Letters to the Editor

Calvinism and Human Nature

Dear Bro. Don,

Bro. Alan Eyre’s statements in Tid­ings 10/96 are at loggerheads with the Christadelphian understanding of the Bible doctrine of “The Devil.” Isn’t our understanding of “The Devil” to be: The inherent, innate tendency, proneness and proclivity of human nature to sin?

If this is the case, how can this concept be squared with Bro. Alan’s statements, “The concept of ‘sinful human nature’ is nowhere found in Scripture,” and, “…the doctrine of the hopeless, inherent sinfulness of human nature can have no place in our thinking.”

Far from our understanding of “The Devil” to be “nowhere found in Scripture,” the doctrine is abundantly found therein. Jeremiah declares, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (17:9). Paul states that “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” (literally “the flesh of sin”) (Rom. 8:3).

When Paul laments: “For I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh)  dwelleth no good thing…” (Rom. 7:18) either he was pronouncing a doctrine of inspired truth or he was not. To say that Paul was merely recounting “a personal spiritual autobiography” and not “systematic theology” calls in question the whole concept of the inspiration of the Scriptures. This is exactly the same reasoning that feminists use to overthrow Paul’s dictum regarding the headship of man over woman (I Cor. 11:3).

As Bro. Eyre says, “Many of Calvin’s principles have been asserted by Christadelphians…” (p.419) and one of them was stated by Bro. John Thomas: “All mankind are born of corruptible parents into a state of sin” [The Doctor’s italics] A Discourse on Eternal Life, Part ii, page 240.

Edward W. Farrar, Hamilton, ONT,
(editor Advocate magazine).

The following response is basically the editor’s, in collaboration with Bro. Alan. Due to limitations of space, the reply, while lengthy, is nevertheless abbreviated for a subject of such importance and depth.

“Sinful” and “sinfulness” are used by Bro. Eyre in the sense of being guilty of committing sin and therefore deserving of punishment. A tendency to sin is just that, a tendency. The proneness itself is not sin and the person possessing it does not have to give in to the tendency (e.g. the Lord Jesus). Thus, while human nature is inherently prone to sin, which condi­tion readily leads to transgressions, it is not inherently “sinful.”

Jeremiah 17:9 — the heart is “deceitful” and “desperately wicked” — is not describing an inherent quality of human beings. God has not planted in us a wicked heart. Jesus fully took part of our nature, having inherent to him a propensity to sin, yet his heart was not deceitful and desperately wicked. Further, with God’s help, human beings can be “pure in heart” so that it can be said, “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things” (Mt. 5:8; 12:35). Such persons have not lost their tendency to sin, but they are not “deceitful” and “desperately wicked.”

Calvinists deny Jesus Christ came in the flesh because they feel a person having human nature is hopelessly  corrupted and evil. Granted, every human being reaching the age of responsibility, except the Lord, has been dominated by the selfish desires of his flesh and mind (i.e. his innate sin tendency). Granted, too, we are born into “a state of sin” in that our situation is a consequence of transgression, Adam’s in the first instance, followed by the iniquities perpetuated by his descendants. But the nature we bear is not guilty of transgression; people sin, not their natures, and people are not sinners until they personally commit transgression. (This is not “clean flesh” teaching. Those holding that doctrine do not believe man is inherently prone to sin. Furthermore, as pointed out in articles in 1994, sacrificial offerings were made for human nature to teach the extraordinary danger of our being controlled by our sin tendency.)

Paul’s lament, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Rom. 7:18) is uttered by the same person who also writes: “Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe” (I Thess. 2:10), and “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9). Had his sin tendency disappeared? No, it had not, for it is inherent to human nature. The difference was Christ in his life: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil. 4:13). Paul had found “how to perform that which is good.” He had heeded the word of God and was now walking in the spirit and not the letter

What was making the difference between the Paul who chronically failed and the Paul who could point to himself as an example of right conduct?

Christ in him!

Immediately after expounding the fact of Christ possessing human nature, the apostle notes the purpose of Christ’s work was “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). Human beings possessed of human nature, even with its sin tendency, are capable of  walking after the spirit, with God’s help through Christ. We will not be wholly without transgression, but we will, as a way of life, walk “after the Spirit (minding) the things of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:5). (In fact, we must not continue in the condition where we want to do right but always fail to do so, v.13). Thus it is wrong to say man is inherently hopeless and sinful.

(By definition an inherent condi­tion is a permanent characteristic. As demonstrated above, sinfulness is not necessarily inevitable at every turn for those possessing human nature — e.g. our Lord. It is clear however, that without God’s intervention, those possessing human nature will invariably walk in sin.)

The word “diabolos” occurs 38 times in the New Testament and occasionally refers to the inherent sin-tendency which is part of mankind (the most unambiguous example of this usage is in 1 John 3:8-10). While Bro. Alan would emphasize “sin” or those dominated by sin as the primary use of “diabolos,” nothing he has said contradicts Bro. Farrar’s definition.

We feel scripture makes plain the blame for committed sins lies squarely upon mankind. In fact, an exaggerated belief regarding our inherent sin tendency ends up creating a Christadelphian equivalent of the personal devil upon whom we can blame our transgressions.

From the considerable reaction to Bro. Eyre ‘s series, we trust it has stimulated much Bible thinking and discussion as is illustrated in the foregoing letter and response.

History of John Thomas

Dear Bro. Don,

The Tidings gets ever more exciting. Thanks sister Annette Haltom. Thanks, brother Bob Lloyd. Especially thanks, brother Editor. And the series by brother Peter Hemingray is enthralling. As one who has been obliquely referred to several times, I wish to say that I gladly and readily defer to sound scholarship — as, of course, should always be the case.

I hope that my own publications, demonstrating the continuity of our biblical faith over several centuries, have not been interpreted as implying dependence by Bro. Thomas upon earlier human writings, or casting doubt in some way upon his honesty or sincerity. Indeed, quite the opposite: perusal of various magazines over the past century and a half reveals literally scores of cases parallel to Bro. Thomas, where an earnest seeker has found the pearl of great price by prayerful meditation of the scripture of truth, and then been guided providentially to the Christadelphians (or some other group holding the One Faith).

Five years ago one such individual just walked one Sunday into our hall at Free Hill, asked to be interviewed, and in short order became a “father” of our ecclesia. In fact, such are to be found throughout the brotherhood, and in every age. Which makes all the more puzzling — and distressing — Bro. Peter’s statement that Dr. Tho­mas was unique in truly trying to discover for himself what the Bible teaches. This differs little from the near-deification in certain quarters which considers Bro. Thomas virtually as inerrant as the Pope is supposed to be.

The facts adduced by Bro. Peter suggest that Bro. Thomas was a giant among seekers after truth. But he could not possibly have been unique, for Proverbs 2 clearly indicates his experience is promised by God to all who seek His truth as for hid treasure.

Finally, a perceptive reader of my own current series would guess that I consider Bro. John Thomas not only to be a pioneer of giant stature, but that the whole brotherhood needs to resurrect and follow his example — his reasonableness, his balance, his Christlike tolerance, his abhorrence of Calvinist cant, his thrill at discovery, and, above all, his passionate belief that if the Spirit of God captures any person’s heart, it will excise arrogance, evil speaking and factionalism, and replace them with peaceable Christian love.

Alan Eyre, Free Hill, Jamaica

(Following is Bro. Hemingray’s response.)

Dear Bro. Don,

I am pleased that Bro. Alan appreciates my attempts at uncovering insights into the life and times of Dr. Thomas. I have indeed used some of the information he has uncovered, and, like Dr. Thomas usually did, attempted to give appropriate credit.

I must agree Dr. Thomas was not unique in re-discovering those elements of Truth we hold most dear. I also have had the delightful experience of meeting and being able to fel­lowship others who, quite independently, arrived at the same conclusions I and other Christadelphians have come to. And as I pointed out in my article, others had come to similar conclusions in the years and centuries prior to Dr Thomas. He was, however, I believe, unique among his  contemporaries in truly discovering for himself what the bible teaches, which is what I said.

All those he associated with, which included all those fellow travelers he could find, either acknowledged his lead or eventually differed from him in what Dr. Thomas, and we, would consider fundamental doctrines.

It is difficult to walk the tightrope between acknowledging the debt we owe to the founders of our denomination, and realizing how human they

were. I might sometimes ere in one direction or the other, and am appreciative of those who attempt to correct this balance.

Peter Hemingray

Home Schooling

Dear Bro. Don,

This is our first year for home schooling two of our children. We recently removed them from the public school system because of frustration with the poor moral and educational standards and the decline in discipline that is prevalent at our local school, and appears to be common to education throughout the world.

We thank our Heavenly Father for the support we have received from so many of our brothers and sisters across this continent and around the world. So many of the circumstances that initially appeared to be obstacles seemed to disappear and our program is progressing well. We offer our encouragement to any others who are considering a home schooling program for this heritage of the Lord.

Our youngest daughter is in grade two and is adjusting to the environment well. Our other daughter is in grade 7 and while we have noticed a marked improvement in both children’s academic achievements and attitude, there has been some difficulty and even occasional resentment by the eldest as she misses her school friends and feels quite left out of the social environment that the public school system provides. Youth weekends and CYC activities make up for some of the shortfall in interaction with her peers, but there are quite long periods between opportunities to communicate with other chil­dren in similar circumstances.

We would appreciate hearing from anyone who is in a similar situation and whose children would like to become pen pals with Amanda or Jennifer. Any encouraging correspondence to Jennifer, the eldest, would also be appreciated.

Phil and Janice Baines,
Sussex RR #1,
Kings County, NB, Canada
EOE 1P0

Dear Bro Don,

With reference to correspondence in Tidings, 9/96 about marriage with the “unbeliever,” I would like to mention the letter John Thomas wrote to some English brothers in answer to their question on the subject It first appeared in the Ambassador, 5/1866 and has been reprinted in many of our venues and passed around among interested broth­ers and sisters

Dr Thomas used a thought-provoking word to describe those who are sincere members of other “Christian” denominations, they were not for him the “unbelievers” of whom Paul wrote (atheists and idolators), but were “MISbehevers”

Jean M Wilson, Largo, FL (Ed Following are excerpts from the letter, the whole of which was supplied by our correspondent )

“To them who are there ‘the sanctified in Christ Jesus,’ favor be unto you, and peace from the Deity, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, for whose speedy manifestation they are all professedly waiting, and earnestly desiring

” Is it so, then, that after so many years’ study of the enlightening word, ye are yet carnal? For whereas there is said to be among you strife and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men It is good and wholesome to ‘contend earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints,’ as in past years you have against the Laodiceans, such a contention as this will never divide a healthy body It will cause it to grow with the increase of the Deity, but to contend for anything short of this, or irrelevant to it, develops only confusion and every evil work If you cannot maintain peace and unanimity among yourselves, how will you ever become morally fit to command the peace of the world, and to maintain it? Is not this to your shame?

” Beloved brethren, human nature is always tending to extremes, and transcending what is written As the saying is, it will strain out gnats, and swallow camels by the herd It set up the Inquisition, and is essentially and always inquisitorial, and Incessantly prying into matters beyond its jurisdiction It is very fond of playing the judge, and of executing its own decrees it professes great zeal for the purity of the church, and would purge out everything that offends its sensitive imagination But is it not a good thing to have a church without tares, without a black sheep, or spotted heifer? Yea, verily, it is an excellent thing But, then, it is a thing the Holy Spirit has never yet developed, and cannot now be developed by any human judiciary in the administration of spiritual affairs There are certain things that must be left to the Lord’s own adjudication when he comes

“There is another question proposed, namely, ‘Does a believer commit sin in marrying an unbeliever?’ What is sin? Paul says, ‘It is the transgression of law ‘ but it is also written, that ‘where there is no law there is not transgression ‘ Paul delivers a judgment which he thinks would be approved by the Deity, and no doubt it would But he does not lay it down as a law He says, a widow is at liberty to marry ‘only in the Lord,’ but he does not threaten her with any penalty if she did not take his advice And, as Paul prescribed no punishment, I see no reason why you should be more stringent than the apostle. Offer your advice as he did; show the possible evils that might come upon her in so marrying, if she takes your advice, it is well; if not, so much the worse for her, perhaps; yet, you have done what you considered right; more than this should be left for the Lord’s adjudication when he comes.

“But the question: ‘Doth the believer commit sin in marrying an unbeliever?’ is too vague for a direct affirmative or negative reply. There were some in Paul’s day, as in ours, who believed ‘the truth as it is in Jesus,’ but who, from various considerations, did not obey it. Might an obedient believer marry such a believer? If she married such a believer, would Paul have turned her over to cursing, and have ordered a majority of babes in Christ, under a threat of his displeasure, to turn her out of the church? or, in the event that such a majority could not be created, would he have turned mulish, kicked up his heels, and galloped off with Sosthenes and Titus, to break a factious loaf in solitude?…How can brethren of Christ justify themselves in dividing, or, perhaps, breaking up the ecclesia, or withdrawing themselves from its ordinances, not because a sister had ‘sinned,’ but because she said she was going to do what, perhaps, you have all done before her!! Brethren, this is mere child’s play; it is converting the ordinances of Christ into mere playthings, for the sport of those who think and act as children of the flesh — a course of conduct infinitely more sinful and reprehensible than a brother or a sister marrying one who might even be an idolator…

“Now, ‘unbelievers,’ in Paul’s use of the word, in II Cor. 6:14, stands for Jews and Gentiles who hated Jesus, and denied his claims to be the anointed of the Deity, or a manifestation of Deity in our flesh. They said, Jesus is not the Christ, but a mere man, an impostor. Added to this the Gentiles denied the existence of the one living and true Deity, and worshiped stocks and stones; and in their worship committed acts too obscene to be written here. This all was Bell, or wickedness, which was domesticated in all the families of the Greeks and Latins. Such were those whom Paul styles ‘unbelievers.’ Could a sister, (if married to one such) who had been widowed by his decease, marry such another again with­out sin? Or, could any sister marry such an one with Christ’s and Paul’s approval? By no means. Her act would prove that she loved Belial, or wickedness, better than Christ, or the righteousness of God. But, if she did so marry, in spite of the advice of Crispus and Gaius, she herself would be the sufferer. Should they, therefore, inflict more punishment upon her by anticipation, in getting the church to cut her off, and cast her adrift upon the sole protection of the infidel, and not this only, but punish all the brethren by divorcing them, because she did not take their advice?

But, is there no moral difference between Paul’s infidels or unbelievers, and the misbelievers of our day? Misbeliev­ers acknowledge the existence of the Eternal Spirit, and that Jesus is Christ, the Son of Deity; that he died for sin, and rose again, and is now at the right hand of power, But, because of their ignorance, they do not believe the doctrine he taught and commanded the apostles to teach. Yet, they are very conscientious, admire his character greatly, and are as correct in their deportment, socially, as the most enlightened saint. Nevertheless, they cannot be saved, because they conform not to the conditions of the truth, not through wickedness, but through not being able to find the truth; for ‘many shall seek to enter in, but shall not be able.’ If a saint married such a misbeliever, would it be sin? And if it be sin, which I propose you postpone to the Lord’s decision, as the sister in question will perhaps do, if she take not your well-meant advice. If it be sin, I say, with Paul’s example before us, it is beyond your competency, dearly beloved brethren, scripturally to curse her, or to expel her from the church.

“The passage in II Cor. 6:14, ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,’ does not seem to refer directly to marriage. Indirectly, however, it does. It is an injunction not to be slighted, and indicates a general principle, which it would be well for all the faithful to observe, in all the relations of life. But marriage establishes the most intimate fellowship between the subjects thereof; if, therefore, it would be wrong fora Christian man to yoke himself with an atheistic and blaspheming Jew or Pa­gan in secular affairs, how much more reprehensible would it be for him to yoke himself with an atheistic, blasphemous, or fashionable and silly woman of the world. This would be an unequal yoking of an intensely immoral character — a touching of the unclean, that would in the judgment, probably, bring upon the believer the reprehension of the Lord Almighty…

“But would the case be parallel, if a Christian were yoked, in trade or marriage, with an amiable, well-disposed, tractable, and God-fearing misbeliever? Would he not be more unequally yoked if united to one who had by immersion been placed, technically, ‘in the Lord;’ but whose walk was like too many females amongst us, characterized by the outward adornment of the toilet, the bedizening of their persons with jewelry, the fashionable putting on of apparel, backbiting, evil gossip, and so forth, to the neglect of ‘the hidden man of the heart,’ in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which, in the sight of the Deity, is of great price?’…

“Things, then, in relation to ‘believers’ and misbelievers in our day being thus, brethren should not legislate and arbitrarily affect one another in regard to the matter. Let every one be judged in their own case till the Lord come…All that remains for you to do, is to make the best of the situation, by making yourselves as agreeable as possible; and using all the influence you may thus acquire in teaching the misbeliever ‘the way of the Lord more perfectly.’ This is far better than ‘cutting off’ a brother or a sister, and accounting them as heathens and publicans, because they do not accept your views of the subject as infallible, and as little to be questioned as the decrees of God…”

John Thomas, The Ambassador of the Coming Age, 1866, pg. 91-97.

We became so fascinated reading the article (which we ended up extracting from the original magazine) that we copied more than our correspondent suggested. We note with interest the high priority given to maintaining the unity of the body by leaving matters for the Lord to judge. We note what a different attitude has been manifested by many followers of Dr Thomas.