From Jim Cowie to Editor, Logos

From: Jim Cowie <jim.cowie@bigpond.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:01:12 +1000
To: ed@logos.org.au
Subject: THE ATONEMENT

Dear Bro. Graeham,

For some time now I have been watching with growing dismay the progression of thought in Logos towards promulgation of an interpretation of the Atonement which does not belong to the Central Fellowship; is not taught in Scripture or in the BASF; does not have its origins in the teaching of our Pioneer brethren and was not taught by Bro H.P. Mansfield. It is a teaching that has more in common with the "Old Paths" teachings of the first half of the 20th Century which developed as an over-reaction to the Clean-flesh errors of John Bell, A.E. Harvey and others. As in those days it seems that in an attempt to uphold the truth of the Atonement, perceived by some to be under threat, the balance has been lost, and unnecessary elements super-added to Yahweh's work of redemption in Christ.

I refer to the belief, now openly proclaimed in Logos for February 2002, that "Human flesh is accounted by Deity as sin", and "human flesh is sin" (Christadelphian Studies). The natural consequence of this mistaken view is that "our flesh and blood need justification, reconciliation, atonement or sacrifice" (Bristol Horfield Statement). It is now clear that the "Partial Atonement" accusation made against brethren and ecclesias who hold firmly to the basis of fellowship in this country as expressed in the Unity Booklet has arisen because some hold the view that human nature requires sacrifice in order for atonement to be made for it. This element is apparently seen as quite a separate issue to the work of moral reconciliation.

Lest you immediately assume that I am a heretic, let me direct your attention to the statement by the Bristol (Horfield) Ecclesia in the Calendar for February. I have no problem with the 9 clauses of the Positive Principles of that statement. It adequately expresses my own understanding of the Atonement. My difficulty is with several clauses of the Negative Principles. I repudiate the belief that our flesh and blood bodies need justification, reconciliation, atonement or sacrifice. This is primarily moral language and does not apply to the physical body which requires redemption or a change to immortality. Christ was equally in need of bodily redemption as his brethren. This he acquired by virtue of his obedience to the death of the cross that "the body of sin might be destroyed" (Rom.6:6), and by resurrection and change of nature, in all of which the righteousness of God was upheld. Paul's "body of sin" is a metonymical reference to our death stricken nature with its inherent bias towards sin. The effect (sin) is put for the cause (proneness to sin). This makes a man physically 'unclean' and in need of change before he can stand in the presence of God, but it does not alienate him morally from God. Only sin (actual transgression) does that. The BASF uses the term "defiled" in clause 5 referring to this fact. This is supported by the original Christadelphian Statement of Faith arranged by Bro. Thomas and published by Bro. Roberts in 1869 in which he states in clause 3 (later amended to become clause 5 of the BASF), "That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken; (1) a sentence carried into execution by the implantation of a physical law of decay, which works out dissolution and death; (2) and while a man is yet alive, gives him, where it is left to its uncontrolled operation, a tendency in the direction of sin." This is all embraced by the term "defiled" in the BASF. It is spurious to give that term any moral connotation (as the Old Paths did). As you often quote, Bro. Thomas in Elpis Israel makes it perfectly plain that we are not alienated from God by virtue of our nature. How does ³human flesh being accounted as sin² and requiring ³justification, reconciliation and atonement² square with that obvious truth?

I know not whether you personally endorse the views expressed in Christadelphian Studies and the Bristol statement, but I cannot imagine you would publish them without qualification unless you had sympathy with the views expressed therein. If so, you have arrived at a position which is not scripturally sustainable.

To be sure, Christ was cleansed by his sacrifice. He was the first beneficiary of his own work. Had he failed to obey his Father's will to the death of the cross there would have been no resurrection and change for him. All of this is absolutely essential to the Atonement. Without including Christ in his own work there would be no salvation for us, because he came to deal with the nature we bear. But to say he took his body to the cross as a sacrifice to make an atonement for his nature is simply going too far, and is unsupported by Scripture (and by the Pioneers). He died as a sacrifice to declare the righteousness of God as a basis for our reconciliation (moral) and ultimate redemption (physical). In return God declared His own righteousness in raising Christ from the dead and changing his nature. This was the point at which something tangible was achieved for Christ - the point of change. This is where he was 'cleansed', not in the act of sacrifice itself. What was achieved in death was the destruction of the Diabolos and the acknowledgement of the righteousness of God. The pattern is followed in our reconciliation and ultimate redemption.

The clear implication of the teaching recently set forth in Logos (presumably with your imprimatur) is that something is accomplished in terms of our flesh and blood body at baptism (the equivalent of the death and resurrection of Christ). To quote again the Bristol statement, "Our flesh and blood bodies....need justification, reconciliation, atonement or sacrifice", and "The flesh of Jesus....need(ed) an offering of blood for his atonement." This was the slippery ground on which some in Old Paths came unstuck. One is bound to conclude that something is effected by baptism for our body. The truth is that nothing changes in our body, or in God's view of it, at baptism. What changes is our moral relationship to Him. The body must await redemption at a later stage.

Let me assure you that I and the brethren who find difficulty in the articles/statements in recent issues of Logos have no problem at all with the quotations made from the Pioneers. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Bro. Roberts in The Law of Moses. It is the false interpretation of his words I repudiate. If Logos was content to stand by, and go no further than, such well reasoned statements as the North American Statement of Understanding (February Calendar) and the 12 point statement of agreement between the Wilston and Brisbane Ecclesias, and to respect the Unity Booklet (which exposes such errors referred to above), I and others would have no reason to undertake the unpleasant task of raising our voice against these extreme points of view.

I appeal to you to reconsider the ground on which Logos now appears to stand. To pursue the current path will surely lead to a totally unnecessary permanent schism between brethren who I believe essentially stand on the same ground.

With heavy but hopeful heart. Your brother in Christ.

Jim Cowie

From Stephen Genusa to Jim Cowie (1)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Genusa [mailto:steve@genusa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:19 PM
To: 'Jim Cowie'
Cc: Graeham E. Mansfield
Subject: Re: THE ATONEMENT

 

Brother Cowie,

 

Greetings in Israel's hope.

 

I have read your letters to brother Graeham Mansfield in which you take exception to the phrase "flesh is sin". I am sorry to contact you under the current circumstances but your charge calls for a response from all brethren who are concerned about the declining direction the brotherhood is taking. I appeal to you to consider the following. Though we disagree, and though I believe what you have done is wrong, yet I write you in a spirit of hope and brotherly love, hoping that you will be "with" us (Luke 11:23), and not against.

 

You may not agree with the quotations below from brethren John Thomas, R. Roberts, HP Mansfield, and H. Sulley on the atonement, yet as a brother of Christ your charge anticipates further elaboration, not only of your accusation, but also specifics as to your own position.

 

It is one thing to make the assertion that Logos has changed. It is altogether another thing to demonstrate it. Is it not written, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him?". You did not compare the current quotations of Logos with quotations from the past that demonstrate a changed position. Worse, you have distanced yourself from such a prerequisite exercise under the pretext of not wanting to engage in a "war" of quotations. Where a Christ-like spirit, intellectual honesty and historical context are observed no such "war" is possible.

 

If you genuinely believed that Logos had changed why not spend time preparing a fair comparison, rather than making an assertion with no evidence? To make the charge that Logos has changed and then distance and shield yourself from the very quotations of the Pioneer brethren that prove your charge false is quite improper. Further, to make such a charge and then fail to elaborate your own position with reasonable detail may protect yourself, but it does no service to the Truth or to the brotherhood.

 

Please, if you will, consider the following:

 

Your comments indicate that you do not understand, or worse yet you do not believe, that the word 'sin' is used in two different ways, or senses, in Scripture for when the phrase "flesh is sin" was used, it was contextually apparent that 'sin' was being used in the 2nd principal or chief sense. Yet, you have taken exception to such usage. You claim to "have no problem with 99% of what our Pioneers have written on the Atonement". Now, if you do not accept the 2nd acceptation of 'sin', as the Pioneer brethren defined it, it is clear that you do not accept 99% of what the Pioneers have written on the atonement for the atonement specifically deals with the removal of sin. Furthermore, you do not mention what constitutes the 1%, as you describe it, which you do have problems with, or whether they are critical areas of disagreement with the pioneers.

 

 

 

'Sin' is used in Two Principal Acceptations / Two Chief or Primary Senses

 

Brother Thomas wrote:

“The word ‘sin’ is used in two principal acceptations in the Scripture... ‘sin,’ in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called ‘man.’” (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 129)

 

"‘Sin’, I say, is a synonym for human nature" (sin = human nature; John Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., page 130) 

 

"“What he put to death was the flesh, here referred to by the synonym of ‘sin’"  (flesh = sin; HP Mansfield, The Atonement, p. 184)

 

“‘Sin’ is a word in Paul's argument, which stands for ‘human nature,’ with its affections and desires. Hence, to become sin, or for one to be ‘made sin’ for others, (2 Cor. 5:21,) is to become flesh and blood. This is called ‘sin,’ or ‘Sin's flesh,’ because it is what it is in consequence of sin, or transgression.” ("made sin" = flesh and blood; J. Thomas, Eureka, Logos ed., vol 1, p. 247)

 

So we see that both brother J. Thomas and HP Mansfield defined flesh as 'sin' (as did other brethren including R. Roberts and H. Sulley). Flesh is not transgression (the 1st principal acceptation, Elpis Israel), but 'sin' (the 2nd principal acceptation). (1) Do you believe that brethren John Thomas and HP Mansfield "laid the foundation for the physical alienation theory" in these quotations just as you have charged against the current editor of Logos? If not, please explain how Logos' teaching differs from that of brethren J. Thomas and HP Mansfield, as you understand them. Can you show me where in any of Bro. Graeham Mansfield's published writings he has said anything different from his father?

 

 

 

The Bible Teaches to be "Made Sin" is to be Made "Flesh and Blood"

 

2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "For he hath made him sin (2nd acceptation) for us, who knew no sin (1st acceptation); that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And Hebrews 2:14 says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood (2nd acceptation), he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil (2nd acceptation personified)". Finally, Hebrews 9:28 says, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins (1st acceptation) of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin (2nd acceptation) unto salvation." (2) Do you believe that 2 Co 5:21, Heb 2:14 and Heb 9:28 lay the foundation of the physical alienation theory? If not, please explain the difference in these verses and the teaching of Logos as you understand it.

 

 

 

The 2nd Principal Acceptation is Physical

 

If you agree with these quotes that the flesh is indeed 'sin' then (3) do you also agree with the fact that 'the flesh' or body is physical?

As the body or flesh is a physical thing, the flesh is sometimes referred to as "sin nature," "sin incarnate" and "physical sin".

"All this is of the flesh, or Sin Incarnate, which is the Devil." (J. Thomas, Eureka, vol. 1, ch 1, sec 1, Logos ed., p. 32)

Here we see that brother Thomas states 'the flesh' = 'Sin Incarnate' = 'the Diabolos'. Incarnate means to make a thing embodied or physical. In this case it is sin which is being embodied or taking a physical form. (4) Do you disagree with the statement that diabolos is sin? Is the exceedingly great sinner 'sin' or is the exceeding great sinner something other than 'sin'? Do you believe 'diabolos' to be a thing which is not physical; or do you believe diabolos to be the same thing as our transgressions (as the clean flesh a.k.a. "partial atonement" teachers do)?

"Did he not require to shed his blood to cleanse himself from his own sin nature... Never use the word cleanse in regard to physical sin? R. Roberts: Not in that connection." (Debate #'s 401, 402, 719, 720)

"Physical sin has more to do with nature than with transgression. Paul describes it as "sin in the flesh," or flesh in which sin dwells. It is a natural urge in human flesh to rebel and to walk contrary to God's laws. It is this element called "sin" which entered into the constitution of our race through Adam's transgression" (F. Jannaway).

(5) If 'sin' is a synonym for flesh, Scripturally described as 'sin in the flesh' (Rom 8:3) or 'body of sin' (Rom 6:6) and 'diabolos' (Heb 2:14), because of the sin principle 'in my members' (Rom 7:23) then why are you raising your hand against the Logos magazine?

 

If you maintain the position that the physical body, or flesh, is not a synonym for 'sin' then you deny the Scriptural teachings on the atonement (2Pe 2:1); and you disagree with brother Thomas that the word ‘sin’ is used in two primary ways in the Scripture. To make one acceptation merely a metonym is to deny the 2nd primary acceptation which brother Thomas elaborates in Elpis Israel.

 

(6) Is 'sin' in the flesh a mere metonym? Or do you somehow believe that there are transgressions located in the flesh? Does calling sin, in relation to the body a 'metonymy' make the principle of sin in the body (Rom 7:5) any less concrete or substantive? Does the descriptive label 'metonym' transmute the physical law of the body into an unreal, symbolic or phantasmal law and thereby justify your contention that the body is not accounted as 'sin'?

 

 

 

Clean Flesh's Ritual-Symbolical 'Condemnation' of Sin

 

The late H. Fry, in his erroneous teaching, discarded the obvious error (free life) of Turneyism while retaining the basic error of Turney's clean-flesh teaching. One of the chief errors was that Christ condemned sin symbolically on the cross rather than literally / physically. Because he denied that flesh was a synonym for sin, Fry taught, as his current adherents do, that the sacrifice of Christ was only "ritual symbolism" -- only a symbolical ceremony. You cannot actually condemn sin in the flesh nature when 'sin' is not present; and the 'body of sin' is not sin but merely a body -- like the animal bodies of the Mosaic sacrifices who also "knew no sin".  Though the crucifixion was undoubtedly "ceremonial" in the sense of a public condemnation, yet in that ceremony was the literal condemnation of sin, by God, in the body of the Lord Jesus. If sin was literally condemned in the body of Christ how was it condemned if his flesh was not 'sin' (2nd principal acceptation)? To argue as you apparently do, is to make the Lord Jesus Christ a substitute, whereby he only condemned sin in others, since, according to your logic, he did not have sin (2nd acceptation).

 

“The impulses of sin, were in the body of the Lord as in other men, but they were neutralized, or overcome, by a mind that was in perfect attune with that of his Father. Therefore, ‘the sins’ that the Lord ‘bare in his body’ when he was crucified are fitly described as ‘our sins’ because they were identical to the same impulses that in every other person result in actual transgression; and the Lord died as our representative. (HP Mansfield, The Atonement, How Christ Bears Our Sins, p. 195-196)

Andrew: Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up for himself for the purging of his own sin nature? R. Roberts: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, and a son of David, yes. (Debate #711)

A historical note: John Hensley teaches the same doctrinal errors as H Fry. J Hensley's booklet has made the rounds in Australia but the heresies originated with H Fry who was disfellowshipped for his wrong ideas on the atonement. Besides the wrong doctrine taught therein, both books are cunningly written with misleading statements and red-herring arguments which mislead rather than intelligently inform. If you would like me to elaborate on this please let me know as I have studied both books and gathered material which demonstrates these assertions.

 

 

The Physical Alienation Charge/Heresy/Garden-Path

 

You claim that to say "flesh is sin" is to lay a plank in the physical alienation theory.

 

The alienation charge is a red-herring. Men are alienated by wicked works, not by nature. This error of Andrew is answered in The Truth Affirmed, a 96 page refutation of JJ Andrew's errors, including the error of physical alienation -- incidentally published by Logos! This charge only repeats the accusation of the leading proponents of clean-flesh teaching. It is demonstrable that they do not understand Andrewism. Rather, they have picked up their arguments from bro. H. Fry who was disfellowshipped for his false teachings on the atonement.

 

Brother HP Mansfield wrote in 1971,

"It is a fact that some occupying positions of authority in the Ecclesias, do not know Andrewism when they see it, though they wax eloquent about the 'blasphemy' of certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" (H.P. Mansfield, Logos,  July 1971, p. 382). 

Within 10 years of brother HP Mansfield writing this, brother John Martin was circulating the very heresies of H. Fry and his book entitled "Echoes of Past Controversies".

You might consider for just a moment  what brother Mansfield was referring to in speaking of "certain statements", or certain teachings, that were being labeled as 'blasphemy' by certain brethren who no doubt thought theywere "sounding the trumpet". And yet they were not merely opposing themselves, but the truth also.

The fact is, if you deny that flesh is accounted as 'sin' in the Bible then you either wittingly or unwittingly hold some variation of clean flesh.

 

 

 

The Historical Logos Position

 

The Logos magazine's position in all that I have ever read is that God literally condemned sin in the (physical) body of Christ. The writings of brother HP Mansfield consistently teach this doctrine. This is what is taught today by Logos. Can you show any evidence of anything different from what Bro. HP Mansfield taught, that has been published in Logos? That the pioneer brethren from John Thomas to HP Mansfield to Graeham Mansfield taught/teachthis is easy enough to demonstrate. But my experience is that when these pioneer brethren are quoted, PA brethren respond by saying that "those same quotes are used by the 'Old Paths', 'Bereans'" &c. as if that deals with the quotations in an intellectually honest way. Or a response is given such as "we do not want to engage in a war of quotations" -- a disingenuous argument for those who do not rightly divide the words of the pioneer brethren. If men cannot rightly divide the Holy Scriptures, they certainly cannot be expected to rightly divide the words of men. I am sure you agree that these arguments are not acceptable to intellectually honest brethren and certainly won't be accepted in the day of account (Matt 12:36).

 

 

 

Your Disagreement with the Pioneer Brethren

 

This fact is simple: If you do not agree with the pioneer definition of 'sin', in its two chief acceptations, then you cannot agree with 99% of the pioneer writings on the atonement, for The Atonement specifically answers to how sin is atoned for, cleansed &c.

 

You claim you "have no problem with 99% of what our Pioneers have written on the Atonement". Below this letter, you will find some of that which the pioneers have written on the atonement. (7) Are these quotes part of the 1% you disagree with?

 

 

 

Your Agreement with Enfield/Cumberland's Position

 

(8) Could you please tell me specifically where you disagree with John Martin's book, as you have implied, and more importantly where you disagree with the Enfield/Cumberland position on the atonement? As you have laid various charges against Logos, and claim to occupy original Christadelphian ground, I believe it is incumbent upon you to specify where you stand in relation to the Enfield/Cumberland position.

 

 

 

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine
You say you find it necessary to "sound the trumpet." If you disagree with the statement that flesh, or human nature, is the 2nd principal acceptation of the word sin, then you are clearly in the ideological company of those false teachers which Logos has historically witnessed against. I hope that is not the case.

Leviticus 16:6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. Leviticus 16:11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself. Hebrews 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people. Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Exodus 29:36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. Exodus 29:37 Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy. Hebrews 5:3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. John 12:31  Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Fraternally,

 

Stephen

 

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

 

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." -- Christ

 

"Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." -- Christ

 

  

Quotes:

 

"We break not this bread and drink not this wine discerningly unless we see in Christ crucified the vindication of the honour of God, in the condemnation of sin in the flesh of sin as the basis of our acceptable approach to God, and our forgiveness unto life eternal." (R. Roberts, Seasons of Comfort, The Blessedness of Knowing the Truth, Logos ed., p. 222)

“‘Sin’, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean... This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says ‘God made him to be sin for us’... And this he explains by saying in another place that ‘He sent His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.’ Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., page 130)

 

“What he put to death was the flesh, here referred to by the SYNONYM of ‘sin’. He put to death the demands of the flesh during his life, and in the manner of his death.” (HP Mansfield, The Atonement, p. 184).

 

"The crucifixion of Christ as a ‘declaration of the righteousness of God’ and a ‘condemnation of sin in the flesh’, exhibited to the world the righteous treatment of sin. It was as though it was proclaimed to all the world, when the body was nailed to the cross: ‘This is how condemned human nature should be treated according to the righteousness of God; it is fit only for destruction.’" (R. Roberts, The Blood of Christ, p. 18).

 

Henry Sulley wrote, “there are two classes of sin from which the human race needs deliverance. First, those to which men are related by racial descent (Rom 5:12-14); second, individual trespasses.” (The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy, 1887, p. 76).

 

"Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh,’ that is, flesh full of sin, so that ‘sin,’ in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called ‘man.’” (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 129)

 

"That the devil of scripture is, first, sin manifested individually in and through our common nature; secondly, sin in ecclesiastical and political manifestation. Hence, the powers of the world are styled ‘the Devil and his Angels.’” (J. Thomas, Eureka, vol 3, ch. 11, Logos ed., p. 303)

 

"This perishing body is 'sin,' and left to perish because of 'sin.' Sin, in its application to the body, stands for all its constituents and laws. The power of death is in its very constitution, so that the law of its nature is styled 'the Law of Sin and Death.' In the combination of the elements of the law, the power of death resides, so that 'to destroy that having the power of death,' is to abolish this physical law of sin and death, and instead thereof, to substitute the physical 'law of the spirit of life,' by which the same body would be changed in its constitution, and live for ever.” (J. Thomas, Eureka, vol. 1, ch 2, sec 2, Logos ed., p. 248)

 

"These principles were embodied in Jesus, as ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,’ as to character; yet ‘the likeness of sin's flesh, in whom sin was condemned’ when crucified, as to nature;" (J. Thomas, Eureka, vol. 1, sec. 1, ch. 5, 7. The Golden Zone, Logos ed., p. 171)

 

"It (the body of Jesus) was not angel flesh or nature, but that common to the seed of Abraham, styled by Paul ‘flesh of sin,’ ‘in which,’ he says, ‘dwells no good thing’ ... His flesh was like our flesh in all its points – weak, emotional, and unclean... Sin, whose wages is death, had to be condemned in the nature that had transgressed... He took part of the same, that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is, the diabolos, or elements of corruption in our nature inciting it to transgression, and therefore called ‘Sin working death in us.’"  (J. Thomas, Eureka, vol. 1, Logos ed., p. 106)

“That Christ through his own atonement has been raised from the dead, to die no more, and consequently none can rise to die no more except through the same means, but they may rise to mortal life without atonement, as shown by several historical cases of such resurrection, and by the testimony that God will bring to judgment every responsible soul of man that doeth evil whether he be Jew or Gentile.” (R. Roberts, Resurrection to Condemnation)

 

Jim Cowie to Stephen Genusa (1)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Cowie [mailto:jim.cowie@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:13 AM
To: steve@genusa.com
Subject: ATONEMENT
Dear Bro. Stephen,

I am in receipt of your unsolicited letter based on my correspondence with Bro. Graeham Mansfield. Having previously read your document issued last year criticising Bro. John Martin and others on these same issues I recognise a similarity of approach in your communication to me. I marvel at the ferocity with which you and some others attack this “paper tiger” of your own making, but I feel no obligation whatsoever to respond to the many challenges and questions you raise. My issue was with the Editor of Logos to whose defence you have sprung. The point I wanted to make has been made and I am happy to leave the rest to the Judge who will unravel all these issues unerringly when he appears once more among his servants. He will determine the truth of the issue and whether it is of sufficient moment to deny access to the Kingdom to those found mistaken. Accordingly, we all need to be comfortable with the position we hold, and after 35 years of hard work (and much pain) on the subject I am comfortable, as are the vast majority of Central Fellowship brethren who utterly repudiate the Clean-flesh theory you suspect they sympathise with. I have fought that theory for over 30 years in one of the more notorious hotbeds of its modern existence. I can assure you, I have not fallen victim to it any more than you have fallen for pure “Andrewism”. You are concerned about so-called “partial atonement” giving ground to clean-flesh, and I am equally concerned about the drift towards language capable of misinterpretation and development of premises that will ultimately lead back to Andrewism.

I want to take up just one matter addressed in your letter. You challenge me to lay out the differences between Logos now and under HPM. You see it as a question of intellectual honesty. Doubtless you and others have rigorously applied your own principle and searched high and low through Logos for evidence supporting your newly articulated position that “flesh is sin” and therefore requires atonement, reconciliation and justification by sacrifice for its own sake. Is it not marvellous then that you have not found such phrases as “flesh is sin” and “flesh and blood is accounted by God as sin” or “flesh and blood requires atonement, reconciliation and justification by sacrifice”? For surely, if you had found such language you and others would have quoted it to me. I too spent years looking for such language over 20 years ago. I did not find it. The very best you can do is quote the statement that “sin is a synonym for human nature”. Yes, and so it is, understood with the scriptural figure of speech called metonymy where the effect (or result) “sin” is put for the cause (a bias towards sin in our nature). Consequently, I have no difficulty with any of the quotations you make from the Pioneers or HPM. My only difficulty is with the interpretation you appear to place on them.

Take for example your quotation from HPM on “How Christ Bears Our Sins” on page 3 of your letter. This is an excellent expression of my understanding of the Lord’s relationship to “our sins” and his work of redemption on our behalf. But how does it teach that Christ had to make a separate offering for his nature so that as “sin” it could be reconciled, justified or atoned for? Surely this is the reason why you quote such passages. It seems in your mind that if it can be established that “sin” is something physical in the flesh (seemingly something more than a bias towards sin and mortality), then a sacrifice is required specifically for it. This is not taught by the Pioneers or HPM, nor is it Central Fellowship teaching. And you will certainly not find it in our Statement of Faith.

You were not on the CC list of my response to Bro. Keith Cook so I have included that below (although I suspect you will have received a copy already). This document explains my views amply on the points he raised, and addresses many of the issues you raise. I fear however that you will have trouble perceiving the real issues involved given the approach evident in the two documents I have read from your pen. As explained in my response to Bro. Keith, the journey towards perception of the simplicity of the Atonement in all its beauty is a painful one for those of us who come from your background and mine. It is hard to kick against the pricks of the uncomplicated simplicity of the subject when one has enmeshed himself in a web of ceremonial/ritualistic and symbolic language which hinders a clear view of the substance - Christ.

Herein lies the true value of Bro. John Hensley’s writing which you pillory as error. May you be granted the wisdom to perceive as he did that there is another path that stands above clean-flesh and physical alienation. We do not need to borrow ideas or language from either to stand on that superior path.

Yours sincerely in our ever-brightening Hope.

Jim

From Stephen Genusa to Jim Cowie (2)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Genusa [mailto:steve@genusa.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:47 PM
To: 'Jim Cowie'
Cc: Graeham E. Mansfield
Subject: Re: Atonement

 

Dear brother Cowie,

 

Greetings in the hope of Israel.

 

You wrote,

"I feel no obligation whatsoever to respond to the many challenges and questions you raise" (J.C.)

I am sorry you have responded to my doctrinal explanation by making personal attacks upon me. In your 850 word response you did not address a single point of doctrine I offered, but sadly engaged in misrepresentation, insinuation and belittling of those not in agreement with your new (as you confessed) doctrinal position. Brother Cowie, I have no controversy with you personally. The battle is against the wrong doctrines you defend which are destructive to the Truth. It is sad that your response is a personal attack. It is indicative to me of the weakness of your doctrinal position. 

 

Your charges against Logos raised the questions as I indicated in my prior email. When one makes accusations, as you have, one is obligated by the teachings of Christ to demonstrate the accusations. You did not do so in your letter to brother Mansfield, and therefore the obligation remains on your shoulders, whether you "feel" it or not. The ecclesial community could not function if brethren freely made such charges with no obligation to lay the facts before the accused.

 

You may feel that my response was unsolicited, but you have made charges, not only against Logos, but also against brethren associated with Logos. I sometimes participate in the Christadelphian Studies section of Logos and therefore your comments against Logos are directed at me as well.

 

I assure you brother that the "ferocity" that you imagine is just that. It is your own "paper tiger" to discredit my letter to you.You have confused zeal for upholding fundamental saving doctrine, for human earthly "ferocity". My brother, such posturing and misrepresentations may serve you now, but surely you see its usefulness is limited to this age and to mortal man who tends to judge by the sight of his eyes and imaginations of his heart? God-manifestation and God-exaltation are serious issues. The least you could do is refrain from voicing such hyperbole or false judgments.

 

In your letter to brother Cook you made a serious mistake in describing Andrewism. You wrote,

"But those who espouse 'Andrewistic' ideas also give the term 'defiled' a moral connotation by claiming that our inheritance in Adam alienates us from God. Hence they say, our flesh and blood bodies need atonement, reconciliation and justification which can only be accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ being divided into two parts – one for the nature and one for our sins. Sounds similar to what I am reading lately!"

Brother Cowie, if your representation of "Andrewism" is wrong, and I assure you it is, then your charge against Logos is at best faulty, or worse, slanderous. If I may politely restate this, you do not know what Andrewism is, as demonstrated in your own attempted paraphrase. I think in future references this demonstrably weak area of the partial-atonement position should be publicly explained so that brethren understand that you, and others, are throwing around labels you do not understand. I refer you again to my last letter and specifically to what uncle HP Mansfield wrote concerning this. You chose to ignore this comment:

"It is a fact that some occupying positions of authority in the Ecclesias, do not know Andrewism when they see it, though they wax eloquent about the 'blasphemy' of certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" (H.P. Mansfield, Logos,  July 1971, p. 382). 

To define Andrewism, in this context, you should have written, "But those who espouse 'Andrewistic' ideas also give the term 'defiled' a moral connotation by claiming that our physical inheritance in Adam alienates us from God. Alienation [which is really a moral term] is given a physical aspect and this legal/moral 'defilement' is removed at baptism". That is Andrewism and it is a far cry from what Logos teaches, or those associated with it teach. You really should spend some time studying JJ Andrew's teachings if you are going to represent his teachings to others -- or make charges against other brethren. The partial-atonement camp has acquired its definition of Andrewism from the clean-flesh community -- hardly a reliable source for understanding JJ Andrew. But we are each responsible for our own words and (mis)representations -- particularly when we've been informed -- light makes men responsible.

 

I find the description of your journey fascinating for I also have been through "much tribulation" having been personally challenged by the new doctrines that partial atonement teachers have set before the body. I too have a wife and son I must take responsibility for. And therefore I have taken, as you have, the challenges seriously. I too have carefully examined them. However, unlike you, I found that the pioneer brethren provided a wholly Scriptural answer. The power is in the Word -- the anchor is in the Word. Therefore, for example, when I ask you about 2 Cor. 5:21, I note you are unwilling to answer. I believe you see that according to your reasoning it lays the plank for physical alienation. I emphasize that it is your reasoning, but not Scriptural reasoning. So also with Heb 2:14 and Heb 9:28 (as examples). You do not accept the 2nd definition of sin, or sin-nature, as defined by the Pioneers. Yet, to transmute "made sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) into something other than sin-nature is indeed the slippery slope of clean flesh for that is the teaching of clean-flesh as the writings of Strickler, Bell, & H. Fry attest to.

 

Your belief is that "Christ condemned sin in his life by not practicing it; and in his crucifixion by metonymy". Your use of metonymy makes the condemnation of sin in the nailing of his body to the cross a figure: just as the animals under the Law had a ceremonial "imputation of sin" so also with Christ. You condemn diabolos in a figure: the only sin Christ could bear is the "sins of his fellows" as you do not account the body as sin. This was the teaching of Turney, Strickler, Bell, mastered by Fry, and picked up by John Hensley/Richard Stone. All these brethren, save brethren Hensley/Stone were disfellowshipped (in days in which the Christadelphian body was stronger and could fend off false ideas) for their teachings. Christ was not a continuation of the Mosaic sacrifices, save in human form. A BODY was prepared for him by the spirit (and later repaired), and the question you must answer is "why?". Interestingly, the Endeavor group has published a booklet on the atonement in which they describe the condemnation of sin by Christ in crucifixion as condemnation by metaphor. You call it condemnation by metonymy.

 

As to brother John Hensley, one point is important to make. He worked with brother Richard Stone. I have transcripts of classes, which they taught together, on the atonement that demonstrate their agreement. Richard Stone also wrote the forward to the American edition of John Hensley's book. You don't write a forward to a book unless you commend the book's contents to the brotherhood. Note then the June 2001 issue of Logos with brother HP Mansfield's diary:

"Bro. Stone had taken the day off in order to have a chat. He tackled me upon the sacrifice of Christ. He takes the stand adopted by the late Bro. Fry that Christ died only for himself in the sense that the sins of his fellows were imputed to him. I told him, as is a fact, that his teaching would be looked upon as clean-flesh in Australia. He was shocked at this. I assured him that it was so, and then proceeded to question him as to why the altar had to be cleansed by blood before it could be used, why the tabernacle, and holy vessels, had so to be cleansed" (H.P. Mansfield, Logos, June 2001, p. 352).

So you see brother Cowie, the writings of H.P. Mansfield do not have to be searched "high and low" to prove you are wrong in your new position. A few basic historical facts and writings are sufficient. Though this may cause you additional anguish, I appeal to you again to reconsider the facts,  to the end that present anguish may reap future joy.

 

I asked you to demonstrate the difference in the pioneer quotes, and the current teaching of Logos. The questions were specific and simple. You refused to do so. However, you did repeat the false accusation emanating from thepartial atonement camp "But how does it teach that Christ had to make a separate offering for his nature so that as 'sin' it could be reconciled, justified or atoned for?". Yes, you put off the reconciliation of such matters to "the infallible judge" yet is this not the time to properly prepare ourselves with Godly lives and words to stand before him? Therefore, by your own words brother, and Matt. 12:36, it is fair to expect that when you stand before the infallible judge, you should be prepared to demonstrate a single instance in which Logos, or those associated with it, teach that Christ had to make a separate offering. Logos has not taught this. Brother Cook has not taught this. I have not taught this. Rather we have agreed with the Pioneers that Christ made the One Great Offering. Brother Roberts rightly wrote,

"Yet as the bearer of the sins of his people – whether ‘in Adam’ or otherwise, he stood in the position of having these as ‘his own’ from the effects of which he had himself first to be delivered. Consequently, he offered first for himself; he was the first delivered… But his offering for himself was also the offering for his people. The two aspects of the double typical offering were combined in one act. He had not twice to offer for himself… ‘He was made sin for us who knew no sin;’ and does not sin require an offering?” (R. Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1875, p. 139)

I quoted these very words in my last email (and my booklet) yet you respond: "how does it teach that Christ had to make a separate offering". In your own letter to brother Cook you wrote, "I believe that our greatest need is the forgiveness of our sins. Our second great need is the redemption of our body". Brother Cowie, that's two aspects!: (1) Transgressions (2) Body. Because Christ had no transgressions, yet he had a BODY prepared by the Spirit, for the condemnation of sin, he had to offer for himself as the Pioneer brethren taught. "The two aspects of the double typical offering were combined in ONE ACT." By your own words I could make the same charge against you of "separate offering" but you know, and I know that the charge of separate offering is dishonest and a misrepresentation of your position -- and so likewise with ours. But do as you will my brother. Indeed Christ will settle the manner, in a very personal way, for each of us shortly.

 

You wrote,

"Doubtless you and others have rigorously applied your own principle and searched high and low through Logos for evidence supporting your newly articulated position that 'flesh is sin'."

Brother Cowie, that is an clever misrepresentation of the facts. I appeal to you brother to reconsider not only your doctrinal stand, but also your emotionally based judgments.

 

By the way, the idea of "sacrificial offering for human nature" (a phrase I do not use myself) is no new teaching. Besides all the pioneer quotations on the subject I refer to you a source that is far from allied with Logos: The Christadelphian Tidings for March of 1994 had a series of articles defending the teaching of "Sacrificial Offering for Human Nature". I would not expect brother Styles to defend the position any longer as it would not be expedient in the current cirumstances but it stands as a witness to what brethren once taught and against those who have changed.

 

You wrote,

"The very best you can do is quote the statement that 'sin is a synonym for human nature.' Yes, and so it is, understood with the scriptural figure of speech called metonymy where the effect (or result) 'sin' is put for the cause."

That is a misrepresentation in a number of ways. I did not merely quote brother John Thomas and brother H.P. Mansfield where they both said sin was a synonym for flesh. I also gave a number of quotations where the concept of 'this perishing body' being called 'sin' is demonstrated. Furthermore, in that letter you will see that brother Thomas said there are two chief or primary meanings of the word 'sin'. The Pioneers taught that the 2nd acceptation for sin is the flesh or to be "made flesh and blood". You really cannot escape the quotes by your use of metonymy. Finally, a synonym and a metonym are two different things. A metonym may be applied to a synonym because of a common characteristic between the two synonyms, which in this case is 'sin'. But a synonym is not a metonym as you know. Any dictionary would demonstrate that your dismissal of 'synonym' using 'metonym' is unjustifiable. Your argument is the same argument as partial-atonement.

 

You wrote to brother Cook,

"In 1980 I even took a week’s holiday to explore the issue of blood-shedding and its relationship to redemption believing I would come up with indubitable proof that blood-shedding was in itself efficacious in cleansing our nature in some ‘mysterious’ way".

If we ask the wrong question, we will get the wrong answer. This is the problem with H. Fry's book and J. Hensley's book as well. Your focus should have been on verses such as Romans 3:25-26. God manifestation and God exaltation should have been the focus of your investigation. When you approach the subject of the atonement from the point of human salvation, you will come up with the wrong answer. This is the error of Strickler, Turney, Bell, H. Fry, John Hensley et al. They all focused on what they saw as the mechanics of human salvation and they came up with the wrong answers.

 

Further you wrote,

"The facts are that my own painful and protracted metamorphosis on the issue of Christ’s relationship to his sacrifice extends back to 1979 " and "I immediately went into denial and spent some time casting around for reassurance that I was on firm Pioneer ground." and "I had discussions with senior brethren in Sydney and Adelaide, some of whom were concerned that we had come perilously close to using language that could not be supported by Scripture although it may appear to have been supported by quotations from the Pioneers."

 

"metamorphosis" : " a marked and more or less abrupt developmental change in the form or structure of an animal (as a butterfly)"

 

The fact that you have had a marked change in your understanding of the atonement explains why you see the language of Logos as increasingly extreme. You want to have the freedom to move from one position, and then blame the original position for "changing" and becoming "increasingly extreme". Further, your admissions show that you could not and cannot sustain your previous doctrinal position based on the pioneers, from the Scriptures. It is therefore an admission that you do not follow 99% of what the pioneer brethren have written on the atonement.

 

You claim you, and those who believe like you, are not on the slippery slope to clean flesh. Yet Christadelphian literature is being altered to reflect this new doctrinal position. The Types of the Bible, which were properly expounded by the Pioneers, are being denied by those that you are in agreement with. The keys of knowledge of the atonement have been removed, under the guise of fighting Andrewism (though some of the very same brethren have been behind the reunion efforts with the North American Unamended - Heb. 12:3), and the doors of understanding are now beginning to close. It sounds very much like the ecclesia described in Rev. 3:17. The misguidance you have received from "senior" brethren ought to be considered in light of the Apocalypse. Speaking of senior brethren, brother H.P Mansfield comments:

"At one of the brethren's homes, I had come across a printed circular outlining some of the studies at a Bible School, and was surprised to find that very statement [Out of Adam] at the head of one of the lessons. I had it with me and showed it to Bro. Aue, suggesting that some of the Amended brethren were unsound when it came to the Sacrifice of Christ! It showed me how that even prominent brethren can be astray in regard to the intricacies of controversy." (HP Mansfield, Logos, October 2001, p. 30)

To an observer it is fascinating to see how those who have doctrinally changed over the last 10-20 years, some of which such as yourself, who openly admit to change, now claim to be upholding the Australian Unity Basis!Brother HP Mansfield could see the direction that some of his fellow-laborers were headed when he wrote,

"It is a fact that some occupying positions of authority in the Ecclesias, do not know Andrewism when they see it, though they wax eloquent about the 'blasphemy' of certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" (H.P. Mansfield, Logos,  July 1971, p. 382). 

He indeed would be sorry to see that some of his fellow-laborers have changed from the position they held when he was alive. By your own admission you have. I am sure, based on the comment of his son who would know, brother Graeham Mansfield, that uncle H.P. could see what was happening. He just didn't know how far it would spread before Christ returned. As time progresses we are sadly finding that out.

 

Though you have been through "anguish" in coming to your new position, please do not imagine that anguish is a substitute for sound doctrine. Most of the brethren involved have been through the same mental anguish in the battle for faith.

 

But we stand in different doctrinal positions now and will have to handle it accordingly.

 

Fraternally,

 

Stephen

 

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." "Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."