In the Depth of our own hearts, each of us understands salvation. We know we are transgressors who need forgiveness of sins. We know we are dying and need God’s great deliverance. We know the Father provides salvation through His Son, our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. We know, too, that Jesus overcame the same impulses to sin that have made practicing sinners out of the rest of us. He thus provides an example for us to follow. Moreover, in the course of Bible reading, when we read one of the numerous references to this subject, we usually understand the passage in its context.
We do have trouble, however, when we attempt to articulate all of the aspects of the saving work of God in Christ — the atonement. God’s salvation is so wonderful and important that it is expressed in many different ways in scripture and affects each of us in special ways depending on the circumstances of our lives. Giving a full description of the atonement in all its simple, yet profound, beauty seems to defy our best efforts. We can feel them in our hearts, but have trouble expressing in words the many and varied aspects of God’s saving grace.
Unfortunately, our community has a history of strife over attempts to explain the atonement and this has happened again. Two months ago (Tidings, 5/2000, p. 162), we made reference to “partial atonement” as a topic being discussed in some quarters. In the meantime, we have thoroughly considered a 40-page booklet, “Partial Atonement,” which has been distributed widely in North America by its author, Bro. Keith Cook of the Yagoona Ecclesia, Sydney, Australia. While finding some points useful, we were deeply saddened that the work spreads misinformation regarding beloved brethren on this important topic.
Reason for the pamphlet
The booklet is prompted by Bro. Cook’s concern that recent efforts “to bind all Australian ecclesias together” have led to an explanation of the atonement which encompasses ideas “identical with ‘clean flesh’ heretical teachings; or [which] are very closely related thereto.” His charge is that “it is claimed by some that atonement only applies to the removal of transgression, and has no reference or application to any physical need.” He uses the term “partial atonement” to convey his perception of what leading Central Fellowship brethren have been teaching in Australia. According to Bro. Cook, the ideas of these contemporary brethren deviate in important details from the teachings of Bre. John Thomas, Robert Roberts, John Carter, H.P. Mansfield and others.
Overall organization
Bro. Cook seeks to prove his claims in a 19-page table of quotations arranged in three columns headed: “The Heresy of ‘Clean Flesh’,” “The Theory of Partial Atonement” and “Teachings of Pioneer Brethren.” The reader is expected to see that “Partial Atonement” teaching is similar to the idea of “Clean Flesh” and different from teachings of the “Pioneer Brethren.”
The table is divided into six categories, namely:
- Does “sin” Relate to ONLY “Transgression”? Is an Offering Required ONLY for “Transgression”?
- What is “Human Nature” and “Sin-Prone”?
- Atonement for Physical Nature.
- The Unity Book
- “Andrewism” — or Truth?
- “An Example of Partial Atonement Exposition.”
The “Andrew” bogey
The author complains, “the promoters of this theory [which Bro. Cook terms ‘partial atonement] are employing a ‘bogey’ …The ‘bogey’ is that if their teachings are not agreed with, then those who dispute them are `Andrewites’. This is designed to create a fear of error that takes advantage of ignorance of Andrew’s errors.”
No doubt many a person has the same complaint, as we have a tendency to apply labels in several areas of life including views on the atonement. Labels can speed up conversation but they can also substitute for careful thinking and respectful listening. In an area as charged with emotion as the atonement, we should shun labels as they cause trouble and arc usually a substitute for really understanding what the other person is trying to convey.
Curiously, the author falls into the same trap as those he criticizes when he makes the sweeping statement: “Anyone making the allegation of `Andrewism’ should be questioned regarding their ‘clean flesh’ position.” Why don’t we avoid labels altogether and stick with the plain teaching of scripture?
Comments on J. J. Andrew
The author rightly notes that Bro. Andrew, as a major contributor to the Christadelphian magazine, wrote much that was “used and endorsed by Bro. Roberts.” “His errors did not become public until about 1894.” From this comment, one assumes Bro. Cook has an accurate knowledge of the views of J.J. Andrew. This assumption must immediately be jettisoned, however, as two of his three “Errors of Andrewism” are seriously misstated.
For example, according to the author, Bro. Andrew said of sin in the flesh: “That it is a physical substance implanted as the result of Adam’s transgression.” What J.J. Andrew actually wrote when commenting on the consequence of Adam’s sin was: “The desire to do evil became an integral part of the human mind…Lust, or the desire to do evil, is the offspring of the first sin and the cause of all subsequent sin. On this account it is denominated ‘sin in the flesh’.” Saying Bro. Andrew believed a physical substance was implanted in mankind hardly conveys his idea.1
Where else is Bro. Cook inaccurate? – unfortunately in too many places in his pamphlet.
Flawed evidence
For example: on page 30, Bro. John Martin is cited as saying no sin offering was required in Leviticus 12 in respect to childbirth. What was said in Bro. John’s 1996 Lismore studies was: “That of the two offerings made for the birth of the child, namely the sin offering and the burnt offering, the burnt offering is the more important in this context…Now it is clearly no sin to have a child, but there was the gentle reminder by the offering of the birds [as a sin offering] that, that which is born of flesh is flesh, which of course is biased to sin. However the important lesson was to ensure that the child grew up dedicated to the God of Israel, hence the inclusion of the lamb [as the burnt offering] to emphasize the lesson of dedication.” Bro. Cook misreads this information and says Bro. John believes no sin offering was made.
On page 17, Bro. Harry Tennant is cited as saying, “The nature of Christ…is righteousness, and holiness and sinlessness; that’s his nature.” What was clearly intended in Bro. Harry’s 1982 Adelaide address was: What we are born with is not now what matters but what we ourselves do with what we have. Christ bore our nature — mortal and tending to sin, yet he produced great spiritual qualities in the nature which he bore. Bro. Cook has completely misread Bro. Harry’s remarks.
On pages 24-26 the author cites five items from page 70 of the Unity in Australia book, claiming Bro. John Carter “did not say they [the five items] were wrong.” This is an obvious misread of Bro. Carter. In the Unity book, after citing the items in question, plus six more, Bro. Carter commented: “Further citation is unnecessary. ..That these ideas were resisted at the time they were advanced is abundantly evident from the discussions in the Christadelphian in the 1890’s. We believe they are far removed from the plain truths of Scripture, which can be expressed in terms the simplest can understand, whereas contentions along the lines of these extracts, while sometimes having a show of logic, lead to strife about legal abstractions.” Bro. Cook endeavors to show the five points are right according to pioneer writings and his effort to show Bro. Carter’s apparent agreement are an attempt to reinforce his own argument. Bro. Cook may think they are scriptural, but Bro. Carter felt they “are far removed from the plain truths of Scripture.” Again Bro. Cook has misread his source.
On page 38 of “Partial Atonement,” Bro. H. P. Mansfield is quoted as writing (p. 231 of Revelation, Verse by Verse Exposition), “Bro. Thomas’ explanation would imply that the Lord’s sacrifice was for his own human nature. He did this for himself as well as for his brethren.” But what Bro. Mansfield actually wrote was, “Bro. Thomas’ explanation, would imply that the Lord’s sacrifice was for his own salvation [emphasis added], as well as that of others: that through it he obtained redemption from human nature. He did this for himself as well as for his brethren.”
This is more than a misread. This is changing words based on one’s preconceived notion of what one thinks the writer should have said.
Atonement for human nature
Bro. Cook’s biggest complaint is that his targeted brethren do not speak of “atonement for human nature.” His largest section deals specifically with this issue. Yet not one of his pioneer quotes uses the phrase. It is again evident that Bro. Cook’s preconceived ideas have led to a misreading of his sources; even his most extreme pioneer quotes don’t say what he thinks they say.
Because of his misread, he sharply criticizes as varying from the pioneers those who argue one does not redeem human nature. But God does not redeem human nature nor does He redeem sins. He redeems the person who has sinned and the person who bears human nature. He redeems us from sin by forgiving our sins and from human nature by removing human nature from the faithful and blessing them with the divine nature.
Both the pioneers and our contemporaries recognize this point and do not say what Bro. Cook wants them to say. As a result, Bro. Cook makes the mistaken charge of “partial atonement” against brethren who are sound in the faith but choose not to use Bro. Cook’s unbiblical and unpioneer terminology.
Saved by his life
Of all the brethren cited as tending toward “clean flesh” by their so-called “partial atonement” theory, the most cited is Bro. John Martin and his book, “Saved By His Life.” In that work, in the clearest of terms, Bro. Martin rejects the very essence of “clean flesh” teaching. Here is what he writes:
“Mortality then, not only describes a nature ‘subject to death’ but includes also the unhappy fact we all know by experience, that this same nature is inclined to sinful acts, and by virtue of this is disinclined to spiritual things…Because this bias in our nature leads us inevitably into the sins we commit, the bias itself is called ‘sin’ in the scriptures by the figure of metonymy (whereby one word is put for another to which it stands related) Flesh nature is not in itself actual sin, but the propensities residing within flesh which bring about sin, are real enough “
Alluding to Hebrews 2 17 and the statement that Christ is in all things made like his brethren, Bro John comments “Those ‘all things’ included the same physical weakness with its proneness to sin that was in ‘his brethren,’ in order that he might sympathize with them experientially, being by the feelings excited within him when enticed well acquainted with all its weak points’ (Elpis Israel p 76) Being then constituted flesh and blood and having within himself– those propensities which are the cause of sin, which in every other human have led to transgression, the term sin can only be applied by figure of metonymy to our Lord He is thus our representative “(Saved by his Life pgs 13,19)
The clean flesh theory rejects that humans are prone (biased) to sin and certainly rejects that Jesus had within him a propensity to sin Thus it is clear beyond doubt that Bro Martin is not headed for “clean flesh” teaching In tact, Bro Martin cites in support of his thesis some of the very sections of the Law of Moses and the Roberts/Andrew debate that are cited by Bro Cook where he attempts to show Bro John is headed in the wrong direction’ For example, Bro Martin cites on page 34 (with hearty agreement) the very statement from Law of Moses, page 173 quoted by Bro Cook on his page 20 (also with Bro Cook’s hearty agreement) “That statement that he did these things for us’ has blinded many to the fact that he did them ‘tor himself’ first — without which, he could not have done them for us, for it was by doing them for himself that he did them for us ” Bro Martin settles on the phrase, “For himself that it might be for us” (p 39, citing Law of Moses p 177) as the best way of summarizing his position regarding Christ’s involvement in his own sacrifice On his page 19, Bro Cook cites the exact phrase thinking it is in opposition to Bro Martin’s position’
It Bro Cook read the whole of Bro Martin’s Saved by his Life, he must have been looking only for phrases he could disagree with and not with a mind to the totality of the message When taken in total his protests against Saved by his Life are wholly invalid.
More than misread
Putting one’s own spin on the other’s words is not an unusual human weakness The tendency invariably causes confusion which is sometimes innocuous In this case, however, chronic misreading has led to serious public charges against hardworking brethren who have contributed much to the spiritual welfare of our community
Any positive aspects of this pamphlet are completely overshadowed by the damage Bro Cook’s work may do to the brethren involved and to furthering contusion regarding the atonement This work is more than poorly done, it is profoundly dangerous
The Bible Passages
Virtually all of the verses in question are in Romans 5-8 and Hebrews 2, 7 and 9.
Romans
In Romans 5-8, the overall point is that left to ourselves under law, we are enslaved to sin, while in Christ under grace we can be freed from sin and look forward to life eternal. To convey the power of the conflict involved between sin and grace, Paul occasionally uses figurative language personifying “sin” as a world-ruler and slave holder and, under the figure of metonymy, uses “sin” to speak of our inner propensities which lead to actual transgressions.
As Paul uses “sin” in a pictorial way, we are not surprised when brethren use some unusual terms in expounding the section. For example: “as by one man’s disobedience many were made [constituted, appointed] sinners” is expounded by Bro. Thomas to mean we are all born into a constitution of things ruled by king sin. Thus we are all “sinners” — members of sin’s kingdom — by birth. Taking his idea out of context, people have been found to say “all children, including Jesus, are born sinners” which obviously evokes great protests from most of us.
Again, the “sin that dwelleth in me” (Rom. 7:17, 20) is spoken of by some Christadelphian writers as “physical sin” to distinguish this use from “sin” as an actual transgression. In the writer’s context “physical sin” may clearly mean “our natural bias to sin” which every human, including the mortal Jesus, possesses as part of his inherent make-up. But when one takes the phrase out of context and claims Jesus had “physical sin,” one invites charges he is attributing the guilt of sin to our Lord.
Likewise when the phrase “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) is too loosely used, we suspect a person of saying that Jesus, because of the flesh he had, was “sinful.” In fact, some of our writers have tried to stress the natural bent of our natures by paraphrasing these words to mean, “flesh full of sin.” They may mean nothing more than the fact all humans, including Jesus, are filled with a bias to sin. But if they say that Jesus had “flesh full of sin,” they are rightly accused of overstepping the bounds of appropriate language with respect to our Lord.
Here is the stuff of much contention about words. If both parties to the dispute have it clear that all humans (including Jesus until physically glorified) are mortal and prone to sin (as both Bre. Cook and Martin agree), the parties should leave it there and not accuse the other of error. Simply because we do not like a particular, sometimes colorful phrase for describing human bias to sin, does not make us a heretic.
Hebrews
Throughout Hebrews, the major theme is the superiority of every aspect of the Christ system over the Mosaic system. Those in the Christ system are served by a better priest, redeemed by better blood and can enter a better tabernacle than those under the Mosaic system. All of this is accomplished by God through the Savior, Jesus. In the wisdom of God, the Savior was made of the human race that “he [Jesus] by the grace of God should taste death for every man.. .for both he that sanctifieth [Jesus] and they who are sanctified are all of one [race]: for which cause he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:9,11).
As one of the race, the Savior “was in all points tempted like as we are [he, too, struggled with a propensity to sin], yet without sin [he committed no transgressions]…[and] learned obedience by the things which he suffered: and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 4:15; 5:8-9).
As one of the race, he benefited from his own saving work: “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). And as one of the race, having in himself mortality and a bias to sin, he was purified through his own better sacrifice being raised to glory through the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb. 9:23-24; 13:20). He was thus benefited by his own sacrifice, as are all those who remain faithful in him and who will be glorified.
Furthermore, as the Lord died only one sacrificial death, all redemption accomplished through him was through this one sacrifice — whether redemption from actual transgression, which we need but he didn’t, or from our mortal condition, which the Lord needed as well as all humans. These points are fully acknowledged by the brethren with whom Bro. Cook finds fault.
But what if there were only Jesus? Would he have to die for himself to redeem himself from his humanity, on account of its bias to sin, even though he never gave in to that bias? There is no Bible answer to the question. We know the Lord was involved in and benefited from his own offering as the representative of the race of those he came to save. But any answer we advance more than that is the product of our own reasoning rather than a product of the direct word of God. In fact, if there were no others to save, God would hardly have provided the Savior. So the question is one we need not deliberate and certainly do not need to accuse brethren of error, as Bro. Cook does, if they do not agree with our hypothetical answer.
Bro. Cook’s book not a help
We feel Bro. Cook’s book has unfortunately done nothing to facilitate our understanding of the atonement and could do much to cloud the issues. But more importantly, he has wrongly, and that publicly, denounced brethren who are devoted servants of the household of faith. We, therefore, cannot commend his pamphlet to our readership and must strongly warn against accepting its conclusions.
In the same breath we also appeal for prayers on behalf of all who publicly seek to explain this most wonderful and important topic. May we all be given the ability to express the joy and wonder of our hearts at the loving salvation God has provided in terms that edify, enrich and unify.
- Blood of the Covenant, p 3 Unfortunately Bro Andrew continues his comment on “sin in the flesh” by saying, “and, as a consequence, is the subject of divine reprobation” Does he really mean all humans, the Lord included, are personally objects of God’s disapproval before they begin to transgress’) No other conclusion can be drawn as he goes on to say. “Christ was a continuation as regards nature, of Adam, and ‘sin-in-the-flesh’ deserves the same penalty as personal transgression” (p 23) Since one cannot penalize sin-in-the-flesh apart from condemning the person having it, he is saying the one having sin-in-the-flesh “deserves” to be regarded as an actual sinner Again, speaking of the Lord. “Christ was, by his shed blood, justified from the condemnation under which he was born, therefore those who are sprinkled with his blood (I Peter 1.2) at baptism are then justified from the same condemnation. That is, the Divine disfavor under which they were born [Jesus included] and which continued until the time of entering the water ” Obviously this is a topic which can lead to the most fallacious conclusions if we let theological “logic” overcome spiritual common sense.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One