“Clean flesh” is the stigma which is being applied to those of us who stand in agreement with Bro. Robert Roberts and John Carter in relation to the nature of man and the nature and sacrifice of Christ. Although the writer has yet to be charged with this mark of infamy to his face by those in his own fellowship, he has heard through reliable witnesses that he is being credited with whatever is involved in the name. Unfortunately, no one has ever taken the time to point out in either his writings or his sayings the particular doctrine he embraces that makes him worthy of this blot.
As I write this article. I am aware that there are some in the Central Fellowship who are quite critical of my views on the nature of man. However, if what the afore mentioned brethren believed and taught relative to these issues stamped “clean flesh,” then I must also plead guilty since my own convictions are identical to their’s.
When John Carter involved himself in the reunion efforts in Australia in 1958, he met with many difficulties. Not the least of these was the influence of the teachings of certain in the Berean fellowship on the brotherhood. These teachings, in combating the ideas of clean flesh had swung too far and were using Unamended arguments. Bro. Carter also recognized that the same problem was being experienced in the United States. But, let us hear him:
A feature of the “Berean” fellowship has been a leaning towards the teaching of J. J. Andrew which was controverted in the 1890’s; not, be it said, to his views on resurrectional responsibility, but to those doctrines of condemnation and inherited sin and alienation which were the basis upon which he built the denial of resurrectional responsibility. This tendency was evident years ago in the U.S.A. and was pointed out in a “Message to all Christadelphians” which was sent to a conference convened in October, 1947, when Detroit was chosen as the meeting place. In that “Message” we sought to meet some questions to which answers were demanded by a brother in the Berean group and who has again separated himself since reunion in England. In our reply we showed there was not only identity of thought but identity of language with that of J. J. Andrew.”
Today, we are experiencing the same thoughts and languages used by the antagonists of John Carter. The same old arguments are being set forth to prove that physical nature is a cause (apart from personal transgressions) of alienation or estrangement from God. Bro. Carter, in the “Unity In Australia” pamphlet comments on this:
Alienation By Ignorance And Wicked Works
The contentions current are not new, as we have said. They concern condemnation and alienation for our physical nature; being children of wrath by birth; that Jesus needed because of his physical inheritance to be “brought nigh” to God. Yet the facts of Scripture are quite simple. If we ask, For what are we baptized? the answer of the Scripture is always, For the remission of sins. Was Jesus a child of wrath? To ask such a question is to answer it, for everyone who is not entrammelled in the legal mystification’s of the arguments advanced. Is a man estranged because of his physical nature? The answer of Scripture is that we are alienated by ignorance and by wicked works.
Because this inherited tendency is so evident a characteristic of human nature, and because it is the result and the cause of sin, Paul by the use of metonymy can describe it as sin: “It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me.” He gives it other names as well, such as “a law—evil present with me,” the “flesh”, “a law in my members,” etc. (Rom. 7).
He continued to speak of the metonomical usage of the word, “sin”:
“A similar usage of metonymy is found in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul says that “Him who knew no sin God made to be sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This statement is one of a whole series of paradoxes in 2 Cor. 5:7. Christ the sinless was made to be sin in sharing in the effect of sin in his life, and by his death providing the condition’s for the forgiveness of sins and, finally, the removal of all the effects of sin. The same usage occurs in Heb. 9:28, which declares that Jesus will appear the second time apart from sin unto salvation. It is a fallacy in reasoning to say that what is affirmable of sin literal must apply to sin used in this metonymical way. We are blameworthy for our sins, but we cannot help the possession of the natures with which we were born. Sins need forgiving and our nature needs changing. Sins are forgiven now for Christ’s sake but the change of nature takes place when the Lord comes. “The most outrageous statement that has been made (in the Andrew controversy) is the one that men are objects of divine anger because they are flesh” (“The Christadelphian,” 1894, page 466).”
Under the heading, “Another Difficulty“, Bro. Carter writes:
“Another cause of difficulty arises out of the Lord’s relationship to his own death. It is affirmed in Scripture that “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption”; and that “God brought from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant”; and that he was saved out of death. He needed redemption; he needed salvation from death. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was there to be our Saviour, and but for our needs we may revertly say he would not have been there.”
While in Australia, Bro. Carter delivered an address entitled “The Atonement,” in which he made pertinent reference to that which estranges one from God:
“Estrangement is a matter of something that has come between persons. What has come between ourselves and God is that we are sinners.”
Commenting on Paul’s internal struggle, he writes:
But before we leave this subject I want to comment on a usage of words. The Apostle in this 7th chapter of Romans, verse 20, speaks of sin that dwelleth in him. “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 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.” What is it that is within us, that the Apostle describes as sin? Clearly there are the impulses that lead to sin. There are impulses there that are the result of sin at the beginning, which we have by inheritance. But if we may here turn aside to the use of grammatical terms, in order that we might define the matter; in what way is sin used here? Sin is lawlessness. Sin is the expression of ourselves in defiance of the will of God, either in thought or act.
Metonymy Applied To Sin
But how could Paul speak of these impulses which were latent in him, which sprang to life as he said, when the commandment came? How can he speak of them as sin ? By a well known figure of speech; the figure of speech of metonymy is that where a word which stands related to another as cause or effect, or a mere adjunct maybe, is put for that to which it stands related. And sometimes we find brethren speaking of two aspects of sin. It might be permissible to use the phrase, providing it is understood. But I want to enter here and now a mild caveat against the use of that phrase, “two aspects of sin.” There are not two aspects of sin, there are many aspects of sin. Sin is what? Well you have a list of the works of the flesh; Adultery and all the abominations with a list of other things such as ill-will, bitterness, wrath, anger, strife, sedition and so on. All these are aspects of sin. They are all aspects of something that comes within the one category.
But now the Apostle uses sin by Metonymy and immediately you say, he uses it by metonymy it isn’t an aspect of sin. It’s a use of the word in another sense, used by a figure. Let me give you one or two illustrations: you have aspects of a mountain, you look at it from one vantage point and you look at it from another vantage point and you see different aspects of it. But you speak of a man’s troubles and you say: he makes mountains out of molehills. Would you say that a man’s troubles was an aspect of mountains? No! You would say by a figure of speech, as describing his troubles as mountains; but they are not an aspect of mountains. In a similar way we turn to another figure, the figure of metaphor. The Lord said, “this is my body.” The Roman Catholic insists upon it in its literal terms and insists that the bread is the body of Jesus. We say No! That is the use of metaphor. “All flesh is grass” is metaphor. “All flesh is as grass” is the figure simile. The figure simile is literally true. Figure metaphor is boldly true though not literally accurate. Jesus said “this is my body” but would you say there are two aspects of the body of Jesus, one of flesh and one of flour? Because “all flesh is grass” would you say that there are two aspects of grass, one with roots and the other with legs? You say No! One is used as a figure and one is an expression of a literal fact. So it is with regard to this. We mustn’t preach sin that dwells in us; which is a word used metonymically for the impulses within us, as being sin in that sense of lawlessness of which the Apostle speaks. I think that if we can get that clear in our minds, we are getting rid of some of the problems that have beset us in connection with this. I have here several illustrations from the scriptures of the use of metonymy, but my time is going quicker than I am with my address. But don’t forget that we use metonymy in our ordinary speech and sometimes do not recognize it.
Bro. Carter never taught that physical nature was the subject of justification, change, etc. at baptism. But he does clearly teach that personal transgressions are forgiven, and they only. When coming before His throne of grace, the repentant sinner expresses faith in the blood of Christ for his justification:
“A throne in which the principles of God’s holiness were upheld as a condition of man’s approach through the ritual ceremony of shed blood. So in Romans 3:25 the Apostle goes on: “to be a propitiation (mercy seat) through faith” (that is our response to what God has done) “in his blood.” At once we must go back to the ritual type again and ask what does this mean? The blood of the animal was a token of life taken and an identification of the man with the animal; by placing his hands upon its head and saying in effect: This is what ought to happen to me; I’m taking its life but I’m the sinner and death is due to me. It becomes the ritual expression of the fact that the man recognizes that death was due for sin.”
Under the heading, “The Basis of our Forgiveness,” Bro. Carter remarks:
“God said if you will identify yourself with him for his sake, I will forgive you your sins and receive you to favor. Therefore it is, that when the Apostle, (Romans 6:4) would speak of the significance of our baptism, he said, “we are buried with him by baptism into death” but before our baptism there is something else, and it is an important fact in connection with it. We come to baptism with the recognition that we are being baptized for the remission of our sins; and with a consciousness that we are sinners in God’s sight. We come with a consciousness that we have done wrong and we repent, and that we are willing to turn our back on sin and turn our faces to righteousness. That is our contribution in the first instance to this problem of reconciliation. For such is the nature of sin that you cannot pass it by lightly.”
In his second article, “The Truth in Australia” in the Christadelphian, August, 1958, Bro. Carter dealt with certain errors being taught in the brotherhood. He prefaced his remarks by saying,
“As we pointed out last month, we have long recognized the tendency on the part of some “Berean” brethren to swing towards the doctrines of the late J. J. Andrew; and the same can be recognized in the contentions of some in Australia.”
- That We Are Alienated From God By Condemnation In Adam.
Citation: (from Bro. ________________ ) “Before being baptized a believer is dead in being alienated from God (a) by ignorance, (b) condemnation inherited from Adam, and (c) trespasses and sins.”
Comment: (by Bro. Carter) The Bible supports (a) and (c) (see Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21), but is silent about (b).
“Citation: “The trespass in Eden produced two related results, both of which excited God’s displeasure and were causes of Adam’s position as an outcast. These were (a) his personal guilt and (b) his unclean physical condition.”
“No one in Adam can cease to be ‘by nature’ a child of wrath on his own terms.”
“Paul in Eph. 2:3 declares all to be ‘by nature children of wrath’. The wrath here referred to is the wrath or displeasure of God. Now only one thing is the cause of His disfavor namely sin. With what sin, then, in a newly born irresponsible infant is God displeased? Obviously not disobedience but inherited sin is the answer.”
Comment: These statements are full of errors. Although what we do arises out of our nature, yet it is for what we do, and not for our nature, that we are “‘children of wrath”. The context in Eph. 2:3 shows this. That “by nature” is too narrowly construed is evident when we note that Gentiles “by nature” fulfill the law (Rom. 2:14). It is clear that ”by birth” or “by physical constitution” is not the meaning. To talk of “inherited sin” is to talk jargon. We inherit mortality and a tendency to sin but this does not make us the subject of wrath until we sin. Otherwise, since Jesus was of our nature he would be a child of wrath: which is absurd.
Citation: Speaking of Romans 8:1, 2, we are told: “this simply means that the release (by the sacrifice of Christ) from the condemnation inherited from Adam plus transgression was the answer—cherished by them ‘in faith’—to the indwelling deathfulness which was their weakness when experiencing persecution.”
Comment: This is “simply” not correct. The only “condemnation” inherited from Adam is mortality: we do not inherit any personal condemnation; we shall receive personal condemnation for our sins unless they are forgiven now and our mortality will be swallowed up of life at the coming of the Lord.
Citation: He speaks of men “by legacy from Adam” being still “children of wrath” and then adds: “But those ‘in Christ’, not being ‘in the flesh’—i.e. ‘in Adam’—can please God; not because baptism renders physically inactive their fleshly tendencies to transgress, but because by baptismal induction into Christ their relationship to the constitution of sin involving the condemnation inherited from Adam—is, as a basis for the blotting out of past sins, cancelled; and that, conditional on their walking ‘in the light,’ they are cleansed from all future unrighteous acts through the mediation of Jesus their High Priest (1 John 1:9; Heb. 2:17).”
Comment: This is a confused sentence. We are all ‘in Adam’ so long as we live; for ‘in Adam’ defines the physical relationship we sustain to the first man. However, the paragraph affirms that our relationship to the ‘constitution of sin’ involves a condemnation inherited from Adam. This we believe to be unscriptural. Moreover, “in the flesh” cannot be equated with “in Adam.” “In Adam” denotes only physical descent, but “in the flesh” in Rom. 8:9 means to have the mind of the flesh in opposition to God.
Citation: Further since we are told” “Because it was the result of, and conditioned by sin, this ‘corruption’ or ‘uncleanness’ defiled the nature it cursed. That its possession caused estrangement from God is decisively proved by the fact that myriads of human beings, innocent of transgression (as ‘the only form of sin’) left Adam’s ‘very good’ body unchanged and if (as logically follows) infants, at birth, are at one with God, why do they die?”
Comment: There is here more confusion. Infants die because they inherit the mortality that has come by sin. But that does not mean they die because they are estranged. Estrangement arises from ignorance or wicked works: the word can only be rightly applied where reconciliation is possible; babies are just flesh and as such sustain no relationship personally to God one way or the other. To talk of “possession” of human nature causing estrangement misses entirely the essential factors of separation from God and reconciliation to Him. Its fallacy is shown by the fact that Jesus possessed our nature, but he was never estranged from God.
Under the next error, “There are Two Aspects of Sin that Separate from God“, he makes the following comments:
Comment: There are as many aspects of sin as there are forms of transgression. All the works of the flesh enumerated by Paul are aspects of sin. The confusion in the above extracts arises from treating sin in its literal sense and “sin” when used metonymically for the impulses to sin, as both belonging to one category. Anger and malice are alike aspects of sin: but impulses are not literally sin until they are expressed in wrong thought or action.
Sin used as a literal term, and “sin” used by metonymy, cannot be classed in one category. Because we read “all flesh is grass” we do not say there are two kinds of grass—the green variety that is rooted in the soil and a variety that walks on two legs. Because Jesus said “This is my body” as he took the bread of the Passover in his hands, we do not say there are two kinds of bodies of Jesus, one of flesh and one of flour. The Romanist denies the metaphor and believes in “transubstantiation”—although the actual body of Jesus was there when Jesus spoke the words.
The argument we are considering confuses the literal and figurative and brings them both within one category. In addition, if the flesh is the “barrier” between God and man, then it was a barrier in the case of Jesus. This appears to be recognized by saying that Jesus needed to be “brought nigh.” Was there ever a barrier between Jesus and God that estranged him? How did he need to be brought nigh? Was he not always the beloved Son?
Jesus was Under a Curse and was a Child of Wrath.
This is involved in the preceding, but finds precise expression in the following:
Citation: “But in possessing the nature of a condemned race he (Jesus) came under condemnation: ‘sin in the flesh’ could not have been anti-typically condemned in anyone upon whom the condemnation common to the race did not rest. Jesus was born under the condemnation or curse, so that ‘through death’ he could make it of none effect. At birth, therefore, his relationship to God was no different from that of other descendants of Adam, who, `by nature’ are ‘children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:4)”
Comment: That the disfavor of God towards Jesus is intended is clear from the further statement:
“to concede that a thing is condemned and yet contend that it is not the object of disfavor, is to postulate a contradiction in terms.”
When in the 1890’s, a correspondent used the phrase “alienation of Christ” only to refute it, Bro. Roberts interpolated the phrase “God pardon the expression appearing in The Christadelphian“. A theory that makes the son of God a child of wrath is self-condemned.
Man is Estranged because of his Nature whether “Sinner or No.”
Citation: “Besides man’s defilement having ‘actual’ or ‘literal’ sin as its source, its inner essence consists in the organic permeation of his ‘being’ by a sin-principle that continually projects into his consciousness ‘contrary to God’ ideas and inclinations; thus perpetually echoing ‘the spirit of disobedience’ infused into the mind of the first man by disobedience.
“This sin-impregnated nature God justifiably views with extreme disfavor and (mainly because that nature is instinct with sin-begotten opposition to His law) He regards its possessors as estranged from Him whether they are transgressors or not. He, therefore, required ‘sin by metonymy’ as well as ‘literal’ sin to be condemned by sacrifice: so that ‘through death’ it—as ‘the devil’ having ‘the power of death’—might be ‘destroyed’, ‘brought to nought’, made of none effect’, ‘put off’ or ‘put away’. “Could God be other than displeased with and estranged from a nature containing, swayed and energized by ‘a principle contrary to Him? Can He be completely ‘at one’ with any possessor (sinner or no) of a ‘tendency so inevitable in its sin-producing power that Paul can say that through Adam’s sin all sinned’?”
“Man’s inherited uncleanness, then—possessed by whomsoever, sinner or no—stands as an obstacle between every unregenerate son of Adam and resurrection to eternal life as well as personal transgression.”
“From this it is certain that at baptism not only are ‘the sins’ of the believer ‘washed away’, the state of estrangement occasioned ‘by nature’ is, provisionally, at an end too. In thus contending Bro. J. J. Andrew was quite right.”
Comment: It is important that we note the words “sinner or no” in these extracts, because the use of these words clearly includes Jesus, the sinless one, in the estrangement and displeasure of God. One would have thought such a conclusion was of itself sufficient to show that there is something wrong with the premises laid down. God is estranged from individuals, and it is foolish to speak of estrangement from “a nature”. But there is more. Jesus Was Provisionally Cleansed By Circumcision.
Citation: “That Jesus, being ‘born of a woman’, was no exception is proved by the fact that, like all other Jews, He was provisionally cleansed from inherited sin by being circumcised, and that His mother offered according to the law for her cleansing (Lev. 12:8, Luke 2:21 to 24).”
Comment: How could a rite performed on a babe cleanse anything, provisionally or in fact? Human nature with its weakness and mortality, will be cleansed by transformation wrought by the Spirit of God after the resurrection. This mortality is our misfortune and not our fault, as Dr. Thomas said, and it is an outrage on justice to talk of estrangement as a result of something a person cannot help. We shall be cleansed of our mortality by the transforming energy of the Spirit of God when the Lord comes.
Jesus was Liable to a violent Death because He shared our Nature.
Citation: “The plain truth is that any possessor of sinful flesh is liable to pain or death in any form . . . this liability is not negatived by a guiltless character . . . His being ‘born of a woman’ rendered Him liable to suffer a violent death.”
Comment: If death is a punishment, and surely an imposed violent death must be so regarded, then we are now told that the possession of a nature conferred by birth brings a liability for punishment. To what strange ends can theories lead us!
Baptism Is Not For Sins Only.
Citation: “I deny that baptism is only concerned with the washing away of ‘our sins’ and affirm, in harmony with our pioneers, that it also symbolizes the crucifixion of ‘our old man’ (the diabolos or sin-nature) ‘with him’ (Jesus), (Rom. 6) and that, therefore, baptism signifies the provisional cancellation of ‘the racial condemnation which we physically inherit’ as well as the forgiveness of our `sins’.”
Comment: Bra C. C. Walker wrote in 1900: “We believe that in baptism, upon belief of the gospel, God forgives us ‘our sins’ for Christ’s sake, and that the name of Christ was preached among Jews and Gentiles for this express purpose by his express commission: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19). “Thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47). He had forgiven sins himself (Luke 5:20; 7:47). It was ‘thy sins’ in both cases referred to. How could it be otherwise? He taught his disciples to pray, ‘Forgive us our sins’ (Luke 11:4). The Apostolic preaching of his name always had reference to the repentance and remission of the sins of those who heard the word . . . there is no mention of ‘Adamic sin’.”
I wonder how many, reading these comments and teachings of John Carter for the first time, would cry “clean flesh” ? Would they stigmatize him with the same haste with which some have labeled the writer? My own writings as they have appeared in The Tidings are in perfect concert with the teachings of John Carter—no more, no less. If “clean flesh” involves the repudiation of such doctrines as 1) We are Alienated from God by Condemnation in Adam, 2) Sin nature is an Aspect of Sin, 3) Jesus was Under a Curse and was a child of Wrath, 4) Man is Estranged Because of his Nature whether Sinner or No, 5) Jesus was Provisionally cleansed by Circumcision, 6) Jesus Was Liable to a Violent death Because he Shared our Nature, and 7) Baptism is not for sins Only, then I must plead guilty, and am certainly deserving of the title.
I believe as Bro. Carter wrote:
- “To talk of ‘inherited sin’ is jargon.
- “The only condemnation inherited from Adam is mortality: we do not inherit any personal condemnation.”
- “‘In Adam’ denotes only physical descent, but ‘in the flesh’ in Rom. 8:9 means to have the mind of the flesh in opposition to God.”
- “Estrangement arises from ignorance or wicked works: the word can be only rightly applied when reconciliation is possible.”
- “Sin as used as a literal term, and ‘sin’ used by metonomy cannot be classed in one category.”
- “In addition, if the flesh is the barrier between man and God, then it was a barrier in the case of Jesus . . . Was there ever a barrier between Jesus and God that estranged him ? How did he need to be brought nigh ? Was he not always the beloved Son ?”
- “Human nature with its weaknesses and mortality, will be cleansed by transformation wrought by the Spirit of God after the resurrection. This mortality is our misfortune and not our fault.”
- “Is a man estranged because of his physical nature? The answer of Scripture is that we are alienated by ignorance and by wicked works.”
- “Sins need forgiveness and our nature needs changing. Sins are forgiven now for Christ’s sake, but the change of nature takes place when the Lord comes.”
- “The most outrageous statement that has been made (in the Andrew controversy) is the one that men are the objects of divine anger because they are flesh” (R. Roberts — The Christadelphian, 1894).
There is presently in the brotherhood an element which are leaning towards the teachings of J. J. Andrew just as there was during Bro. Carter’s visit to the United States in 1947. This tendency is due to their efforts to combat what they consider clean flesh teachings. It is evident, however, that those who employ this term do not understand what the clean flesh heresy was all about.
Clean flesh was originally applied to the teachings of Edward Turney, who contended that there is no such thing as sin in the flesh or sin nature. He repudiated the Scripture teaching that there was a change in the nature of Adam, other than mortality, after the transgressions, thus denying the teaching of Christ, Paul and the other writers of both the Old and New Testament. He believed and taught that Christ did not have to die; that he had a free life since He was the Son of God. The term is used today, however, as a weapon to defend one’s own position and to immediately prejudice others against his adversaries. On one occasion, when giving a Bible Class on the subject of Jesus Christ (outside of California), a disturbed sister suddenly interrupted by exclaiming, “why, that’s clean flesh!” When I explained to her that the words I was saying were not mine but those of Robert Roberts, she withdrew her statement. This illustrates the haste with which we react to a statement or idea we do not thoroughly understand or appreciate. Observe again what Bro. Carter wrote concerning his visit to Detroit in October, 1947:
“This tendency was evident years ago in the U.S.A. and was pointed out in a “Message to all Christadelphians” which was sent to a conference convened in October, 1947 . . . In this “Message” we sought to meet some questions to which answers were demanded by a brother in the Berean group . . . In our reply we showed that there was not only identity of thought but identity of language with that of J. J. Andrew.”
Those who insist that sin nature is the subject of forgiveness, cleansing, justification, or what have you at baptism are perpetuating a God dishonoring teaching which tends to cloud the whole issue of our redemption in Christ.
As Bro. Carter observed, the main difficulty in properly assessing sin is in the mistake of treating sin in its metonomical sense the same as sin in its literal meaning of transgression. The flesh or human nature is not an aspect of sin. In his talk On the Atonement, Bro. Carter said:
We mustn’t preach sin that dwells in us; which is a word used metonymically for the impulses within us, as being sin in that sense of lawlessness of which the Apostle speaks. I think that if we can get that clear in our minds, we are getting rid of some of the problems that have beset us in connection with this.
I now make an appeal to those who have been caught up in this drift back to Andrewism, read again the writings of Bro. Roberts and Carter concerning these matters. The best way to determine what a brother believes is not by appropriating some difficult saying that is somewhat ambiguous, but, rather, read what he writes when he is directing himself to the very question itself. It is here that his mind will truly be revealed, as in the quotations in this article.
I would commend to your attention and study the “Unity In Australia” pamphlet available from the Christadelphian Standing Committee, 40-51 Regent St., Sydney, N.S.W., Australia. It contains many of the writings of Bro. John Carter that focus directly on the subjects of the nature of man and the nature and sacrifice of Christ. It also contains extracts from the writings of Robert Roberts and John Thomas and others having to do with the subject. Also, in the Christadelphian Magazine during the 1890s when Bro. Roberts dealt with the erroneous teachings of J. J. Andrew and others; and the 1957-58 issues which contain Bro. Carter’s contributions to maintaining the purity of the Truth. The Andrew-Roberts debate of 1894 is also very revealing as to Bro. Roberts’ views on these matters.
I would be happy to hear from any of our readers on the vital issues discussed in this article. All letters will receive a personal reply.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One