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 

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. 

"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.

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.