Monday 30 June 2014
The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community
The Changing Literature of
the Christadelphian Community
Documented
and
What It Demonstrates
The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community
the Christadelphian Community
Documented
and
What It Demonstrates
The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community
In Defense Of The Truth Against Clean Flesh Teaching
Published by the Los Angeles ecclesia in 1940 as the Truth in contrast to Clean Flesh. 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. It was - after an emotionally-built-up momentum had assured "success" of the "conference" - mysteriously abandoned at the last minute at the Jersey City Conference over the strenuous objections of the Berean brethren drawn there by its promise. If it had been faithfully maintained as the (as promised) world-wide basis of reunion, the present difficulties on two continents could not exist. The four currently most significant points are emphasized in bold type. [now shown in blue specifically: Errors to be Rejected #'s 2&3, Truth to be Received #'s 3&5]
FOUR ERRORS TO BE REJECTED
- That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.
- That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ never made an offering for himself.
- 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.
- 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.
SIX STATEMENTS OF TRUTH TO BE RECEIVED
- That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.
- That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.
- 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.
- That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned nature.
- 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.
- 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.
Bro. Stephen Genusa
Why has bro. Stephen Genusa removed many of his pdfs from his website is it because the central Christadelphians have asked him to remove many of his files because it shows that they are promoting the clean flesh doctrine
What has happened to "The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community"
"Historical Central Christadelphian Teaching"
Your letter to Jim cowie,
A Time to Heal - Compilation
Atonement Comparison
Clean Flesh Teachers
One Or Two Definitions For Sin
Questions John Knowles Would Not Answer
The Truth Affirmed
Where Modern Christadelphians Went Wrong on Fellowship
By removing these files you are now part of the clean flesh conspiracy
The Clean Flesh Position
1. The Bible devil is personal sins only, and is a moral term equivalent to the mind of the flesh. The same applies to “sin in the flesh,” which is a moral term only and is not a physical characteristic of our nature. Mortality and “proneness to sin” are physical, but they are not a part of the Bible devil. “Proneness to sin” is caused by transgression becoming a way of life by the sinner.
2. God required Jesus to be crucified only because of our personal sins. The crucifixion was not required because Christ had any relationship to physical sin; for himself crucifixion was simply an act of obedience.
3. The crucifixion was a ritual whereby sin as a principle (represented by human nature) was ritually condemned in Christ, but it did not actually exist there. Jesus was not “made sin” by being of human nature, sin’s flesh.
4. Baptism is only for the forgiveness of personal sins.
The Partial Atonement Position
This theory is similar to that of the “clean flesh” position inasmuch as it teaches that sin is only transgression, and that Christ’s offering was only for those of his believers, because they are sinners in action. Consequently they teach that no sacrifice, atonement, or offering is required on account of the defiled nature we bear. The diabolos, being sin in the flesh, is thus destroyed by dying and not by sacrifice. Since they teach that sacrifice is only for transgression and not for any physical defect or need of redemption, atonement does not apply to the Lord Jesus Christ, but only to others. In this way, the theory requires that the Lord Jesus did not offer for himself for the purifying of his sin’s flesh. They explain that the offering of Christ was only an action of obedience in order that others could be saved, and that Christ was only benefited as a result of his action for others.
The Whole Truth
1. The Bible devil is a personification of the physical principle in human nature which lures and incites us to sin. Since this physical characteristic of our nature inevitably produces personal sins in every human except Christ, it is termed “sin in the flesh” or “the law of sin” in our members. God holds no man morally guilty for being born with the devil in his flesh.
2. Jesus needed to crucify his flesh in order to destroy the devil (the law of sin, called “the law of condemnation” [BASF #8] in his flesh) and redeem himself from sin nature. This is the righteous basis upon which God forgives our personal sins.
3. The crucifixion was the real condemnation of Sin by killing the devil (the root cause of personal sins) in the flesh of a sinless human — in Christ himself. This will ultimately accomplish the destruction of the devil in all of the redeemed. Jesus was “made sin” by being born of human nature so that he could condemn it to death in himself. In his crucifixion he identified with the transgressions of his people, being “made a curse for us,” and thus came under the full weight of the divine law against Sin.
4. Baptism provides for the forgiveness of past sins and is our commitment to put to death the old man of sin’s flesh; whilst providing a covenant relationship with the Eternal Spirit, with hope of partaking of divine nature.
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.
Gen. 3:15-19, 22-23; 2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:2-4; Rom. 7:18-23; Gal. 5:16-17; Rom. 6:12; 7:21; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4.
6. That God, in His kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals.
Rev. 21:4; John 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 2:25; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:2; Rom. 3:26; John 1:29.
7. That He inaugurated this plan by making promises to Adam, Abraham and David, and afterwards elaborated it in greater detail through the prophets.
Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Psa. 89:34-37; 33:5; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 25:7-9; 51:1-8; Jer. 23:5.
8. That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself, and all who should believe and obey him.
1 Cor. 15:45; Heb. 2:14-16; Rom. 1:3; Heb. 5:8-9; 1:9; Rom. 5:19-21; Gal. 4:4-5; Rom. 8:3-4; Heb. 2:15; 9:26; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 7:27; 5:3-7; 2:17; Rom. 6:10; 6:9; Acts 13:34-37; Rev. 1:18; John 5:21-22, 26-27; 14:3; Rev. 2:7; 3:21; Matt. 25:21;Heb. 5:9; Mark 16:16; Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:22; (Psa. 2:6-9; Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 11:15; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 14:9; Eph. 1:9-10) -- [Publisher's Note: These passages in parathensis must be considered together.]
9. That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God.
Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Isa. 7:14; Rom. 1:3-4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15.
10. That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifested in the flesh-yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam's transgression including the death that passed upon all men, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature.
Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:17.
11. That the message he delivered from God to his kinsmen, the Jews, was a call to repentance from every evil work, the assertion of his divine sonship and Jewish kingship; and the proclamation of the glad tidings that God would restore their kingdom through him, and accomplish all things written in the prophets.
Mark l:l5; Matt. 4:17; 5:20-48; John 10:36; 9:35; 11:27; 19:21; 1:49; Matt. 27:11-43; John 10:24-25; Matt. 19:28; 21:42-43; 23:38-39; 25:14-46; Luke 4:43; 13:27-30; 19:11-27; 22:28-30; Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44.
12. That for delivering this message, he was put to death by the Jews and Romans who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done-namely, the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, as a basis for the remission of sins. All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam's disobedient race, are forgiven. Therefore, by a figure, his blood cleanseth from sin.
Luke 19:47; 20:1-26; John 11:45-53; Acts 10:38-39; 13:26-29; 4:27-28; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:10; Rom. 3:25; Acts 13:38; 1 John 1:7; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2:24; Heb. 9:14; 7:27; 9:26-28; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 3:25; 15:8; Gal. 3:21-22; Gal. 2:21; 4:4-5; Heb. 9:15; Luke 22:20; 24:26, 46-47; Matt. 26:28.
4. We reject that Christ was born with a “free life”. [A “free life” signifies that Christ’s nature was not under Adamic condemnation as is that of all other members of the human race, and that therefore his sacrifice was a substitute for the “lives” of others. However, he needed to obtain redemption himself in order to redeem his “brethren” — Gal 4:4; 1Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:12.]
5. We reject that Christ’s nature was immaculate, or that he was of a different nature from other men. [Through his birth he inherited a nature sin-affected, and destined to death, being mortal, as all others — Heb. 2:14.]
22. We reject that “heathens,” idiots, pagans, and very young children will be saved. [Salvation is based upon a reasonable and logical understanding of the Truth; those who are foreign to the gospel, who lack the capacity to perceive its responsibilities; or who are unable to comprehend, are outside the sphere of salvation — Acts 8:12.]
23. We reject that man can be saved by morality or sincerity, without the gospel. [Morality and sincerity must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the gospel for salvation — Acts 10:1-6.]
24. We reject that the gospel alone will save, without the obedience of Christ’s commandments. [Obedience to the commandments is a responsibility required of all believers; salvation will be determined upon the application of faith and obedience. Rev. 22:14; Mat. 7:26; 2Pet. 2:21; Mat. 28:20; Gal. 6:2]
27. We reject that there is no sin in the flesh. [The flesh is hereditarily related to sin, caused by the transgression of Adam, the effects of which have passed upon all men, including the Lord Jesus Christ — 2Cor. 5:21.]
What has happened to "The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community"
"Historical Central Christadelphian Teaching"
Your letter to Jim cowie,
A Time to Heal - Compilation
Atonement Comparison
Clean Flesh Teachers
One Or Two Definitions For Sin
Questions John Knowles Would Not Answer
The Truth Affirmed
Where Modern Christadelphians Went Wrong on Fellowship
By removing these files you are now part of the clean flesh conspiracy
The Clean Flesh Position
1. The Bible devil is personal sins only, and is a moral term equivalent to the mind of the flesh. The same applies to “sin in the flesh,” which is a moral term only and is not a physical characteristic of our nature. Mortality and “proneness to sin” are physical, but they are not a part of the Bible devil. “Proneness to sin” is caused by transgression becoming a way of life by the sinner.
2. God required Jesus to be crucified only because of our personal sins. The crucifixion was not required because Christ had any relationship to physical sin; for himself crucifixion was simply an act of obedience.
3. The crucifixion was a ritual whereby sin as a principle (represented by human nature) was ritually condemned in Christ, but it did not actually exist there. Jesus was not “made sin” by being of human nature, sin’s flesh.
4. Baptism is only for the forgiveness of personal sins.
The Partial Atonement Position
This theory is similar to that of the “clean flesh” position inasmuch as it teaches that sin is only transgression, and that Christ’s offering was only for those of his believers, because they are sinners in action. Consequently they teach that no sacrifice, atonement, or offering is required on account of the defiled nature we bear. The diabolos, being sin in the flesh, is thus destroyed by dying and not by sacrifice. Since they teach that sacrifice is only for transgression and not for any physical defect or need of redemption, atonement does not apply to the Lord Jesus Christ, but only to others. In this way, the theory requires that the Lord Jesus did not offer for himself for the purifying of his sin’s flesh. They explain that the offering of Christ was only an action of obedience in order that others could be saved, and that Christ was only benefited as a result of his action for others.
The Whole Truth
1. The Bible devil is a personification of the physical principle in human nature which lures and incites us to sin. Since this physical characteristic of our nature inevitably produces personal sins in every human except Christ, it is termed “sin in the flesh” or “the law of sin” in our members. God holds no man morally guilty for being born with the devil in his flesh.
2. Jesus needed to crucify his flesh in order to destroy the devil (the law of sin, called “the law of condemnation” [BASF #8] in his flesh) and redeem himself from sin nature. This is the righteous basis upon which God forgives our personal sins.
3. The crucifixion was the real condemnation of Sin by killing the devil (the root cause of personal sins) in the flesh of a sinless human — in Christ himself. This will ultimately accomplish the destruction of the devil in all of the redeemed. Jesus was “made sin” by being born of human nature so that he could condemn it to death in himself. In his crucifixion he identified with the transgressions of his people, being “made a curse for us,” and thus came under the full weight of the divine law against Sin.
4. Baptism provides for the forgiveness of past sins and is our commitment to put to death the old man of sin’s flesh; whilst providing a covenant relationship with the Eternal Spirit, with hope of partaking of divine nature.
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.
Gen. 3:15-19, 22-23; 2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:2-4; Rom. 7:18-23; Gal. 5:16-17; Rom. 6:12; 7:21; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4.
6. That God, in His kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals.
Rev. 21:4; John 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 2:25; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:2; Rom. 3:26; John 1:29.
7. That He inaugurated this plan by making promises to Adam, Abraham and David, and afterwards elaborated it in greater detail through the prophets.
Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Psa. 89:34-37; 33:5; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 25:7-9; 51:1-8; Jer. 23:5.
8. That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself, and all who should believe and obey him.
1 Cor. 15:45; Heb. 2:14-16; Rom. 1:3; Heb. 5:8-9; 1:9; Rom. 5:19-21; Gal. 4:4-5; Rom. 8:3-4; Heb. 2:15; 9:26; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 7:27; 5:3-7; 2:17; Rom. 6:10; 6:9; Acts 13:34-37; Rev. 1:18; John 5:21-22, 26-27; 14:3; Rev. 2:7; 3:21; Matt. 25:21;Heb. 5:9; Mark 16:16; Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:22; (Psa. 2:6-9; Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 11:15; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 14:9; Eph. 1:9-10) -- [Publisher's Note: These passages in parathensis must be considered together.]
9. That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God.
Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Isa. 7:14; Rom. 1:3-4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15.
10. That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifested in the flesh-yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam's transgression including the death that passed upon all men, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature.
Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:17.
11. That the message he delivered from God to his kinsmen, the Jews, was a call to repentance from every evil work, the assertion of his divine sonship and Jewish kingship; and the proclamation of the glad tidings that God would restore their kingdom through him, and accomplish all things written in the prophets.
Mark l:l5; Matt. 4:17; 5:20-48; John 10:36; 9:35; 11:27; 19:21; 1:49; Matt. 27:11-43; John 10:24-25; Matt. 19:28; 21:42-43; 23:38-39; 25:14-46; Luke 4:43; 13:27-30; 19:11-27; 22:28-30; Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44.
12. That for delivering this message, he was put to death by the Jews and Romans who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done-namely, the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, as a basis for the remission of sins. All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam's disobedient race, are forgiven. Therefore, by a figure, his blood cleanseth from sin.
Luke 19:47; 20:1-26; John 11:45-53; Acts 10:38-39; 13:26-29; 4:27-28; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:10; Rom. 3:25; Acts 13:38; 1 John 1:7; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2:24; Heb. 9:14; 7:27; 9:26-28; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 3:25; 15:8; Gal. 3:21-22; Gal. 2:21; 4:4-5; Heb. 9:15; Luke 22:20; 24:26, 46-47; Matt. 26:28.
4. We reject that Christ was born with a “free life”. [A “free life” signifies that Christ’s nature was not under Adamic condemnation as is that of all other members of the human race, and that therefore his sacrifice was a substitute for the “lives” of others. However, he needed to obtain redemption himself in order to redeem his “brethren” — Gal 4:4; 1Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:12.]
5. We reject that Christ’s nature was immaculate, or that he was of a different nature from other men. [Through his birth he inherited a nature sin-affected, and destined to death, being mortal, as all others — Heb. 2:14.]
22. We reject that “heathens,” idiots, pagans, and very young children will be saved. [Salvation is based upon a reasonable and logical understanding of the Truth; those who are foreign to the gospel, who lack the capacity to perceive its responsibilities; or who are unable to comprehend, are outside the sphere of salvation — Acts 8:12.]
23. We reject that man can be saved by morality or sincerity, without the gospel. [Morality and sincerity must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the gospel for salvation — Acts 10:1-6.]
24. We reject that the gospel alone will save, without the obedience of Christ’s commandments. [Obedience to the commandments is a responsibility required of all believers; salvation will be determined upon the application of faith and obedience. Rev. 22:14; Mat. 7:26; 2Pet. 2:21; Mat. 28:20; Gal. 6:2]
27. We reject that there is no sin in the flesh. [The flesh is hereditarily related to sin, caused by the transgression of Adam, the effects of which have passed upon all men, including the Lord Jesus Christ — 2Cor. 5:21.]
Sunday 29 June 2014
Clean Flesh False Doctrine on Rugby Christadelphian Youtube Channel
Video uploaded by the Chelmsford Christadelphians and re-uploaded by the Rugby Christadelphians
http://bereans.forumchitchat.com/post/clean-flesh-doctrine-comes-to-youtube-6647028?pid=1283360143#post1283360143
by JimPhillips
http://bereans.forumchitchat.com/post/clean-flesh-doctrine-comes-to-youtube-6647028?pid=1283360143#post1283360143
by JimPhillips
benzion888 has noted a few of the "clean flesh" errors of this particular member of the Adversary’s Assembly. I would note a few more.
He begins his talk with a discussion of "metaphor." In this I commend him for his integrity. Most, who seek to corrupt the truth, usually introduce a lot of confusion in their exposition, when they mean "metaphor," but claim they mean "metonym." And it is nice, for a change, that this speaker is being so honest.
3:30 He draws our attention to some metaphors used by Jesus, such as we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and his references to the woman at the well,where, when his disciples returnee, he told them "I have food to eat of which ye know not.". These clearly are metaphors.
He then gives us half the meaning of the metaphor. That the flesh and blood represents Christ’s work. Truly it does. But the limited explanation which focuses on Jesus’ life, completely ignores any aspect of Christ’s sacrifice, which in fact, is the most significant aspect of eating the flesh (identifying with the destruction of the flesh which is the root of evil,) and the pouring out of the blood, signifying the righteousness of God, (a fact which, as he will say, makes this speaker very uncomfortable.)
4:55 He now brings us to his discussion on the literal blood, which benzion888 referenced. He first discounts the necessity of blood in sacrifice, quoting Heb. 9:22 emphasizing "almost" all things are purged with blood. Then he makes a most presumptuous argument, suggesting that when Nathan the prophet told David that his sin concerning Bathsheba was forgiven, there was no sacrifice for sin made. This, of course, would be contrary to the Law, which stated a specific sacrifice for such a terrible sin against his neighbor.
Lev 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
Lev 6:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
Lev 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
To make the assumption that David would not have followed the Law, in such a grievous matter, that he would not have been extremely anxious to follow the Law in this matter, is the very height of presumption. Would such a man truly be a man after God’s own heart?
"Almost" all things are purged with blood. What was the "almost" that Paul was in reference to? Was it not the Law for the completely impoverished, who could not even afford a dove? They were permitted to offer a meal offering. David would hardly qualify as impoverished.
6:15 He concludes his discussion of David, suggesting that we should not presume to "tie God’s hands" in not appreciating how gracious God is. This demonstrates the erroneous view of fellowship we find so often in the Central assemblies. We do not presume at all on God’s graciousness. We do not judge those whose views are contrary to sound, fundamental Christadelphian doctrine. We leave that to God. We warn them. We show them the harsh things Scripture says about them. Then we simply withdraw ourselves from the positions we see as error, as God commanded.
IN speaking about this very class of people, bro. Roberts once observed the following.
IN speaking about this very class of people, bro. Roberts once observed the following.
"Remarks.—It is impossible not to respect the spirit and intent of the letter from which the foregoing are copious extracts. It doubtless represents the mental state of a large class. There are men with almost agonizing sincerity of purpose who cannot see through the fogs that envelop the truth in an age when there is no living voice of authoritative guidance, and when the power of correctly interpreting the written Word is the only rule of conviction. It is natural to wish to think that in such a situation of divine truth on the earth, the same consideration will at the last be shown towards those who earnestly do their best in the dimness, that was shewn, on the intercession of Hezekiah, towards the multitude in Israel who "had not cleansed themselves, and yet did eat the Passover otherwise than it was written" (2 Chron. 30:18.) It may be so: God is not unrighteous or unreasonable. At the same time, in such a situation, when the truth can with difficulty be kept alive at all, it is not for those who know the truth to work by a may be. We must be governed by what is revealed, leaving the Lord to revoke the present rule of probation, or make His own allowances in its application. The rule at present, as our correspondent fully recognises, is the reception of and submission to "the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ."
6:20 Next he tells us that he will describe how Jesus used the term blood. He quotes from Matt.23:35. Exactly what his point is, I’m not clear, but I think he wants to make the point that Jesus uses the term blood in a metaphorical way. He determines somehow that neither Abel, or Zacharias, or even Jesus died from blood loss. Yet he doesn’t seem to deny that all shed blood in their death, so I’m not sure how he thinks he is sustaining his point. He then concludes that blood is being used by Jesus as a metaphor for death.
Really, this is not the case. Jesus is using blood as a metonym for death. The pouring out of blood, leading to death are related to each other as cause and effect. He tries to blur this, arguing with no scriptural proof that Zacharias was stoned to death. And further, that Jesus died of respiratory failure. All of this is unprovable. But what is not unprovable is the relationship between the pouring out of blood, and death. That is obvious from Leviticus 17:11, which he next will try to obscure.
He then takes us back to Lev. 17:11 where he informs us that the life of the flesh is in the blood, which is of course true. Then like all clean flesh teachers, he misses the point of Lev. 17:11, telling us that it is the life of Jesus that makes atonement, and not his death. But in Lev.17:11, we are told that it is the not the blood which makes atonement, but the bloodpoured out upon the altar, which brings atonement. Blood poured out upon the altar was a symbol of life poured out, or death. This is why Jesus uses blood as a metonym (not a metaphor) for death.
To clarify, a metaphor is the use of one thing for another, to which they have no relationship. For instance, if I say "the moon was as a silver galleon, gliding over the surface of the ocean," I would be using a galleon as a metaphor for the moon. In this example, "galleon" and "moon" are not in any way related to each other, but I borrow imagery to paint a picture in the mind of the reader, of the appearance of the moon on the water. But "blood" and "death" are related to each other, so they are not metaphors, or exaggerations, but metonyms, things related to each other as cause is to effect.
7:45 We then come to a point where he confesses that he is made quite uneasy by Peter’s speach on Pentecost, where Peter clearly states that Jesus sacrifice is the result of what God has ordained to be done. He then directly quotes from Clause 12 of the BASF, saying: "who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done--namely, the condemnation of sin in the flesh." He then states "I feel very uncomfortable with that." And of course he should. It was written that way so that those who could not accept Scriptural teaching, would be made "very uncomfortable" by it.
And he tries, quite unsuccessfully to explain away this great and fundamental fact. He complains that it makes God complicit, in the death of Christ, and of course He was. This is the Scriputral teaching, not only on Pentecost, but often.
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Phil. 2:8 Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
We would presume this speaker is made uncomfortable by all these verses, not just Acts. 2:23. As well he should be. For if the flesh is in fact "clean," that is, if the flesh we all (Christ included) inherit from Adam, is not in a physically defiled and sinful state, then there can be no reason why God would have determined, commanded, willed (really desired), and ultimately delivered him up to destroy that flesh though the death on the cross.
So yes, we understand why this speaker is made uncomfortable by the Apostle’s testimony on the day of Pentecost. 9:20 Now he states that it was God’s plan to send His son, but it was not His plan to have him killed, though He knew it would happen. In saying this, this speaker takes a stand directly against Scriptural testimony.
8:40 Next he comes to the nature of the flesh. He tells us that the problem people have, is that they want to consider flesh literally. But after saying this, he goes back into his explanations as to why Clause 12 of the BASF is wrong.
We come to his reference to Phil 2:8, and he brings this up to talk about Jesus being obedient to the death on the cross. Had he thought about this for just a minute, the speaker would have to realize that in order for Jesus to be obedient to the death, he had to first have been commanded to that death. But instead of recognizing God’s role in the process, he goes on, with what he feels is the only explanation of these events. And that is, Jesus died because the Jews and Romans killed him. He says that full responsibility for the death of Jesus lies with people. Peter said, "this man you executed by nailing him to a cross." which I presume is Acts 5:30. And certainly no explanation of the death of Christ can be accurate, which denies that it was the Jews and Romans who put Jesus to death, anymore than could an explanation which leaves out God prophesying, determining, and commanding that these things should be accomplished.
11:45 The speaker asks why did the Jews not stone Jesus, as they later did Stephen? He answers that they wanted him hung on a tree, that he would then be cursed of God, according to the law. The speaker reasons that the people felt that if he was cursed by God, he would have no hope, for to be cursed by the law means "eternal death." How he knows these things, he did not explain.
But honestly, how does one consider this subject, without recognizing the Scriptural importance in having Jesus hung on the tree, to carry away the curse of the law, as so clearly explained by the Apostle Paul? " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But he must ignore it as the implication is too clear. And it speaks directly to the fact that Christ's death was the fundamental part of God's plan, to exhibit His righteousness.
But honestly, how does one consider this subject, without recognizing the Scriptural importance in having Jesus hung on the tree, to carry away the curse of the law, as so clearly explained by the Apostle Paul? " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But he must ignore it as the implication is too clear. And it speaks directly to the fact that Christ's death was the fundamental part of God's plan, to exhibit His righteousness.
14:20 Jesus was flesh and blood as we are, in a physical state, the author says. He says it refers to our kinship with one another, and refers to Laban speaking with Joseph. Then he goes on to say that the Bible uses flesh figuratively, a metaphor to refer to human nature. Again, we are relieved by the honesty of this speaker. How many times have I spent hours with clean flesh teachers, just trying to get them to be honest, and admit that they believe that flesh is a metaphor for human nature.
14:50 The speaker says the flesh literal, is not something unclean or abhorrent to God. He goes on to try to prove this in a most curious way. He takes us to Jesus condemning the Pharisees for their washings. He tells them that it is not that which enters into a man which condemns him, but the things that come out of a man. The things that come out of a man come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. The speaker concludes that It is sin that defiles the man.
We agree with the speaker, but the point of Jesus is altogether against this speaker’s teachings. The things the heart or flesh brings forth, are all sinful. So how can the source of the sin (the flesh, the heart of man) generate such sinfulness, and not itself be sinful?
16:00 The speaker tells us that sin is not a physical disease. Sin, he says is a moral problem.
Note that this is why the speaker can’t accept the reasons for why Jesus had to die on the cross, in harmony with the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God. If sin is only moral, and Jesus was morally perfect which we all believe he was, then how was God right and just in requiring Jesus to die the death which he died? Of course, He couldn’t be. But if sin is physical, and Jesus bore sin in his flesh, then when he died on the cross, he destroyed sin in himself. A necessary step in the plan and purpose of God, to exhibit the righteousness of God.
16:30 The speaker tells us that sin was inoperative in the life of Jesus. He says this after saying that Jesus could have sinned. It is hard, from this talk, to put these thoughts together. Perhaps he means that he had no diabolos in him, tempting him from within, and thus needed an external tempter to try him with sin. Or maybe he means something else. But I would certainly regard it as impossible for Jesus to be tempted as we are tempted, if temptation from within him was inoperative in his life.
18:20 The speaker brings up 1 Pet 2:24. He says that Peter has in mind Isa 53, and its many allusions to the atonement. He says part of that ceremony was Aaron placing his hand on the head of a scape goat. Note that this is quite a leap. Isa. 53 is the focus of 1 Peter 2:24, but neither chapter has anything directly or specifically to do with the scape goat of Lev. 16. Both Isa. 53 and 1 Pet. 2:24 speak directly to the death of the Christ. Neither chapter has anything about the setting free of the scape goat, which is not even the whole picture regarding the scape goat, of Lev. 16. The speaker says that Peter is saying that Jesus has born away our sins, just like the Scape Goat. No, Peter is not. Peter is talking about Jesus bearing our sins, in his body, to the tree, or cross. He is talking about the sacrifice for atonement from sin.
The scape goat is a part of a twofold sacrifice. Aaron was to take two goats. Both goats represented Christ. He cast lots on them, and the goat upon which the lot did not fall, was sacrificed as a sin offering. The goat upon which the lot fell, was led off into the wilderness by the hand of a fit man. Both goats represented Christ. He was first slain, as a sin offering for the people (which represented Christ’s death) and then the sins of the people were carried away by the second goat, which was through his resurrection to life, in consequent of what was done to the first. The focus of both Peter and Isaiah was the first goat. Neither one discusses the second.
He then concludes with some thoughts about intellectualism, and what he presumes to be the simplicity in the atonement, explained by a fellow, Walter Draper, of which I have no familiarity and so here I will end.
I would make one final observation, which I derived from comments by benzion888. He wrote: Clean Flesh Doctrine comes to YouTube. It is curious that there has been no other exhibition of the "clean flesh" teaching (of which I am aware) on YouTube.
Now, it is not that "clean flesh" is new or unique. Many years ago, a former Berean, now Central fellow told me that he estimated that 10% of individuals in the Central assemblies, held these views. I quoted him in a discussion I was having on a Central message board, and was scoffed at for such a low estimate. I believe the latter group, all "clean flesh" proponents themselves, were far more accurate in their estimation of Central. Still, the "clean flesh" folks generally knew that there were a large number of brethren in their assemblies who held the foundation views, and to state their doctrines openly and clearly would have had the potential of creating a division.
Obviously now, that is no longer a concern. Those who hold the true Christadelphian teachings within the Central assemblies, must now be so cowed, or so insignificant that the Balaamites and those Jezebels who preach the depths of adversarial doctrines, can boldly publish these teachings with no fear of repercussion from whatever might be left of the Antipas class among them. Ask yourself, you who would be Antipas, can you stop these false teachings among you? Or do you run from them, to your own private enclaves, fearful that they might come among you, and knowing you would be powerless to stop them? You say you fellowship with the Central Assemblies, but you have been so ineffective and powerless, that the enemy is now preeminent, and as Paul prophesied against you, the leaven has now fully leavened the lump. And they await your surrender, knowing your impotence among them.
" COUNTDOWN " TO CHRIST'S RETURN . . . ISIS TERRORISTS MASSING NEAR EUPHRATES (HADITHA) DAM
" COUNTDOWN " TO CHRIST'S RETURN . . . ISIS TERRORISTS MASSING NEAR EUPHRATES (HADITHA) DAM
BIBLE PROPHECY is being fulfilled before our eyes !!! The ISIS insurgency continues to ravage Iraq. Now reports ISIS forces are moving in on the huge Haditha Dam , situated on the mighty Euphrates River. Aside from the capital Baghdad , Haditha Dam is the 2nd most important strategic site in Iraq. If ISIS were to take Haditha Dam it could cripple Iraq's agricultural region & literally sever the nation's food & water supply. The ' drying up of the Euphrates River ' is a major prophetic sign-post , heralding the Lord's Return.
In the Bible's final book - Revelation - 5 short verses provide a chronologcal timeline of unfolding events at the time of Christ's return the first being 1. the ' drying up of the Euphrates River '. This pivotal event is followed by 2. a period of corrupt ideological ' spirits ' being promolgated by the 3 most influential global identities , unmistakably symbolised in scripture as Russia , the Euro Union & theCatholic Papacy ( each coming to the forefront of global affairs in recent days ... Co-incidence ?? ) During this period of ideological spirits , 3.the Lord Jesus Christ will return ' as a thief ' ( unknown to the world ) to collect His followers for judgment. Finally , 4. ' all nations ' are then gathered together in the Mid-East in preparation for judgment by Christ & His Glorified Saints . . . Read the verses. Judge for yourself
Revelation 16v12-16 - And the sixth angel poured out his vial 1. upon the great river Euphrates & the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east ( Middle East ) might be prepared. 2. And I saw three ' unclean spirits like frogs ' come out of the mouth of the dragon ( Russia ) & out of the mouth of the beast ( EuroUnion ) & out of the mouth of the false prophet ( Papal Rome ). For they are the ' spirits of devils ' working miracles , which go forth unto the kings of the earth & of the whole world , to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 3. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth & keepeth his garments , lest he walk naked & they see his shame. 4. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue ' Armageddon '
BIBLE PROPHECY is being fulfilled before our eyes !!! The ISIS insurgency continues to ravage Iraq. Now reports ISIS forces are moving in on the huge Haditha Dam , situated on the mighty Euphrates River. Aside from the capital Baghdad , Haditha Dam is the 2nd most important strategic site in Iraq. If ISIS were to take Haditha Dam it could cripple Iraq's agricultural region & literally sever the nation's food & water supply. The ' drying up of the Euphrates River ' is a major prophetic sign-post , heralding the Lord's Return.
In the Bible's final book - Revelation - 5 short verses provide a chronologcal timeline of unfolding events at the time of Christ's return the first being 1. the ' drying up of the Euphrates River '. This pivotal event is followed by 2. a period of corrupt ideological ' spirits ' being promolgated by the 3 most influential global identities , unmistakably symbolised in scripture as Russia , the Euro Union & theCatholic Papacy ( each coming to the forefront of global affairs in recent days ... Co-incidence ?? ) During this period of ideological spirits , 3.the Lord Jesus Christ will return ' as a thief ' ( unknown to the world ) to collect His followers for judgment. Finally , 4. ' all nations ' are then gathered together in the Mid-East in preparation for judgment by Christ & His Glorified Saints . . . Read the verses. Judge for yourself
Revelation 16v12-16 - And the sixth angel poured out his vial 1. upon the great river Euphrates & the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east ( Middle East ) might be prepared. 2. And I saw three ' unclean spirits like frogs ' come out of the mouth of the dragon ( Russia ) & out of the mouth of the beast ( EuroUnion ) & out of the mouth of the false prophet ( Papal Rome ). For they are the ' spirits of devils ' working miracles , which go forth unto the kings of the earth & of the whole world , to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 3. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth & keepeth his garments , lest he walk naked & they see his shame. 4. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue ' Armageddon '
THE RISE OF ISIS . . . IS AN ' ISLAMIC CALIPHATE ' COMING ???
THE RISE OF ISIS . . . IS AN ' ISLAMIC CALIPHATE ' COMING ???
As the fear-some terrorist group ISIS , swallows up vast regions of Syria & Iraq & threatens Jordan , Saudi Arabia & even Israel - many believe this may be the emergence of the first-ever ' Terrorist Nation State ' that will lead to an Islamic Caliphate , the supreme objective of radical Islam. As the world watches the unthinkable brutality & chaos unfolding across the Middle East , the prospect of a new global empire led by Islamic ' extremists ' would be a frightening outcome. However , God's Word the Bible provides both hope& absolute certainty , such an empire will ' never ' come to pass. On the contrary , the Bible ( with more than 1,000 quotes ) speaks extensively of God's coming ' Kingdom on Earth ' . . . which under the just & all-powerful rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ will conquer & replace all the corrupt kingdoms ' of men ' & usher in an enduring age of ' peace , happiness & godliness ' for all mankind.
Micah 4v1-3 - But IN THE LAST DAYS it shall come to pass , that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains & it shall be exalted above the hills & people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come & say , Come & let us go up to the mountain of the LORD & to the house of the God of Jacob ( Israel ) & he will teach us of his ways & we will walk in his paths : for the law shall go forth of Zion & the word of the LORD from Jerusalem . . . & he shall judge among many people & rebuke strong nations afar off & they shall beat their swords into plowshares & their spears into pruninghooks : nation shall not lift up a sword against nation , neither shall they learn war any more.
As the fear-some terrorist group ISIS , swallows up vast regions of Syria & Iraq & threatens Jordan , Saudi Arabia & even Israel - many believe this may be the emergence of the first-ever ' Terrorist Nation State ' that will lead to an Islamic Caliphate , the supreme objective of radical Islam. As the world watches the unthinkable brutality & chaos unfolding across the Middle East , the prospect of a new global empire led by Islamic ' extremists ' would be a frightening outcome. However , God's Word the Bible provides both hope& absolute certainty , such an empire will ' never ' come to pass. On the contrary , the Bible ( with more than 1,000 quotes ) speaks extensively of God's coming ' Kingdom on Earth ' . . . which under the just & all-powerful rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ will conquer & replace all the corrupt kingdoms ' of men ' & usher in an enduring age of ' peace , happiness & godliness ' for all mankind.
Micah 4v1-3 - But IN THE LAST DAYS it shall come to pass , that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains & it shall be exalted above the hills & people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come & say , Come & let us go up to the mountain of the LORD & to the house of the God of Jacob ( Israel ) & he will teach us of his ways & we will walk in his paths : for the law shall go forth of Zion & the word of the LORD from Jerusalem . . . & he shall judge among many people & rebuke strong nations afar off & they shall beat their swords into plowshares & their spears into pruninghooks : nation shall not lift up a sword against nation , neither shall they learn war any more.
Thursday 26 June 2014
ISIS, Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, Insurgency, Significance in Bible prophecy, end times, sunni and shia division
ISIS, Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, Insurgency, Significance in Bible prophecy, end times, sunni and shia division . Duncan Heaster talks at Riga Bible Center about the significance of ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the sunni and shia division and the current insurgency in northern Iraq, in the light of Bible prophecy and prophetic predictions, eschatology and end times Biblical prophecies- as a sign of the times of Christ's return soon. The Old Testament prophecies predict a revival of Assyria or Al-Sham, the latter day Assyrian will invade Israel in the last days and take Jerusalem before the Jews repent and Jesus returns. Free Bible with commentary or book Bible Basics from http://www.biblebasicsonline.com . A production of Carelinks Ministries http://www.carelinks.net .
Saturday 21 June 2014
Create an EU Army and Leave Britain OUT
A European Army? 16-06-2014
Create an EU Army and Leave Britain OUT
says Former French Defence Chief
by M.E. Synon 15 Jun 2014In a unexpected echo of Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s right-wing Front National, a former French defence minister has condemned American influence on EU foreign policy, saying the EU should abandon NATO and stop “bowing to US policy.”
As Breitbart London reported earlier this month, Le Pen has called the EU’s foreign policy “catastrophic” and said it had lost control to Washington.
Now Charles Millon, French defence minister from 1995 to 1997 in the centre-right government of Prime Minister Alain Juppé, has poured scorn on Washington’s influence over the EU.
He urges the EU to abandon NATO to prevent Brussels “bowing to US policy” and to establish an EU army which would exclude Britain “because of its divergent interests” and put France at the centre of EU foreign policy.
In an article for the think tank Geopolitical Information Servicereported in the Sunday ExpressMillon said: “Political wrangling in Ukraine, for example, is playing out between Russia and the United States directly, completely bypassing the European Union which, in a sense, is actually the source of the turmoil, because of the EU’s desire to integrate Ukraine into its economic sphere.”
“Europe's desire for indefinite expansion and its methods of sizing up Ukraine for its economic area were, at the very least, tactless as well as making no geopolitical sense.”
Similarly, the anti-establishment Le Pen said that in offering Ukraine a deal, the EU “has clearly set blackmail in motion and that can't help but fuel dissent inside the country.”
What Millon wants instead is, “a common foreign policy with an articulated, over-arching, shared vision of its place in the world is key to Europe developing a common defence policy. A grouping of six or so EU countries - excluding the UK because of its divergent interests - could be the way forward.”
He said the EU’s present absence of military power was “failing to frighten anyone while it seeks to be a world leader.”
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty of 2007 created the Common Security and Defence Policy, meant to establish a common EU defence capability.
However, there has been little progress made towards any kind of coherent security or defence. Instead millions of euros have been poured into a plush EU diplomatic service under a grandly-titled EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security.
Given the state of the economies of most EU countries, it is unlikely any budget will now be found for an independent euro-army.
However, Millon maintains this is not a problem: “Common European defence does not hinge first and foremost on the technological development of a common arsenal or in creating shared standards, as has been thought for decades, but rather on the political will to intervene in the wider world, in the name of superior values. The means to achieve this will follow.”
This however is an attitude towards a defence spending that is unlikely to “frighten anyone,” least of all President Putin of Russia. Even Germany, the richest country in an EU which is still caught in a debt crisis, announcedearlier this month it will cut its 2014 defence spending by €400m (£320m).
Meanwhile Russia has raised its defence spending to a larger share of its GDP than America, increasing spending last year in real terms by 4.8 per cent to $88bn (£52bn).
According to Bible Prophecy the EU will invade Israel with Russia. To do this they must have an army under their leadership. So an Independent European Army would allow this, so this is an interesting development to watch. It is possible that Nato could also become the military infrastructure under which the EU will invade Israel and Egypt with Russia? However this develops the Bible says that there will be a sense in the world of global peace prior to Christ's Return See 1 Thessalonians 5:1-5.
Yet again we see the latter day alignment of Nations as Prophesied by the Bible falling into place before our very eyes.
See this article to learn more about this and the latter day prophecies of the Bible.
Friday 20 June 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)