The August 2005 Combined AB Meeting of Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully

Re: The August 2005 Combined AB Meeting of Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully

Dear brother [name removed],

I am sure you've already seen the attached document but I include it for reference.

1) That four Christadelphian meetings would hold a combined AB meeting in which "ANY interested brethren who are not Arranging Brethren" are "welcome" (see TTG/Isaac Newton letter dated 12th July 2005) with a stated purpose of "to discuss the proper ecclesial response to those individual brethren and ecclesias (if any) who publish abroad that we are in error on fundamental doctrine" (ibid) is a quite a commentary on the state of the brotherhood in Australia. While I do not expect those involved to see anything wrong with it, I also would hope you see the absurdity of a combined AB meeting, OPEN TO VISITORS, whose purported purpose is to discuss an "ecclesial response" to charges levelled against their own selves! When did an [organized] fraternal response become a "proper ecclesial response"? If we called such a meeting here in the U.S. we would be laughed at and rightly so.

2) Now that such a meeting has taken place and their report issued, I ask you to see page 3 of their summary. There you will find:

a) An alleged summary of the errors that JW/GEM/KC teach. I can categorically state that some of the errors they are alleged to teach are fabrications. As you know, I have written against the (recent) errors into which JW/GEM/KC have fallen so I have firsthand knowledge of what their doctrinal error is and is not. What is clear from reading the list of alleged errors is that one or more persons have gone through the Australian Unity Book fishing for and construing the error they teach into violations of the AUB. That JW/GEM/KC are in violation of the AUB is possible, but the list of charges made against them is grossly inaccurate.

b) Equally clear is that Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully are in violation of the Australian Unity Book, the BASF and many historical documents such as the Time to Heal articles. It is clear these meetings hold errors on fundamental doctrine concerning the atonement.

3) I am sure the three targeted brethren, and the Vines ecclesia, will defend themselves but I hope that you can see through the allegations against JW/GEM/KC. The recent meeting is nothing more than an attempt to destroy opposition to clean flesh in Australia. It is not only a political ploy but an attempt by the four meetings to consolidate their power over the Central community in Australia. In publishing a statement of disfellowship against GEM the four meetings (Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully) were taking some risk. That they did so and encountered little opposition has emboldened them to now take further action against those who oppose their errors on fundamental doctrines -- see Michael Edgecombe's or Carl Parry's expositions concerning the atonement for blatant proofs of clean flesh within their coterie.

4) The errors that JW/GEM/KC do teach, along with publication of The Evil One: Challenged and Overcome, is cause for concern, yet a brother of Christ would expect and demand that the charges against them be accurate and not a fishing list of violations gathered from the AUB and construed from misrepresentations of the errors they teach. It is obvious the purpose of these four meetings is to isolate, silence, and if possible, disfellowship their opposition. If these four leading errorist meetings want to disfellowship JW/GEM/KC/Vines, they should do so with charges that accurately reflect the doctrinal errors they teach.

5) The lineup at the meeting tells you just about everything you need to know. These are some of the leading errorists: Jim Luke (the meaning of 'defilement' only gathered from the Words of Christ advocate), Brian Luke [Endorser of John Hensley's Book which promotes Harry Fry's form of clean flesh], John Martin, and to top it off, Carl Parry closing the meeting in prayer! If this doesn't give pause for consideration!

6) The "Report to the Adelaide Ecclesias of the Combined Arranging Brethren's meeting..." dated August 2005 speaks for the situation in Australia -- "for the tree is known by his fruit" (Matthew 12:33).

Stephen

Note: If called in question by errorists or their apologists, I'll supply a far longer list. Forget about the so-called "war of quotations". There never was a battle of quotations except in the minds of errorists who have felt the sting of the plain early Christadelphian writings and needed an intellectually cheap way of dismissing them.

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
The Bible

John 3:14-15, 1:29; ; 1 John 2:18, 1:7, 4:3; 2nd Corinthians 5:21; Romans 6:19, 7:5, 21-25, 8:2-3; Galatians 3:13, 4:4, 5:17; Ephesians 5:2; 1 Peter 2:11, 24; Hebrews 2:10, 14, 16, 7:27-28, 8:1, 9:12; Matthew 1:1; James 4:1; Genesis 3:15; John 12:31, 16:11; Colossians 2:15; Zechariah 3:4

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
WH Boulton (from The Epistle to the Hebrews)

"The difficulty, if such it may be termed, is only apparent. Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures; it has a physical as well as a moral application." (page 181)

"The Apostle Paul is very precise in his references to sin as a physical principle inherent in human flesh." (page 182; worth seeing this page for brother Boulton's full comments)

"It is safe to affirm that sin, using the word both in its active application as transgression, and in the other, or physical, sense of sin in the flesh, did not then exist, for in no sense could it be said that sin, either in act or nature, is a good thing, notwithstanding the contentions of those who advocate what are aptly termed 'clean-flesh' theories. Some have questioned the appropriateness of speaking of sin in reference to nature, claiming that it can only refer to transgression. They quote 'Sin is the transgression of the law.' This is simply to quote one Scriptural definition against other Scriptural doctrines. No one can read the Epistle to the Romans carefully, and accept its teaching candidly, without realising that sin is used in reference to something else than action. It is clearly used to define that which is the cause of sin in action." (pages 56-57)

"There is no avoiding the teaching of these quotations and its bearing upon the subject in hand. Sin, as a physical evil in the flesh, termed 'lust' by James (chap, i, 14), leads to sinful actions." (page 57)

"By that fact 'sin in the flesh' came into existence, became a part of the physical constitution of mankind, and has so remained, for 'who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one' (Job. xiv, 4)."

"These verses imply that whatever the physical constitution of 'the children' may be, that was the nature of which 'he' partook in order that he might bring to naught, or destroy (Authorised Version), the devil—sin in the flesh." (page 60)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
John Carter

"It is doing violence to John’s context to take the words 'in him is no sin' as proof that Jesus had not the physical nature which Paul describes as 'sin.' John is thinking of sin in moral terms; but he does not contradict Paul who uses the word of physical condition. In fact, John makes the belief that the physical nature of Jesus was like ours a test of fellowship. 'Every spirit (teacher) that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God,' but antichrist. 'Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. . . If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.'"

"In what sense then was Jesus 'made sin'? In the sense that 'he himself likewise took part of the same' flesh and blood as all the other children who are given him. Therefore 'he died unto sin,' having all his life 'condemned sin' so that he might be an acceptable 'offering for sin.' If we ask where sin was condemned? the apostle says 'in the flesh'; on which Dr. Thomas appositely remarks: 'Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there.'" (The Christadelphian, 1938, Page 127)

'Sin' therefore in the phrase 'He made him to be sin,' whatever other facts may be included, must, as Dr. Thomas said, mean that he was sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh'; it cannot mean 'sin-offering.' The usage of peri hamartia in the Septuagint can be checked by anyone who has access to Hatch & Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint. These facts were amply demonstrated in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN 1915, pages 106 and 343 by bro. W. J. Young. But truth needs constant re-assertion." (The Christadelphian,1943, Page 195)

"That there was a sense in which he must offer for himself would appear from the fact that Aaron had so to do before he offered for the people; and Jesus is the antitype. If it should be said that this was a necessary preparation in Aaron's case, it might be asked, was there no necessary preparation in Christ's case? There was; and the Scriptures give the reason. We get a clue in the words of Peter: 'who his own self bare our sins in his own body on a tree' (1 Peter 2:24). He was there as a representative, partaking of the nature that was common to all - a nature under sentence of death because of sin.” (Bro. John Carter, Letter to the Hebrews, p.83 3rd edition)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
Rod Ghent and Ron Abel (Studies in the Atonement)

"Since the purification related to the removal of ’sin’ contracted through death, it is apparent that cleansing and atonement are required even when a personal transgression is not committed. This is an important aspect of the offering in relation to Christ. He offered for himself, but not because he was a personal transgressor or because he was alienated from his Father, but because He was defiled by the uncleanness associated with human nature and death." (page 21)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
H. P. Mansfield (The Power of the Altar)

"The altar had to be atoned...As the altar had to be cleansed, atoned for, anointed and sanctified, and as it typed the Lord Jesus, it is obvious that he was involved in his own sacrifice. He had to be cleansed from the flesh-nature and clothed upon with Spirit nature, and this was effected through his offering."

"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" (Logos, June 2001, p. 352).

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
The BASF

"That the Lord wore our condemned nature, and that by dying, he abrogated the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey." (clause 8)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
A Time to Heal Articles  w/John Martin

"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 unto God by him." (Item #5 of the Truth Set Forth)

"1.—That the Statement of Faith (B.A.S.F.) contained in our printed Constitution be re-affirmed as our basis of fellowship, and that clauses 4 to 12 be understood according to the teaching of the 'Time to Heal' articles (published in The Christadephian in December, 1940.—Ed.)." (The Christadelphian, 1958, page 143)

“And so there appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 1940 articles which were entitled ‘A Time to Heal’ and brethren from Los Angeles, realizing that the truth was now held, generally speaking, throughout that country, and that they had no real cause for division with the brethren in England wrote for assurances from ‘The Christadelphian’ office that they would reject the “Clean flesh” heresy and stand by the truth, and they received those assurances and those articles were printed in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 40 and brethren from Australia wrote to them on the same score and received assurances that we did hold those doctrines in common and there began to be put into motion the machinery of unity b/s and the unity which we now enjoy today began right back at that time and was only achieved because faithful brethren, humble brethren, spent hours of their lives, sleepless hours of their lives, working steadfastly towards unity on the basis of truth and that is being challenged today. When those articles appeared in the 1939 and 40 ‘Christadelphian’ they of course created a good feeling amongst the brotherhood and as I said the machinery was put in motion for ecclesial unity.” (John Martin, 1970)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
Robert Roberts

"Under apostolic guidance, we see Christ both in the bullock, in the furniture, in the veil, in the high priest, and in brief, in all these Mosaic  'patterns,' which he says were 'a shadow of things to come' (Heb. viii. 5 : ix. 23 : x. 1 : iii. 5). All were both atoning and atoned for (Lev. xvi. 33). There is no counterpart to this if Christ is kept out of his own sacrifice, as some thoughts would do." (The Law of Moses, page 182)

"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?" (The Christadelphian, 1875, p. 139)

"15.—If you say that our sins were laid on him in the same way as they were laid on the sacrificial animals in the Mosaic system of things (which was a mere cermonial or artificial imputation), how comes it that those sacrifices never could take away sins? (Heb. 10:2); and where, then, is the substance of the shadow? The ceremonial imposition of sins upon the animals was the type; the real putting of sin on the Lamb of God in the bestowal of a prepared sin-body wherein to die, is the substance." (The Christadelphian,1926, Page 357)

"Now, this is part of the Mosaic figure. There must be an antitype to it. What was it? The holy things, we know, in brief, are Christ. He must, therefore, have been the subject of a personal cleansing in the process by which he opened the way of sanctification for his people. If the typical holy things contracted defilement from connection with a sinful congregation, were not the antitypical (Christ) holy things in a similar state, through derivation on his mother's side from a sinful race? If not, how came they to need purging with his own ‘better sacrifice’? (Heb. 9:23)." (The Law of Moses, The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons, 4th ed., p. 170-172)

"The burnt offering represented God's estimate of Christ's perfectly voluntary obedience even unto death; he was, as it were, wholly burnt up and devoted to God upon the altar--a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour -- the sin offering represented and ritually prophesied that aspect of the death of Christ by which he atoned for sin. Christ himself did no wrong, and was never alienated from God, but always did that which pleased Him, both prior to and after his baptism. Thus was foreshadowed in this beautiful type, the cleansing of the human nature of Christ by his own death, and of our own cleansing on account of the same, by favour of God through faith.“ (The Law of Moses, Motherhood, 4th ed., p. 250).

“The common view which disconnects Christ from the operation of his own sacrifice would have required that Moses should have left the altar and the book of the law unsprinkled. These were parts of what Paul terms ‘the patterns of things in the heavens’, concerning which he remarks that it was necessary they should be purified with the sacrifices ordained. The application of this to Christ as the antitype he makes instantly; ‘but (it was necessary that) the heavenly things themselves (should be purified) with better sacrifices than these’ (Heb. 9:23). The phrase ‘the heavenly things’ is an expression covering all the high, holy and exalted things of which the Mosaic pattern was but a foreshadowing. They are all comprehended in Christ, who is the nucleus from which all will be developed, the foundation on which all will be built. The statement is therefore a declaration that it was necessary that Christ should first of all be purified with better sacrifices than the Mosaic: ‘Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place’; ‘not into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us’ (Heb. 9:12, 23-24).” (The Law of Moses, The Covenant at Sinai, 4th ed., p. 90-91)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
John Hensley

"The only cleansing that Christ needed was a cleansing or purification from His physical sin nature. This was accomplished when He was changed from mortality to immortality. Every vestige and trace of sin was eradicated from His body. He needed no legal or moral cleansing or justification If He had it would have disqualified Him He was 'made to be sin' (2 Cor 5:21) in being given a physical make up or a body with the impulses of sin in its members" (The Tidings magazine, 1973, vol 36, p. 13)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
Frank Jannaway

"This sin condition being the hereditary nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin, or the condemnation of sin in the flesh, especially as he was ‘innocent of the great transgression.’ His righteousness sustained him, and his flesh did rest in hope of a resurrection from the dead; but his body being as unclean as the bodies of those he died for, he himself must of necessity have somewhat to offer, as an atonement for himself, and this offering he accomplished by pouring out his soul unto death (Isa. 53:12). The Scriptures say: ‘It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul’ (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22)." (FJ)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
Edward Turney

"sin was an element of the flesh of the Son of God, unless we had rather take the apostacy than Paul for our guide in the matter" (1872; prior to his departure from the Christadelphians)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
Don Styles

"We all know the only way God will deliver us from dying, sin-prone nature is by our faithful association with the sacrifice of Christ... True, one might argue that actual transgression is behind everything. Because one man committed sin, death passed upon all his progeny. Furthermore, it's actual transgressions that are our personal responsibility. It is also true that transgression receives far more mention in connection with sacrifice than does human nature. On the other hand, one could rightly argue that, as we are presently constituted, transgression results from our human nature. Until human nature is removed, sin will continue; therefore, our nature is the core of the problem. The truth of the matter is that both are grievous problems; neither is 'incidental'." (1994, The Tidings, vol 57, p. 45, 46, 89, 90)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
CC Walker

"Later on, when the time of 'his decease' had fully come, he was led out to Golgotha, and, being stripped of his clothing (which was divided among the four soldiers, with the exception of the 'coat,' for which they cast lots, according to the scriptures), he was nailed up naked to die! Then was fulfilled his own prophecy to Nicodemus: 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' There was nothing of 'the serpent' in Jesus as concerning the character (as there was with the serpents and generation of vipers who crucified him), therefore it can only represent human nature, i.e., sin’s flesh. There was no 'iniquity' in Jesus in the sense of actual transgression; but there was in the sense of his partaking of flesh and blood, of being 'made sin for us.' In this sacrificial putting to death of sin’s flesh, sin was condemned in the flesh; and in the resurrection of the Holy One to life eternal, 'the judgment of this world' and the 'casting out of the prince of this world' was perfected (John 10:18: 12:31: 14:30: 16:11)." (The Christadelphian, 1906, Pages 216-218)

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Answered by
Henry Sulley

"Now, after transgression Adam was a body of sin. This 'old man' Jesus and his brethren inherit from him. Physically, Jesus was one with his brethren in this respect—an extension of Adam’s being—'made of a woman' (Gal. 4:4). Therefore, our 'old man crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed,' is that flesh and blood nature whose impulses led Adam to transgress God’s laws." (The Christadelphian, 1921, Pages 534-537)

“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. In immersion there is a recognition of the first; and, by the offering of sacrifice, there is a confession of the second.” (The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy, 1887, p. 76).

----------------------------------

Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully Supported by
A.D. Strickler, John Bell, Harry Fry

“Christ’s human nature did not make him unclean. Christ had no sins to atone for. His sinful flesh or flesh full of sin could not be atoned for” (A.D. Strickler, Out of Darkness into Light”, p. 26). "Sacrifice was for transgression, not for nature”

"Never once… do we find that man and woman offered any sacrifice… or that they atoned for any sin other than that for which he or she had been personally guilty" (The Shield,September 1919)

----------------------------------

Note: If called in question by errorists or their apologists, I'll supply a far longer list. Forget about the so-called "war of quotations". There never was a battle of quotations except in the minds of errorists who have felt the sting of the plain early Christadelphian writings and needed an intellectually cheap way of dismissing them.

A Response to the Above

A brother wrote to me suggesting that I need to view the DVD produced by the four congregations before commenting on their Summary Letter. To that I responded:

Are you aware of any of these teachers renouncing the errors they have advocated for the last 15-20 years? Has John Martin retracted the error taught in his book Saved by His Life? Has Michael Edgecombe retracted the clean flesh teachings found in his responses to Keith Cook? Has Brian Luke now admitted that the re-publication of John Hensley's book was a mistake owning to the fact that JH taught Harry Fry's form of clean flesh? Has Carl Parry renounced the clean flesh teachings he actively spread in Australia over the last few years. Has a single one of these individuals claimed that Christ was defiled by indwelling sin? Has Jim Luke accepted that defilement is not merely a teaching of the Pharisees and that the word defilement applies to the physical human body? Has John Martin now admitted that Christ had to make an offering "for that with which he was born" [this isn't my language]? He certainly denied that fact in the Yagoona meeting. Have these errorists now admitted that Christ as the anti-typical High Priest offered first for himself and then for the errors of the people? Have any of these errorists retracted the claim that two sacrifices would be necessary if Christ offered for himself? Wherein in their recent pronouncements do they admit that there are two Scriptural definitions of the word sin? Where in their recent pronouncements do they admit that Christ condemned the 2nd acceptation of the word sin? Has John Knowles admitted that his deviant interpretation of section "The Constitution of Sin" from Elpis Israel has been incorrect? Have any of these errorists finally come around to the fact that sin in the flesh is not Andrewism/Bereanism/Old Pathsism -- in fact, doctrine to be rejected #27 is the denial that there is sin in the flesh, or indwelling sin.

All these questions are, I believe, obvious to anyone who has taken some interest in the controversy of recent years. Surely, if you are "not putting" your "trust in princes" you will have these same questions and surely you are wondering why these teachers are silent in advocating the truth. Unless they have done any of this in these presentations, denouncing their previous errors, what's the point of hearing them preach again, with modified language, the same errors?

stephen

Update July 2006: Some months back I received the DVD produced by Jim Luke, Brian Luke and John Martin. The presentations coming out of Australia are only getting worseas these errorists get bolder in their quest for leadership in Australia.