand, how could he be a body of the flesh of Adam without also having in himself that which was ‘the power of death’ in it?”

“10. You say that the body of Christ was not sinful flesh, but ‘a likeness’ of it? In what did the likeness flesh consist if it was not of the same sort? Would you, therefore, say he was ‘not a man but a likeness of one’? If not – if you say he was a man, though Paul says he was made in the likeness, why not say he was sinful flesh though Paul says he was sent in the likeness of it?”

“11. Paul says that God sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, ‘condemned sin in the flesh:’ (Rom vii. 3) [Sic. should be viii. 3] how could this have been done if there be no such thing as ‘sin in the flesh,’ and if Christ was ‘not sinful flesh but a likeness of it’?”

“18. Even if we ‘sinned in Adam’ in the personal sense contended for on behalf of your theory, did Christ not bear the effect of that as well as all our other offenses? If so, did he not come under Adamic condemnation? If not, is our sin in Adam untaken away, and in that case, how can we be saved?”

“27. Paul says, ‘God hath made Jesus to be sin.’ (2 Cor. v. 21). How is this to be understood, if death, the wages of sin, had no hold on him? Was he not made sin in being made of a woman, who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?”

“28. ‘Paul says, (Heb. ix. 28) that Christ will appear the second time without sin unto salvation. This is equivalent to saying that the first time was not without sin. In what sense did he come the first time with sin if his flesh was not sinful flesh, and the law of sin had no hereditary claim?”

“29. If you say it means a sin offering, can you explain how it comes that a sin offering is expressed by the word ‘sin,’ if the sin-offering is in no sense sinful? And how do you in that case understand Paul’s statement (Rom. vi. 10), that when he died, he died unto sin once? He did not die unto a sin offering; but in making himself a sin offering, he died unto sin. If the hereditary law of sin wrought in his members unto death, as in the members of his brethren, we can understand how in dying, he died unto sin; for as Paul says (verse 7), ‘he that is dead, is freed from sin,’ sin having no more claim after that.”

Comment: Notice in both the BUSF and the BASF under “Doctrines To Be Rejected”, number 27, “That there is no sin in the flesh.” It is a fact, however, that many do not reject this doctrine. It is apparent that the rejection of this doctrine is also the very point Brother Roberts was seeking to make in the above quotations.

We now move on with this subject, taking note of the uncleanness or defilement that Scripture, the pioneers and the Unamended proclaim to be a part of the physical makeup of the descendants of Adam. Notice that Proposition 5 of the BUSF as well as the BASF declares that the sentence “defiled”. As an example of Amended Central departure from the truth of this proposition, we now quote the Carter-Cooper addendum that is printed on page 12 of the book Unity in Australia, a unity arranged through the efforts of Amended brethren John Carter and Cyril Cooper. Here we quote part of the first paragraph of the addendum. Note how the defilement is changed to be a “defiled conscience” instead of “physical defilement”:

“We believe that Adam was made of the earth and declared to be very good; because of disobedience to God’s law he was sentenced to return to the dust. He fell from his very good state and suffered the consequences of sin - shame, a defiled conscience and mortality…”

Contrast this with Proposition 5 from the BASF:

“5. That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken – a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.”

Notice the contradiction to Proposition 5 of the BASF. We wonder how it is that the defense and description that Brother Roberts applied to “physical defilement” in his previous quotations was later changed to “defiled conscience”.

Proposition 12 of the BASF is also dishonored and violated, i.e., “…the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all…” What we have presented clearly makes the point that those who now worship under the banner of the BASF disagree with the pioneers of the last century. Who will declare before the world of Christadelphia that God began the latter day ecclesial era with a system of doctrine that was apostate and full of serious error, which He must have done if the doctrines needed to be changed?!

Unity In Australia - John Carter

As we have mentioned, the book Unity in Australia was written by the Amended Brother John Carter, the late editor of The Christadelphian magazine, who, along with the Amended Brother Cyril Cooper, traveled to Australia in 1958, delivering a number of lectures while seeking to establish a reunion between the divided factions of Christadelphia in Australia. The attempt was successful, for nearly all of the divided factions came together with the exception of a Brother P. O. Bernard and his small group. As a result of the reunion, the pioneer teachings, now current in Unamended Christadelphia, virtually disappeared from that continent.

We now quote Brother Carter from several portions of this work as he in effect denounced the conclusions of the pioneers and the teachings of Unamended Christadelphians. He did not assail by name, however, he assailed the doctrines the pioneers had taught and which the Unamended hold to this day.

Regarding “sin in the flesh” we quote from pages 19-20 of Unity in Australia:

“A few words might be added in response to requests made several times to clear up points of uncertainty concerning the usage of Bible language. What are the broad facts of Scripture teaching? Adam sinned and death came by sin. But two other things followed: death passed through to all men for that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12). It is a fact that all have sinned (except the Lord Jesus) and this fact is applicable only because through Adam’s sin the original very good state was lost, and his posterity inherited a nature with a tendency to sin to which all have succumbed. Because this inherited tendency is so evident a characteristic of human nature, and because it is the result and cause of sin, Paul by the use of metonymy can describe it as sin: “It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me.” He gives it other names as well, such as “a law – evil present with me,” the ‘flesh’, ‘ a law in my members’, etc. (Rom. 7).”

Consider and compare the above with Page 50 of the February 2002 Christadelphian:

“Rom. 6:23 reminds us that ‘the wages of sin is death’. This follows directly from God’s judgment on Adam, after his disobedience, as recorded in Gen.3:19 – ‘til thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: and unto dust shalt thou return.’ We do not die because of Adam’s sin. His sin simply brought mortality into man’s experience. Rom. 3:23 confirms that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’. We are all responsible for our own failings and as such accept God’s justice.”

Comment: It is easy to see from Brother Carter’s statement, as well as the one from the 2002 Christadelphian, that it is the Amended position that each man dies because he himself sins, not because of Adam’s sin. Brother Carter said, “All men have sinned (except the Lord Jesus)”. If we only die because we each sin, and all men die, then why did the Lord Jesus die? Did he die as a substitute for us? It is published Central Amended doctrine that he died for himself that he might die for us. Therefore, if that is so, he was not “our forerunner” (Heb. 6:20); he did not offer first for himself and then for the people (Hebrews 7:27) rather, he would have died for himself only so that he might die for us. Let us believe Paul. Let us ask, how could he have died for himself if he had nothing in himself for which to offer?

Amended thought regarding that point is found at the top of Page 21 of Unity in Australia, in which we find the following:

“Another cause of difficulty arises out of the Lord’s relationship to his own death. It is affirmed in Scripture that, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption”; and that God brought from the dead the Great Shepherd of the sheep “through the blood of the everlasting covenant”; and that he was saved out of death. He needed redemption; he needed salvation from death. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was there to be our saviour, and but for our needs, we may reverently say he would not have been there.”

Comment: It is not the Unamended who isolate Jesus in his work. We do exactly what Paul did. Paul considered the qualifications of Jesus in his work and put him squarely in the middle of the work he was to do for himself and for us. Paul did not hesitate to identify Jesus as one of us in every sense, yet he was without sin (Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15). The position of John Carter was that death was not naturally in store for Jesus as it was for us. Yet, it is alleged that he died, who was not naturally subject to death, and that he did it solely for us. Where is the concept of a representative of the race in Brother Carter’s statement above? Is this not substitution?

We now quote from page 33 of Unity in Australia under the subtitle of “Metonymy Applied To Sin”:

“…‘All flesh is grass’ is a metaphor. ‘All flesh is grass’ is the figure simile. The figure 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 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 used as 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, in being sin in the sense of lawlessness of which the Apostle speaks. I think that if we can get that clear in our minds, we are going to get rid of some of the problems that have beset us in connection with this…”

During the 1970’s the Amended Brother R. R. Stone wrote several articles that were printed in The Tidings magazine regarding differences between Amended/Unamended doctrines. During the process of those articles he declared his agreement with John Carter and gave him credit for his own understandings. We now quote from some of the paragraphs from those articles.

The Tidings magazine March/April 1977 Pages 6-7:

“Was this possession of sin nature by Christ a cause of God’s disfavor being manifested toward him? Did the fact that Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood nature of sinners in any way hinder His relationship to God? Inasmuch as sin nature is purely physical and has no moral connotations, we are inescapably led to the conclusion that its possession was no barrier to the Father’s love and favor bestowed on Jesus.”

“These facts make God’s unqualified commendation of His Son palpable to us. How else could we understand the meaning of His words on the occasion of Christ’s baptism, and later on the mount of transfiguration, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”? Were the possession of sin nature a cause for the Father’s anger or wrath, we would be incredulous to the announcement of Jesus, “for I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29). But sin nature is not the cause of disfavour.”

Comment: Let us not forget that Jesus was a member of the Hebrew nation. He was a Jew under covenant to God from his 8^th day. The sin nature of Jesus had received an atonement that permitted his entrance into the nation as well as temporal covenants that related to all members of the nation; else they were not permitted to live (Gen. 17: 14). Jesus did not live for 30 years as an alien from his father. The whole nation was under God’s temporal covenant. They had become His (Ezekiel 16: 8). Jesus simply had not fulfilled ALL righteousness until he was baptized (Matt. 3:15).

Let the reader consider that God did not make this public announcement concerning Jesus until he had emerged from the waters of baptism. As Brother Thomas remarked in The Christadelphian Vol. x (1873) P. 500:

“Jesus had been God’s most excellent Son for thirty years, but He withheld His acknowledgment of Him till he signalized his filial obedience in being baptized.”

The Tidings Magazine 1977 March/April, The Amended Brother Richard Stone continues on Pages 8-9:

“DID CHRIST BENEFIT FROM HIS OWN SACRIFICE? The answer to this question is obviously, yes. He did indeed benefit from his faithful performance in every detail of God’s requirements. He first benefited himself, that he might be in a position to redeem others. Those requirements necessitated His crucifixion and were requisite to his own redemption from mortality.”

“It will be obvious to the discerning mind that the benefits that Jesus derived were not, in every detail, the same as those which we receive. For example, we have the blessing of having our sins forgiven, while Jesus had none to be forgiven. His violent death on the cross was demanded of Him for our redemption. Had the Saviour demurred to obey this command, His own resurrection and glorification would have been forfeited…”

“The type of death suffered by Jesus was expedient, not because sin nature required it, but rather as 1) an offering for the sins of others; 2) part of the obedience which the Father demanded; and 3) to confirm the promises made to the fathers. We can therefore see the force of Paul’s statement in Heb. 13:20, that the God of peace . . . brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”

“FLESH - UNCLEAN UNTIL THE RESURRECTION: Does the foregoing suggest that the nature of Jesus was different from that of the rest of Adam’s descendants? Not at all. His body was as unclean, physically as theirs. It remained unclean until after He was resurrected and endowed with immortality. The bodies of sin nature of those baptized into Christ are not cleansed by the process. They are absolutely the same as before, and will remain in that state of impurity until they, like Christ, will experience the “change” spoken of by Paul after the resurrection.”

Question and Comment: What is the truth of this matter of cleansing at baptism? We hope that the reader has paid close attention to the verbal slight of hand that is so evident in the above remarks. In all of the history of Christadelphia, no one has ever sought to make a case for a physical cleansing of nature at baptism. One would think from the remarks in the quotation above that someone had sought to teach that we are cleansed physically of our nature in baptism. That simply is not true.

A pertinent question is proper at this time: Is physical cleansing the only sort of cleansing that is dealt with in the Scriptures, or are there other types of cleansing? Should anyone have maintained that God’s dealings with the nature of man is limited to physical cleansing alone, there might be excuse for such attention to that issue as we see above. However, since there are references to cleansings that did not refer to a change of physical nature, such loose dealings with the oracles of God are without excuse. Let us observe other references to cleansing:

John 15: 3 – “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”

Question: Did Jesus mean that his disciples had changed their nature; that they had been immortalized from hearing his words of truth? We know that Jesus meant no such thing. Jesus clearly referred to a symbolic matter by his words. Throughout Scripture God presented symbolic processes through which His servants must pass in order to obtain the benefits of his appointments and be acceptable to Him.

In this matter, we refer again to Leviticus Chapter 14 and the “cleansing” that took place symbolically in the process of carrying out the appointments of God. In verse 8, regarding the priest applying the matter of cleansing to the defiled leper, it is said, “And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, etc…” Did God wish to be understood as implying, “he that is to be immortalized”? In verse 9, did God mean that the man would become immortal when He said, “and he shall be clean”?

Will anyone seek to apply the Amended logic in verses 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23 and on through the 14^th chapter of Leviticus, and assert that God was speaking of a change of nature in all those passages? What folly that would be! Yes, God’s oracles have many instances where the matter of cleansing did not refer to a change of nature. The appointments of both the Old Testament and the New Testament had symbols in the appointments of God, symbols that represented things that went beyond the visible!

The Relationship of Christ to His Death On The Cross – John Hensley

We next want to look at a booklet written and published in the early 1980’s under the above title by the Amended writer John Hensley. This work was a strong criticism and rejection of the position of J. J. Andrew, Thomas Williams, the Unamended community. We wish to point out that the writer of this work quotes Brother Roberts’ views seeking to demonstrate that the Unamended position was always different from that of Brother Roberts. However, the quotations from Brother Roberts used in order to prove his opposition to “Unamended” views, are taken from a time after Brother Roberts’ change of mind and doctrine.

We begin by first quoting from pages 7-8 of John Hensley’s booklet. The section we are quoting is entitled: “Is The Sin Of Adam Imputed To His Descendants?”

“In the 1894 Christadelphian, Brother Roberts wrote these words, ‘As to the charge of believing that the disobedience of Adam is NOT IMPUTED to his descendants’ we own to it. To believe anything else would be to PROVE CHRIST A SINNER. By one man’s disobedience many have (truly) been made sinners. . . not at birth – as the circular of J. J. Andrew says, and which the Scriptures NEVER say.’ ”

“On page 242, he asserts, ‘The idea of imputing the sin of Adam to helpless babes is one of the old monstrosities of papalized theology from which we have become emancipated. We are not going back to that suffocating smoke.’ ”

“This, of course, drew a rather severe rebuke from Thomas Williams in the Christadelphian Advocate Magazine of October 1894. But the fact remains that if you substitute the word ‘legal’ for the word ‘moral’ you virtually have the Papal doctrine of ‘original sin’ in the teachings of J. J. Andrew and Thomas Williams.”

Comment: One wonders why Brother Roberts’ first teachings as well as Brother Thomas’ teachings were not also to be classified as the Papal doctrine of “original sin”. They both wrote of “legal” condemnation from Adam. Notice and contrast Brother Roberts’ 1894 position to some 20 years earlier when he and Dr Thomas were in agreement:

From The Christadelphian Vol. vi (1869) P. 216, Brother John Thomas wrote:

“Our flesh is the same as Adam’s before he sinned, only the worse for wear: for Paul says that we sinned in him, and he was sinless before he sinned, and we were as much in his loins when he was sinless, as in the act of sinning. His flesh undefiled by sin is constitutionally the same as the flesh of his posterity defiled legally thereby. The Christ Deity veiled himself in Adamic nature defiled by sin in order that he might condemn sin to death in the nature, though created ‘very good’, which had legally defiled itself by transgression of the Edenic law.”

In The Christadelphian Vol. x (1873) Page 500 in an article by Brother John Thomas entitled “Aaron and Christ” Brother Thomas wrote concerning Jesus:

“He was not permitted to officiate as high priest in his ordinary attire. He must (put off) and (put on) the holy linen robe; and had he put this on without bathing his flesh in water and proceeded to officiate, this unbaptized high priest of Israel would have been struck with death. When legally invested and arrayed, the Aaronic high priests were ‘holiness to Jehovah,’ and the representatives of the Holy and Just One in his character and priestly office…”

And on page 501, “Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom. viii. 3), came to John as the ‘Ram of Consecration,’ that his inwards and his body might be washed according to the law. - (Ex. 29:17, 22). But these representations of the law and the prophets could not have found their antitype in Jesus, if in the days of his flesh he had possessed a holier or purer nature than those for whom he was bruised in the heel. His character was spotless; but as being the seed of the woman, of whom no clean flesh can be born (Job xxv. 4), and seed of Abraham, which is not immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite, his nature was flesh and blood (Heb. ii. 14), which Paul styles ‘sinful flesh,’ or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called ‘sin’ because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression.”

Again in The Christadelphian Vol. x (1873), Robert Roberts on Page 417 writes:

“He must suffer the curse. This he did, and, at the same time, his blood being that of a perfectly righteous being, cleansed him from the legal defilement, just as it cleansed all Jews who manifested that faith which would be counted to them for righteousness.”

In The Christadelphian Vol. xv (1878) Page 225 Brother Roberts wrote:

GAB. (C) -Legally, a man is freed from the Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives remission of sins… As soon as the treaty is signed, they are legally at peace…”

We can readily see that John Hensley proves too much by his onslaught against Brethren Andrew, Williams and the Unamended. If he proves them to be on the outskirts of Rome by their doctrine of legal defilement from Adam, he also proves Brethren Thomas and Roberts to have been on the same outskirts of that apostate city at the time Christadelphian doctrine emerged from the darkness into the light. It would appear, according to his claims that the truth of this matter did not emerge into the light until the 1890’s. He cannot have it both ways.

We now quote from page 9. John Hensley writes in the section subtitled: “What We Inherit From Adam”:

“What we inherit from Adam was a major issue between Robert Roberts and the two brethren; J. J. Andrew and Thomas Williams. It remains a major issue between the two groups of Christadelphians; the Amended and the Unamended or Advocates. What we inherit from Adam has a direct bearing upon how we view the nature and sacrifice of Christ, because what we inherit from Adam, Christ inherited. If we inherit only the physical consequences of Adam’s transgression, including the impulses to sin, then Christ did not inherit legal condemnation; and if He did not inherit legal condemnation, He could not have been under legal condemnation for sinning the sin of Adam. Apart from sinning the sin of Adam He could not have been alienated from God at birth. If he was not alienated from God at birth, then the theory of inherited alienation, or estrangement, cannot be sustained. Hence, the Advocates uncompromisingly insist that we not only inherit the physical consequences, or effects, of the sin of Adam with the impulses to sin in our members; but also, in addition, the legal consequence as well; such alienation, or estrangement, which carries with it such things as anger, wrath, displeasure and disfavor.”

Page 9, “Baptized For Adam’s Sin”:

“What we believe that we inherit through birth, from Adam, is a determining factor in what we believe concerning the purpose and reason for baptism. If we believe that we inherit the legal condemnation from Adam, as well as the physical nature, termed mortality; then it would logically follow that this legal condemnation, which involves estrangement (or alienation), anger, wrath, disfavor and displeasure, must be remitted, or lifted at baptism as well as our personal sins, before we can be reconciled to God. This is known as being baptized for Adam’s sin, as well as for our own sins. It is contended that sin nature must be legally cleansed at baptism before one can be acceptable to God. If one denies that sin nature, or flesh of sin, is cleansed at baptism, then a charge of ‘clean flesh’ is leveled at him.”

On pages 9-10 - “When Is Sin’s Flesh Cleansed?”:

“How we look at the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, depends upon what we think we inherit from Adam. If we think that legal condemnation for Adam’s sin is inherited, then it will be reflected in our thinking on the reason why Christ died on the cross. It is essential therefore, that we understand what it is that we inherit from Adam...”

“…In answer to question 79, Robert Roberts states, ‘A child, before it is born cannot sin.’ When asked if all descendants of Adam are sinners by birth, he answers in question 83, ‘As a result of birth from Him. There is a distinction there.’ In answer to question 280, he replied, ‘Adam sinned and was condemned, and we, as his children, inherit the mortality, which was the consequence. God does not hold us responsible for what he did, but for our own sins.”

Comment: John Hensley in his remarks above, seems oblivious to the fact that Psa. 58:3 declares, “the wicked are estranged from the womb.” In other words, all men at birth are classed among the constitutionally wicked and are estranged or alienated from God. Does he assert that infants are alienated by ignorance and wicked works? That would be folly.

Also, under the three subtitles above, John Hensley repeatedly quotes Robert Roberts in the era of the 1890’s, a time in which he is known to have changed his views. He never bothers to mention that Robert Roberts, early in his work, had agreed with what he identifies as Unamended doctrine. Let us again read from the pioneer writings that were produced during the founding of the latter day ecclesia, at the time of the revival of the truth, declaring truths that continued about forty years before brethren began to depart.

The Christadelphian Vol. x (1873) P. 500, Brother Thomas in an article entitled “Aaron and Christ”:

“Nor was he permitted to enter even when habited with these, unless he had been previously baptized, upon pain of death. The law said, ‘he shall wash his flesh in water and so put them on.’…When legally invested and arrayed, the Aaronic high priests were ‘holiness to Jehovah’ and the representative of the Holy and Just One in his character and priestly office;”

“Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom. viii. 3), came to John as the ‘Ram of Consecration,’ that his inwards and his body might be washed according to the law (Ex. xxix. 17, 22.) But these representations of the law…could not have found their antitype in Jesus, if in the days of his flesh he had possessed a holier or purer nature than those for whom he was bruised in the heel. His character was spotless; but as being the seed of the woman, of whom no clean flesh can be born (Job xxv. 4), and seed of Abraham, which is not immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite, his nature was flesh and blood (Heb. ii. 14), which Paul styles ‘sinful flesh,’ or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called ‘sin’ because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression. ‘God made Jesus sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. v. 21).”

Pages 502- 503 – “Shall it be said that it was necessary for the Melchisedec High Priest, who was innocent of transgression, and who, for thirty years, had enjoyed the favor of God and man, to be immersed in a baptism of repentance for remission of sins; but that it was not necessary for the pious, who would compose his household, who are sinners by nature and practice?”

COMMENT: Is it not obvious that the truth began over a century ago with the doctrine that we all are “sinners by both nature and practice”? Yet, those who went out from us now seek to teach us that the term “sin” can rightfully be attributed only to a transgression of God’s law.

The Christadelphian Vol. x (July, 1873) P. 322-323 Brother Roberts writes regarding the nature of Jesus:

“All the desires of the Adamic nature which he had in common with ourselves were kept in absolute subordination to the Father’s will. But he partook of the flesh of sin (English version-sinful flesh); and if this is what is meant by ‘a sinner by constitution,’ then he was a sinner by constitution. His mission required that he should be in the nature of the transgressing race. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, (1) because they had nothing to do with the transgression. The nature of angels had nothing to do with the transgression. Therefore, ‘he took not on him the nature of angels;’ but the seed of Abraham was the transgressing and condemned nature. Therefore, he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made, in all things, like unto his brethren.”

Page 327: “Seeing that these Scriptures teach the deathfulness, instead of the deathlessness of the nature of Christ, it is impossible to doubt that his nature, body, or flesh, was sinful. This must be so, for death is always the consequence of sin in some shape or form. “The wages of sin is death” - (Rom. vi. 23). We ought not, therefore, to think that this is degrading to the Son of God, as thousands do who hold the immaculate view, but rather to enquire into the reason and necessity of the arrangement. For God does nothing without a reason, and there is a necessity for everything he does.”

Page 329; “The Substance of The Matter” by Robert Roberts:

“That the Father is the Redeemer of man. No second person redeems us from Him; but He redeems us from sin. He does it on a principle that (1) excludes the glorying of the flesh, and (2) preserves a harmony between His work in condemnation and His work in salvation.”

“Illustration of the first point. - He manifests Himself by the Spirit in the nature condemned. The result was a Son in whom He was well pleased, holy, harmless and undefiled.”

“Illustration of the second point. – Man condemned in Adam must bear the condemnation, for God in His ways is without variableness or the shadow of a turning. But, if man is left to bear the condemnation himself, it destroys him, because his own transgressions stand in the way of escape. Therefore God provides him one who can bear it and be rescued from it after it is inflicted. This required one in the nature of the transgressor, for in God’s ways, sentence upon man cannot be borne by angel or beast, but by him only on whom it lies. Jesus was such an one, for he partook of the very flesh and blood of Adam’s condemned race through Mary. Yet the sufferer, though in the nature of the transgressor, had to be personally sinless, otherwise God could not raise him. Hence it was necessary that God Himself should manifest Himself in the seed of Abraham, thus producing a sinless character in the condemned nature of the first man. This was done by the miraculous conception of the Son of Mary, who through the eternal spirit, offered himself to God.” - (Heb. ix. 24.) Raising His Holy One from the grave, He offered all men forgiveness by faith of what had been done in Him, and obedience to His commandments. He who renounces this, renounces the truth, and repeats the history of first century declension.”

Page 362 – “However perfect and complete the moral manifestation of the Deity was in Jesus of Nazareth, the divine manifestation was nevertheless imperfect as concerning the substance, or body of Jesus. This is what we are familiar with as the flesh. It was not angel -flesh, or nature; but that common to the seed of Abraham, styled by Paul sarx amartias; flesh of sin; ‘in which,’ he says, ‘dwells no good thing.’ – (Rom. vii. 18; viii. 3)”

From The Christadelphian Vol. v P. 160 midway in the article entitled “Chatechesis” by Brother Thomas, we quote question 45 along with the answer he gives:

“But if a man believe the gospel of the kingdom of the Deity and Name of Jesus Christ, and upon this belief has been duly immersed, is he not ‘IN Christ Jesus,” and therefore free from all liability to condemnation?

“Such a person is, without question ‘in Christ Jesus’; and on being introduced into him, the sinner, who out of Christ is condemned already (John iii. 18), passes from that condemnation, and comes under the sentence of ‘justification of life’- (Rom. v. 18; viii.1.) Being ‘purged from his old sins’ (2 Pet. 1:9), he is no longer liable for punishment; he has passed from death unto life…”

The Christadelphian Vol. iii (1866) P. 97-98 Robert Roberts in “Answers to correspondents”:

“P.M. ‘the new birth’ is a theological phrase originating in a misapprehension of a New Testament metaphor, and as currently employed, represents a fallacy. There is a sense in which a man, to enter the divine relation, ‘must be born again.’ In the order of nature, a man is born into the position of Adam, when condemned to return to the ground. In this position, he is an outcast in every sense; both as regards present relation to the Almighty, and future destiny. He is an exile and an alien, a mere groundling, existing under a law (of sin and death) which sends him to his original nothingness. This is the natural condition of the race as a whole. Now, God has devised an arrangement by which he ‘takes out’ from the race so situated, a ‘people for His name.’ (Acts xv. 14). The people so taken out are introduced to the relation of children - (John i, 12; 2 Cor. vi, 17, 18; John iii, 1). They constitute a family of sons and daughters to the Almighty. This being so, their taking out is their birth, so that whatever process it is by which God develops them from the outer darkness of natural-man-ism, is the process of birth… belief of the gospel and baptism completes the birth of water…”

The Christadelphian Vol. iii (1866), P. 190 Robert Roberts in an article entitled, “The Judgment Seat of Christ” states:

“He shall judge the secrets of men by Christ, and award to every soul of them who do not obey the truth, but are contentious, ‘tribulation and wrath and anguish;’ and he may not know that this is according to Paul’s gospel. If this be so he is ignorant of an element of Paul’s gospel, and destitute of an important constituent of the ‘word of God’s truth,’ by which, through the washing of water in baptism, a man is cleansed and begotten, as a kind of first fruits of his creatures.’ –(James i, 18; Eph. v, 26.)

We quote again from The Christadelphian Vol. xv (1878) P. 225 Robert Roberts wrote:

“Legally, a man is freed from the Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the truth and receives the remission of sins…”

The Christadelphian, Vol. vii (1870) P. 75 Brother Thomas writes in an article entitled “The Rock” and the Christadelphians:

“‘Testimony’ says that if the manifestation of Jesus was in sinful flesh, then Jesus was a sinner, and desires to know if I mean to say this? Christadelphians mean to say neither more nor less than Paul saith. This unsurpassed teacher of the truth says that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sin’s flesh, which he declares was the same as ours. Compare Rom. viii. 3, with Heb. ii. 14-17. And he says, too, in Heb. vii. 27, ‘he offered for his own sins and the people’s, when he once offered up himself.’ But what is to be understood by ‘his own sins?’ The sins committed by others and borne in his own body on the cross, as testified in I Pet. ii. 24, saying ‘who his own self bare our sins in his own body to the tree,’ upon which ‘he became a curse for us.’ In the Mosaic and Christian systems, the unsinning victim is regarded as the sinner, in the sense of being … the sin-bearer of the world; the purpose of God being the condemnation of sin in the nature that transgressed in Eden, in the person of one who had committed no sin.”

John Hensley has quite a bit to say as to how Robert Roberts viewed the matter of the death of Jesus on the cross. However, it is a fact that what Brother Roberts believed and taught regarding the life and death of Jesus depends on the era of time in which he wrote. His later years produce a different position than his early years.

There is a noticeable amount of violence done to Rom. 5:12-14 by those who departed from us. Since just before the turn of the century, Amended brethren have dealt with Rom.5:14 as though Paul was applying the phrase, “even over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”, to the time when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. They seek to make the passage refer to the time of the sin, seeking to interpret Paul’s words as saying that all men were not in the garden at that time and therefore could not have sinned after the similitude of Adam’s sin.

That is not what the passage refers to at all. Paul’s reference is entirely to the time between the casting out of Eden and the giving of the law at the time of the Exodus. The thought begins with verse 13 that says, “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.” Paul is discoursing on the fact that men died during the time that there was no law simply because death passed on them as a result of Adam’s sin. He is saying that since there was no law imputing sin to men of that era, men did not die as a result of their own sins since sin was not imputed without law. Then Paul makes the point that regardless of men not sinning after the similitude of Adam’s sin (sinning against a divine command as did Adam), death still reigned throughout that era of time as a result of Adam’s sin. Men died, not due to their own sins being imputed to them, but because death had passed upon all men from Adam.

Would anyone contend that Paul does not say in Hebrews that God considered Levi to have paid tithes to Melchisedec when Abraham paid tithes to him, just as God considered Levi to have been in the loins of Abraham? Of course Paul said that. In like manner, when the race of man consisted of only Adam and Eve, the entire race is considered by God to have sinned because the entire race was in their loins as much so as in the case of Abraham and Levi.

“HOW THEY DIFFERED” – John Hensley

Lastly, we quote from John Hensley’s booklet, pages 28-29, where the author contrasts the teachings of Thomas Williams, J. J. Andrew and Robert Roberts. This section may serve to help define the areas and extent of the differences in belief between the two Christadelphian bodies as viewed by the Amended community.

“Adam’s Transgression and Sentence”