Partial Atonement
Dear Bro. Don,
Thank you for your excellent editorial in the July Tidings concerning “The Theory of Partial Atonement Examined.” Your editorial is nicely balanced in dealing with a difficult subject such as the atonement, while showing the deficiencies in Bro. Cook’s pamphlet. I agree with you that “his work is more than poorly done, it is profoundly dangerous.”
“The Theory of Partial Atonement Examined” can only serve to wound and mislead the brotherhood, particularly those of us in North America working to heal a divided household. This booklet gives the false impression that leading brethren in Central either endorse the teaching of “clean flesh,” or lean in that direction.
As one who has departed from the “legal logic” of Andrewism, I am troubled that there are those in the Central Fellowship who would embrace that same pseudo-logic [as Andrewism] and disparage brethren who oppose those arguments [of Andrewism] as teaching error. It is irresponsible to accuse respected and faithful brethren such as John Martin, Harry Tennant, Jim Luke and Michael Ashton as being unsound in their understanding and teaching of the atonement. We pray that Bro. Cook will see the error of his way.
My thanks again for coming out so strongly against “The Theory of Partial Atonement Examined.”
Gary Burns, Richmond, VA
Many other phone calls, comments, emails and letters were received expressing appreciation of the editorial. But not everyone liked it.
Dear Don,
The article in the July issue of Tidings entitled “Partial Atonement” fails to deal with a very important point of doctrine. The Australian brethren who are accused of teaching partial atonement lay explicit emphasis on the point that Christ did not need to make an offering for his sin-prone nature (see “Saved By His Life” pp. 25,36,39,41,47).
All are agreed that Christ did not need to make an offering for personal sins. If he was not required to make an offering for his sin-prone nature, then it follows that there was nothing intrinsic about the person of Jesus Christ that required an offering at all! Therefore, his sacrifice was entirely for us: “But for our needs we may reverently say he would not have been there” (pg. 36).
The notion that the sacrifice of Christ was entirely for us is the corner stone of both the clean flesh and free life theories. The notion also runs counter to Article 8 of the BASF which declares, “That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised up in the condemned line of Adam, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him.” (Italics added).
Edward W Farrar,
editor of the “Advocate” magazine
The brethren you question do not believe that “the sacrifice of Christ was entirely for us.” You cite part of a quote from page 36; here is the whole quote: “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 from death. He needed redemption; he needed salvation from death [i.e. the sacrifice was not entirely for us.
Jesus needed his own sacrifice to be himself saved from death]. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was to be our Saviour, and but for our needs we may reverently say he would not have been there.” Bro. John Carter, Australian Unity Book, p. 21.
Page 47 of “Saved by His Life,” which you also cite, reads as follows:
“Christ — Our Representative
“Taking the common ‘pioneer’ expression ‘for himself that it might be for us,’ that true expression is contrasted with the teaching of the two extremes.
“Here is an illustration of how these two extremes separate the Lord from the work he came to do:
“Clean Flesh separates him by excluding him altogether from the principles set forth in his sacrifice.
“Andrewism includes him in his own sacrifice, but with having a separate need because his sin-prone nature was regarded as actual sin.”
You can see Bro. Martin is reacting to Bro. Andrew’s calling our innate bias to sin “physical sin.” It is his reaction to the phrase “physical sin” that causes Bro. Martin to write against the phrase, “sacrifice for human nature.”
Of course, we all agree that God is not saving human nature; He is going to destroy it while bestowing divine nature on the faithful. Thus properly expressed, sacrifice is offered for the person because he has human nature (and because, in our case, we commit iniquities) and is not offered “for human nature.” Thus Bro. Martin is on sound ground in rejecting the phrase “sacrifice for human nature.”
Bro Martin keeps supporting the phrase “for himself that it might be for us” so he certainly sees that the sacrifice of Christ was not entirely for us But the extreme language of Bro Andrew has shaped Bro Martin’s opposition to the phrase “sacrifice for human nature” Note the following.
“Being then constituted flesh and blood, and having within himself those propensities which are the cause of sin [he thus rejects clean flesh], 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.
“It is essential to understand the metonymical use of sin, especially in its application to our Lord Failure to see this has led some astray Their concept [referring to Bro Andrew] has been that the term ‘sin’ is applied to literal flesh because it is actual sin!’ This in turn leads to the inevitable corollary that Jesus possessed sin physically, hence giving rise to the theory of the necessity of offering for his sin-prone nature This is totally false, and has come about because of the failure to grasp the metonymical use of the term ‘sin’ “
Thus the extreme language of Bro Andrew has brought about an understandable counter reaction
Why Division?
Dear Bro Don,
A pamphlet has come into my possession written by a brother who decries the manmade division in the Christadelphian community He has done considerable research into the cause of this division which he finds unscriptural and definitely contrary to Christ’s commands I think we all agree with this.
He found that from 1850 to 1900 what would happen to the enlightened rejecter was a subject that could not be decided upon This period was under the stalwart guidance of Bre John Thomas and Robert Roberts The first principle is that we must submit to baptism if we wish to be in the kingdom, not that we dictate to our Heavenly Father whom He must or must not raise for judgment God will raise whomsoever He will Why cannot we leave it at that when speaking of enlightened rejecters and all meet together with our wonderful knowledge of what are truly first principles?
Lois Hulbert, Largo, Florida
Items in the Christadelphian magazine from 1894 to 1900 fully document reasons for the amendment to the Birmingham Statement of Faith which eventually left us with the Amended/Unamended situation in North America We sent the information to Sis Hulbert She found it fully explanatory and agreed that we could publish part of her letter and that it would be useful to present highlights of the material sent to her
Following are “highlights” of the material (seven pages of quotes from the Christadelphian) which we will be pleased to send to any on request
JJ Andrew changes mind
“Whereas he formerly believed that the light of knowledge is the ground of human responsibility to God, he (JJ Andrew) has, under a special stress, changed his mind ” 1894, p 300.
“I did not know Bro. Andrew had become a convert to Sis. Andrew’s theory, which she had been agitating amongst us off and on ever since she came among us in London…” 1894, p. 477.
“If the question of the state of the enlightened rejecter of the truth has not been allowed to remain where it was for thirty years, it is because a public denial has been made of what has for thirty years been accepted as part and parcel of the professed system of the truth.. .This has now been publicly repudiated and denounced as ‘the thinking of the flesh.’ …The London brethren have had to withstand open assault upon an avowed and professed principle of divine truth at the hands of a brother to whom they had most reason of all to look for its defense…” 1894, p. 303.
JJ Andrew takes fellowship stand
“If the bitterness of death were not already past, we should note with grief the endeavor that is being made by those who have gone aside with Bro. Andrew in London.. .It is now made the basis of ecclesial action in a circular sent round, intimating that the brethren in question ‘have come to the conclusion’ that they cannot receive in fellowship those who differ from them on the questions in debate” 1896, p. 396.
Bro. Roberts’ advises restraint
“We have for years felt uncertain — not as to the doctrine that men who knowingly refuse to submit to Christ are responsible to his judgment seat at the resurrection – but as to how those ought to be regarded who deny it…Are we to say their faith in Christ is invalidated by this error concerning the degree of punishment to be meted out to rebels against the light? Here we have always hesitated; and we know Dr. Thomas was against making it a ground of disfellowship” 1896, p. 475.
“It is the aggressive opposition to the doctrine of the resurrection of enlightened rejecters of the Gospel — declaring it a thing untrue and to be rejected in fellowship — that has created the difficulty…” 7/1897 Inside Front Cover (IFC).
Clause 24 amended under pressure
” ‘Is it true,’ asks a well-known brother, ‘that the Birmingham ecclesia teaches, or permits to be taught, that ‘resurrection only affects those who have been baptized into Christ;’ or, would it countenance in its midst those who opposed the doctrine that knowledge of God’s will was in itself sufficient to bring resurrectional responsibility; or, who maintain that Proposition 24 of the Birmingham basis permitted the members to teach what they like on the question of responsibility? I put this question because we are asked fellowship by some who openly disavow the resurrection of enlightened rebels on the plea of having now adopted the Birmingham basis in its entirety [claiming the BSF wording was open].” 1897, p. 420.
“The continuation of controversy concerning the Responsibility Question, and the wide spread circulation of grave charges against the Birmingham ecclesia, of sheltering error, and suppressing or hindering the truth, have induced the arranging brethren to recommend the ecclesia to define its position on the matter…” 1897, p. 506.
“On the question of the Responsibility to Resurrection and Condemnation of Enlightened Rejecters of the Truth, the ecclesia adopted the recommendation of the Arranging Brethren, which ran as follows: ‘Seeing that this doctrine is contained in the Statement of Faith, which forms our Basis of Fellowship, and that organized and active denial of it, in London and elsewhere, has taken place, also that the matter has been thoroughly discussed in our literature for more than three years past; and seeing further that controversy concerning it resulting in division in certain ecclesias is still current, and that it is widely and publicly alleged that we are fellowshipping or sheltering error on the matter, it is Resolved that we affirm Proposition of the Statement of Faith in the following amplified terms, and that we fellowship those only who hold the same doctrine…” [then follows what we now have as Clause 24 in the BASF] 1898, p. 79.
In North America, the lines were not drawn so sharply. Thus when the Birmingham Ecclesia published their clarified statement, some North American ecclesias felt it went too far and declined to accept the BASF, preferring instead the unaltered BSF. Thus was born the Amended/Unamended division. May we not perpetuate it with needless disputes illustrated by the partial atonement charges; rather may we take advantage of the on-going unity process and heal this 100-year-old breach in the household of faith.
Strong’s Concordance