Australian Advocacy
of
The Clean Flesh Error

"Renunciationism" Alive and Well (but not for much longer) 

"I want you to closely look at what he [Pursell] says because I believe in his historical delineation here of the situation he's 100 percent correct [said with emphasis]. I don't agree with his fellowship. He's on one side of the fence and we're on another but his findings here are 100 percent correct" — John Martin

More cherry-picking of the Evidence (and the results thereof): In the recent Jim Luke/John Martin/Brian Luke video John Martin provides a quote from Richard Pursell's article 'Can We Learn From Our Past'. Of Richard Pursell's historical analysis John Martin says, "I want you to closely look at what he [Pursell] says because I believe in his historical delineation here of the situation he's 100 percent correct [said with emphasis]. I don't agree with his fellowship. He's on one side of the fence and we're on another but his findings here are 100 percent correct". He goes on to quote RP in regards to the issue of "a covering for sin*" with the intent of linking some Central brethren to Old Paths, Berean and Unamended ideas (eg. 'Andrewism').

What John Martin does not tell the audience is that Richard Pursell's article claims that the Central fellowship "has officially preached clean-flesh" since 1923. Now John Martin claims that he does not teach clean-flesh. Yet, here he takes an booklet which claims that the Central fellowship is a clean flesh fellowship, he selectively takes a quotation from it which he wields against others, and says "his findings here are 100 percent correct"!?

Richard Pursell says in the same article, "The term 'Clean Flesh' was attached to the A. D. Strickler doctrine not because he denied mortality as being in need of change, but rather because he denied an atonement was required to deliver men (including Christ) from it. Please take note of this!" Yes, please take note of this!!Apparently this didn't fit the cherry-picking quota because it and many other similar comments were ignored by John Martin. We can see why... because the case that Richard Pursell makes for clean-flesh in Central agrees with teachings presented on the video by Jim Luke, Brian Luke and John Martin.

Richard Pursell will undoubtedly be happy to receive the endorsement from John Martin. Now if the clean flesh teachers could only muster the courage and admit they teach a post-Edward Turney version of clean flesh... 

* Perhaps John Martin and his co-laborers, not to mention Richard Pursell, will take the time to search The Christadelphian magazine for the phrase "covering for sin" and note its consistent and positive usage since the 1860's? It will be noticed that the phrase is used by John Thomas, Robert Roberts and many others. A search in Libronix will only take a few minutes of your time.

The above summary by John Martin was "loaded" to prejudice his audience.
Sins committed prior to "baptism" are covered through baptism.
The physical sin nature is actually "covered" in immortality.
Sins committed after baptism are "covered" as part of receiving immortality.

Notice:

1. The portrayal of two acceptations of sin as a Berean, Old Paths and Unamended doctrine.
2. That impurity of physical nature, a nature that even these clean flesh teachers admit has death, is not an impedient to complete fellowship with God. If complete fellowship with God does not require immortality, or a change of physical nature, we are left to wonder why it is part of salvation.
3. That atonement is only a moral thing in these eyes of these teachers — and that to teach otherwise is "Berean, Old Paths, and Unamended".

What are some of the points that John Martin's historian Richard Pursell makes which John Martin does not quote?

the Central fellowship has officially preached 'clean flesh' doctrines for decades (a false claim) Richard Pursell, Can We Learn From Our Past

"The term 'Clean Flesh' was attached to the A. D. Strickler doctrine not because he denied mortality as being in need of change, but rather because he denied an atonement was required to deliver men (including Christ) from it. Please take note of this!"
Richard Pursell, Can We Learn From Our Past

(a true claim)

---

Graphic from Richard Pursell's Book

"The proclaiming of 'resurrectional responsibility' of those out of Christ has led the Central fellowship to deny the very principles that divided John Thomas from the Campbellites in 1846." (Dick Pursell, Can We Learn From Our Past, p. 11)

(a totally bogus claim)

What an unbelievable irony it is that John Martin has worked for NASU union with the Unamended while using so-called "Andrewism" as an axe against his personal foes. In the first case he formulated a four statement basis for unity with the Unamended that whitewashes the doctrinal differences, Andrewism, and in the second he casts himself as a defender of Central doctrine... and he does it using an Unamended portrayal of history that mixes truth and error.