Matthew Trowell's "Understanding the Atonement"
(Harry Fry's Clean-Flesh Teachings Retold)

A new book titled Understanding the Atonement by Matthew Trowell has been published. Here are a few observations:

A) What stood out, as I have gone through the book, is what the author does with the phrase "sin in the flesh". First, consider this from Doctrines to Be Rejected (DTBR) #27:

"27.— That there is no sin in the flesh."

This DTBR is based on Romans 8:3:

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3)

What can this short DTBR mean? Let's think of any possible interpretation the DTBR might be given:

1) "Sin in the flesh" could be defined as the devil in the sense of the physical law of indwelling sin (Romans 7:5, 23; 8:3). To be born of flesh and blood is to be a partaker (Hebrews 2:14), physically, of sin in the flesh. Under this definition Christ condemned the physical nature of mankind. It is a nature that, in all but him, leads to sin.

2) An alternative interpretation is that Christ condemned sin, in the flesh. This is how the book Understanding the Atonement uses the phrase "sin in the flesh". We sin, in the flesh. We sin (in the flesh). We sin in the flesh. Christ did no sin, therefore he condemned sin, in the flesh. The author of Understanding the Atonement inserts a comma after sin (p. 58, 142), or he puts "in the flesh" in italics (p. 45), or he leaves "in the flesh" out altogether (p. 58). Matthew Trowell believes in sin, in the flesh -- and it is profitable to ask, who doesn't believe in sin, in the flesh, other than atheists? Every sect of Christendom believes sin occurs, in the flesh.

You see this emphasis in clean-flesh writings: that Christ condemned sin by leading a sinless life. That fact is important but ignores the context of Romans 8:3. Thus, a fatal problem with interpretation #2 is that Romans 8:3 says God... condemned sin in the flesh. God's condemnation of sin in the flesh is not synonymous with Christ leading a sinless life. Christ leading a sinless life was a part of His way, but not the totality. Understanding the Atonement is silent on explaining how God condemned sin in the flesh.

So we have two different ways of understanding the phrase "sin in the flesh". Now, let's think about this. Does anyone believe that DTBR #27 means "That there is no sin, in the flesh"? Or to reword it, that sin is not committed in the flesh!? Is DTBR #27 rejecting the idea that sins are not committed in the flesh? Where else would they be committed if not in mortal flesh?

Vital to understanding #27 is the fact that Edward Turney, from whose error we get DTBR #27 never once in his life denied sin, in the flesh. But he did deny "sin in the flesh". It doesn't matter what else you teach:

no "sin in the flesh" = clean-flesh

You can talk about mortality and half-heartedly endorse "two acceptations of the word sin" but the bottom line is, if you deny sin in the flesh is a physical principle, or quality, of the flesh, styled indwelling sin, which returns the mortal body to the dust a.k.a. the devil, you hold the doctrine of clean-flesh. Hear the admission of Edward Turney:

"The Editor [Robert Roberts] proceeds 'Sin in the flesh is metonymical, it is not the expression of a literal element or principle pervading physical organization. [ET: Is not that plain enough]. Literally, sin is disobedience or an act of rebellion. The impulses that lead to this reside in the flesh and therefore came to be called by the name of the act to which they gave birth. In defining first principles we must be accurate in our conceptions.'

"I respond to that most heartily. I wish I had been more accurate in my own ten years ago." (Edward Turney, The Sacrifice of Christ, p. 23)

So yes, clean-flesh from the beginning has accepted "sin in the flesh" as a metonymy or figure of speech. There's nothing, they say, behind the figure. The admission of metonymy is no admission to sin in the flesh.

When you reject "sin in the flesh" as defined in #1, or you embrace "sin, in the flesh" as defined in #2, DTBR #27 becomes utterly meaningless. Only atheists deny sin, in the flesh. But DTBR #27 was not formulated to keep atheists out of the ecclesia. It was specifically formulated to keep out those who denied "sin in the flesh". And while Matthew Trowell mentions the addition of DTBR #27 on page 87, he does not explain what it means. But his commas, italicized words and deletions help explain his view of DTBR #27 which is not Scriptural, logically viable, or historically accurate.

B) Go to page 35 of Understanding the Atonement and read pages 35-36 titled "The law of sin and death". Read the three paragraphs carefully and then try this experiment: Define "the law of sin and death". Can you define, from the authors words, what the law of sin and death is? Does what he wrote help you to understand the atonement?

Probably not. Because the author repeatedly confuses physical (body) and moral issues. In one paragraph he wrote,

"Paul styles this fixed principle within us as being 'a law in my members' (Romans 7:23), 'the law of sin' (Romans 7:25), 'the law of sin and death' (Romans 8:2), 'the flesh' (Romans 8:4-9), 'the carnal [or animal] mind' (Romans 8:7). This language is used by Paul to describe the natural law of the inward mind when it works in opposition to the will of God. In Romans 7:18-19,24 he says: 'In me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing… For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do… O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death (RV: ‘this body of death’)?" (Understanding the Atonement, p. 36).

Notice that the author makes the "fixed principle within us" which is "a law in my members" [melos or literally parts of the body] "the carnal mind" (moral)! He uses Scriptural phrases. It is Paul's language, but not Paul's doctrine because Matthew Trowell is pulling snippets together to teach what Matthew Trowell believes. He has pulled a snippet from verse 23 and a snippet from verse 25 and then two snippets from the next chapter into a single sentence.

The carnal mind is not a fixed principle within us unless we are reprobate. Being carnally minded is a way of thinking that ends in eternal death (Read Romans 8:6-9). All this Matthew Trowell represents as the "natural law of the inward MIND...". But remember, he claims to be expounding the law of sin and death! The author confuses mind and body in a single paragraph (as he does in all three of these paragraphs). Is this confusion going to help anyone understand the atonement?

Matthew Trowell's explanation also makes the Apostle Paul's words meaningless. The Apostle said,

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Romans 7:22-23

Matthew Trowell's doctrine is that the fixed principle is "the natural law of the inward MIND". Thus Paul, according to Matthew Trowell's doctrine should have said "I see another law in my mind warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my mind."

How can his readers gain an understanding of the atonement when the author claims that the law of sin and death is a fixed principle in our thinking?

C) The book asks many of the right questions, or raises the right issues, but the author does not answer vital questions in the text itself. Why raise the topic if he cannot provide a reasonably concise answer that gives the reader an understanding of the atonement?

D) The author takes snippets from the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts, but only so much as he could use. He even cuts "in the flesh" off from Romans 8:3 on page 58. Readers should investigate the quotes and read the quotes in context.

E) Note that he misrepresents (as is typical of all clean flesh teachers) the teachings of J. J. Andrew. He represents Andrewism as teaching "sin in the flesh" is physical human nature. John Thomas, Robert Roberts, C. C. Walker, W.H. Boulton, Ron Abel and many others taught "sin in the flesh" is physical human nature, but Matthew Trowell never quotes them teaching this.

F) Another experiment: Turn to Matthew's summary of the atonement on pages 209-210. Read through the list looking for anything specific to the atonement that Christianity would disagree with. There are a few points they might quibble about but nothing significant. Matthew's book is merely another sign of the times.

"You must expect opposition & detraction if you stand for the truth. And the opposition will come from pretended friends of the truth; & under pretense of zeal for the truth, & assumed fear that you will do harm. All sympathizers with the Old Mother & her Daughters, & their innumerable progeny, will cry out against harshness, exclusiveness, & all that sort of thing. Nevermind. Heed them not. You can do no good in trimming your sails to their breeze." (John Thomas to Robert Roberts, March 1865)