Below is the assessment of bro Allan Stricklers error by bro John Carter in 1939 and 1947 followed by articles he references including statements by the Buffalo ecclesia and extracts from bro C. C. Walker in 1921 at the time bro Strickler wrote "Out of Darkness". The error of bro Allan Strickler is similar to that of bro Harry Fry who defended his beliefs in The Christadelphian, September 1923.

The Christadelphian, February 1939, John Carter

“Death of Brother Allan D. Strickler”

... A brief word of comment may perhaps be made. As all know, brother A. D. Strickler’s writings have been the cause of much strife, contention, and of division in the Brotherhood. It is a matter of great regret that the labours of the closing years of one so long associated with the Truth and so beloved by his companions should have produced these results. But such being the case a reference to the position of The Christadelphian in relation to the teaching, or the reputed teaching, of our deceased brother seems to be timely. In 1921 when Out of Darkness into Light was published, brother C. C. Walker pointed out that the pamphlet challenged some of the statements in the pamphlets The Slain Lamb and The Blood of Christ, while he recognised the ambiguity of the language used, and the contradictions in the pamphlet itself. We know one brother who read carefully Out of Darkness, and marked in red all statements setting out one view, and in blue all the contradictory ones. It was not to be wondered at that difference of opinion followed, some condemning the writer, and others justifying him. Brother Walker said, “We repudiate the doctrines” (which brother Strickler had set out in opposition to the pamphlets named.)

Then in 1923 certain statements drawn up by Canadian brethren and signed by brother Strickler, appeared to justify the judgment of brother Roberts quoted in The Christadelphian, 1923, page 327, that brother Strickler was “Fundamentally sound, but very crotchetty.” Three references appear in The Christadelphian for 1923, when the correspondence was closed. But many were not satisfied and some ecclesias separated because of the views attributed to brother Strickler, although he complained that he was misunderstood.

A criticism by brother Strickler of a pamphlet published by this Office led to a correspondence for about eighteen months, now terminated by his death. This, with original letters and copies of letters which have passed through our hands written to other brethren (brother Strickler was an indefatigable and voluminous letter writer) led us to the conclusion that at the end of his life he did not accept without reserve some of the clauses in The Statement of Faith concerning the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ. The republication of a Synopsis on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ,” by brother Roberts, in December, 1937, and Editorials in 1938 ("Sin, Sins and Sin-Offering" and "The Reign of Death"), indicate the attitude of this Magazine on the doctrines in dispute. Our object is to maintain the teaching of The Statement of Faith, in opposition to the doubts on these subjects which have been put forward.

No longer taking part in contentions and wordy strifes, brother Strickler now sleeps, where the weary find unbroken rest until the coming of the Lord. He will judge us all, and the judgment of our sleeping brother we may all leave with him. But men pass, as we in turn shall pass in the continued absence of the Lord; yet the responsibility for upholding the Truth with its saving power remains, a duty devolving upon those who are privileged to know it.

The attitude of The Christadelphian we have declared. We believe it is the position of those who are separated from us. We pen these words, not to cause pain to those who loved brother Strickler, but as a possible contribution to healing a breach in which far greater numbers are involved.—Ed.

The Christadelphian, May 1939, John Carter (extract)

“The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ”

On the other hand, the doctrine known amongst us as “Renunciationism,” and associated with the name of Edward Turney, is defined thus:

“That the body of Jesus did not inherit the curse of Adam, though derived from him through Mary; and was therefore not mortal; that his natural life was “free”; that in this “free” natural life, he “earned eternal life” and might, if he had so chosen, have avoided death, or even refused to die upon the cross, and entered into eternal life alone; his death, being the act of his own free will and not in any sense necessary for his own salvation; that his sacrifice consisted in the offering up of an unforfeited life, in payment of the penalty incurred by Adam and his posterity, which was eternal death; that his unforfeited life was slain in the room and stead of the forfeited lives of all believers of the races of Adam.”

This contention, with modifications, has reappeared more than once since it was first proclaimed in the early 1870s. Brother Roberts met a form of it in the teaching of one Cornish, in answer to whom he drew up a series of propositions which were reproduced in The Christadelphian, December, 1937. It has been revived in certain of its aspects in recent teaching in America, and it appears desirable that the attitude of this Magazine towards this teaching should be once again emphasised." (The Christadelphian, May 1939)

An Open Letter, September 1947, John Carter

“A Further Important Message to All Christadelphians”

Bro. A.D. Strickler took part in resisting the Andrew-Williams teaching. He did so by advancing arguments which contained the seed of his later teaching. In the intelligence from Buffalo in 1900 the error is there. In the contributions he made to “The Truth’s Welfare” which was published to combat the teaching of Brethren Andrew and Williams, his ideas, which since have caused so much trouble, are to be found. The fact — and we are seeking facts — the fact is, that in resisting one error, he swung to the opposite extreme! But brethren did not notice it because his aim was to demolish the Andrew error. I have read as carefully as, perhaps, any other Brother, what Bro. A.D. Strickler wrote. In his writings he seeks to emphasise the moral issues involved in God’s dealing with men, in opposition to the mechanical theories of J.J Andrew. He, however, contradicts certain aspects of the Truth, which we noted elsewhere, and which need not here take valuable time. Bro. A.D. Strickler is dead. But now, opposition by some Brethren to Bro. Strickler’s views had led to a swing back to the position of Bro. Andrew… I have more than once been told by correspondents, who were not supporters of Bro. Strickler’s views, that one of the difficulties of the position in the USA was that some Berean Brethren were themselves in an extreme position: an opposite extreme to Bro. Strickler, but still extreme.

The Christadelphian, August 1900 (referred to by bro Carter in "A Further Important Letter to All Christadelphians" in 1947 above)

“Statement by the Buffalo Ecclesia”

The Statement of Faith of the Buffalo Christadelphian ecclesia in relation to baptism. Some commands relating to unity.

1 Cor. 1:10.—“Now I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Phil. 2:2.—“Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” 2 Cor. 13:11.—“We ye of one mind, live in peace.” In view of these apostolic injunctions and also of the fact that there exists two minds among those claiming to be Christadelphians in connection with the first principles of the truth, especially so in relation to the object of baptism, it has been deemed advisable that the Buffalo Christadelphian ecclesia declare their faith in what they believe baptism accomplishes for the subject of it. Therefore, we, the undersigned, declare that we believe that we were baptised according to the command of the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost “for the remission of sins; ” understanding by this that our sins were sins that were past, being all the evil deeds of wicked thoughts and acts committed up to the time of our repentance and baptism. That we believe that the remission of these past sins removed the penalty of the Second Death that was due to us for them. That this penalty of the Second Death is the only condemnation that we are freed from at baptism. That we believe concerning those who know that they have sins that are past, and that the condemnation of the Second Death is the just punishment due for these sins, that if such persons believe “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,” and are not baptized, they will be raised from the dead to be judged and to suffer the penalty of the Second Death. That we do not believe that we are baptized for “Adamic sins,” “Adamic Condemnation,” “Inherited Alienation,” or “Federal Sins.” That we declare our separation from all ecclesias that deny our faith on these subjects.

(Signed),

Allen D. Strickler (and others)

The Christadelphian, September 1900

Buffalo (N.Y.).—The intelligence from this place in the August number has been the subject of some misapprehension. We hesitated somewhat to publish the resolution, fearing such might be the case. Controversy drives people to extreme modes of expression. It has been supposed that the resolution implies a belief in immortal emergence from the grave, and that the second death is due to men for sins of ignorance, also a disbelief in the apostolic declaration that by one man “judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” None of these things are so, we know. “Adamic condemnation” in the sense in which that unscriptural phrase is defined in the responsibility debate, p. 9, is “the wrath or disfavour of God for the offence of Adam,” and “the offence of Adam” is defined as “his act of disobedience in Eden.” Now if A.B. is baptised in 1900 for “Adamic condemnation,” it implies that God’s wrath was personally and individually upon him for that “act” of his first father 6,000 years ago. It is only fair to say that brother Andrew repudiates such a monstrous doctrine, but his definitions, fairly applied, convey it all the same. The Buffalo brethren, repudiating this, do not at all repudiate the truth that condemnation to death rests upon the race, and that men are alienated from God. But perhaps the brethren, in few words, will reassure those who are exercised over their utterances. 

The Christadelphian, November 1900

“Adamic Condemnation” and “Inherited Alienation”

The reason why the Buffalo ecclesia deemed it necessary to declare their faith about baptism in connection with “Adamic condemnation” and “inherited alienation” was because of the unscriptural attitude on the subject taken by the Chicago ecclesia.

The Chicago ecclesia, in their statement of faith, published to Christadelphians throughout the world, declare that they believe that, “federally, we are all under Adam’s sin, and are baptized to remove the condemnation which came thereby, and to place us in Christ reconciled to God.”

We protest against the idea that Adamic condemnation rests upon man as a morally responsible being, and therefore believe that it cannot be removed at baptism. We believe that Adamic condemnation rests only upon the physical constitution, and that reconciled man cannot be said to be free from it until after he is made immortal.

The Chicago ecclesia, in their statement, say: Our alienation we believe to be Adamic; that is, Adam’s sin placed the whole race in a state of alienation, that, therefore, we were aliens before we committed personal sins; and we believe that baptism removes this “inherited alienation.”

We protest against the idea that there is such a thing as “inherited alienation” to be removed at baptism before we can be reconciled to God, and in the atonement.

We believe that the only alienation that is removed at baptism is that which exists because of “wicked works,” and that this is the only kind of alienation spoken of in the New Testament.

That if there exists an “inherited alienation,” it is entirely physical, and therefore, as such, there takes place at baptism no change of relationship.

That if the contention is true that “inherited alienation” must be removed at baptism before we can become citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, and nigh to God, then must we become physical citizens at baptism, whereas we do not become such until after immortalization.

That our citizenship at the present time is only moral and mental.

What Adamic condemnation has to do with immortal emergence we know not; but we do believe that the responsible man will be raised from the dead to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to give an account for works done in “the body.” And that if he receive condemnation therefore, he will die again, which will be by the judgments that cause the “second death.”

We believe that God deals with man as an individually responsible and moral creature, upon the principle that “in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.”

That God does not hold man responsible for being in Adam when Adam sinned, nor because man has “sin in the flesh;” but that from the condition of mortality into which he was placed because of Adam, he will finally be delivered, providing the condemnation due to him for his “many offences” is removed at baptism, and he develop a character well-pleasing to God.—Signed, The Buffalo ecclesia, per Allen D. Strickler.

The Christadelphian, July 1921, C. C. Walker

“Christ the Firstfruits”

“Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:21–23). Christ then was “man,” and being man needed salvation from death by resurrection just as other men do, though he was sinless. Hence his sacrifice, agreeably to the type of the High Priest under the Law, was first for himself and then for the people. “This he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). Thus he was saved from death (5:7), and “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (verse 8). Thus God “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (13:20). Thus, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12). It will be observed that the omitted words here, “for us, ” are in italics in the A.V., the reason being that they do not appear in the original. They are omitted from the R.V. for that reason. It is perfectly true, thank God, that the eternal redemption is “for us” contingent on its being first of all for the High Priest himself, “Christ the firstfruits”; but Paul is here dealing with “Christ” the “High Priest” (verse 11), and he obtained “eternal redemption” for himself that it might be for us. To say that it was “for us” and “not for himself,” is to contradict the word of God, and to take a step at least towards that doctrine of Antichrist that denies that Christ has come in the flesh. This is a form of error that has persisted from the days of the apostles until now. Thinking to “honour the Son,” some have exalted him above humanity, and thus taken him out of the human harvest as “the firstfruits.” As is the firstfruit so is the harvest. And as is the harvest so is the firstfruit. “Man” in each case, as Paul declared to the Corinthians, and as such needing salvation. It had been written in the prophets (Zech. 9:9), “Behold thy king cometh unto thee (O daughter of Zion). He is just and having salvation.” The salvation was by “the blood of thy covenant” (Zech. 9:11), by which both the “King” himself and his “prisoners of hope” are “brought again from the dead.” These things have been faithfully upheld as principles of the Truth from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated and should not be now. Yet there is such current. We noticed last month, among pamphlets received, one on Sacrifice which reproduces the errors that were introduced by Edward Turney fifty years ago, and which were met by the demonstration of the Truth in the pamphlet, The Slain Lamb, to which attention is now again directed. It has just been reprinted. The pamphlet, The Blood of Christ, is a less controversial exhibition of the same truth. And so also is Dr. Thomas’ little pamphlet, Catechesis. Many of the statements of these pamphlets are now challenged, as in the pamphlet, Out of Darkness into Light, which, while admitting that Christ is “the Saved One” (page 30), nevertheless objects strongly (page 55) to the idea that the life of Jesus was “a forfeited life”; and on page 73 presents it as “proved” “that God’s method of salvation by the shedding of blood to make atonement did not apply to Christ,” a statement which is a direct contradiction of Heb. 13:20 quoted above. Again, on page 56, the writer sets out “to show that Christ could not be his own ransom sacrifice through death”; which, as before shown, was exactly what the Word of God declared he should be and was (Zech. 9.; Heb. 13.). We are not surprised that these things produce remonstrance and trouble, as visible in our Intelligence columns. Some are for withdrawing from the writers of such things, while others, though strongly disapproving, hesitate to take that step, especially as in other parts of the self-same writings the truth is apparently admitted and upheld. Intelligence is intelligence, some of it pleasant and helpful, some very much the reverse. We make known what is happening, even if it invites adverse comment. We repudiate the doctrines objected to above; but as to the men in question, those in association with them must decide the question of association for themselves.

The Christadelphian, August 1921, C. C. Walker

(extracts of correspondence on "Christ the Firstfruits" above commenting on bro Strickler’s mis-quoting of bro Thomas and bro Roberts)

Brother B. J. Dowling, of Worcester, Mass., writes:—

I wish to tell you how highly we appreciate the faithfulness, discretion and ability displayed by you in your conduct of The Christadelphian. ... Especially valuable is your July number, with its able editorial on “Christ the Firstfruits.” Your strictures on the Truth-nullifying pamphlet, Out of Darkness, are especially good. The author’s method of trimming and changing words is most dangerous to the rising generation, who are not familiar with the controversies of many years ago. ...

The author of Out of Darkness has issued another pamphlet, improperly styled A Defence of Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts. ... No intelligent person reading the works of Doctor Thomas and brother Roberts can have any doubt as to their teaching on this most important branch of human enquiry and hope. ...

The Apostle John was equally insistent upon a correct understanding of the nature of Christ, as shown by his words: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed.” ...

The principles of Truth set forth in the pamphlets, The Slain Lamb and The Blood of Christ and also in your July editorial, have been upheld as you say, “from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated, and should not be now.”

Answer.—We are grateful to our brother not only for his words of appreciation, which come at a time when there is a good deal of the contrary thing current, but for his outspoken condemnation of current obscurations of the Truth. This strengthens our hands in a difficult task. We have just received from a brother a copy of the latest pamphlet mentioned by brother Dowling, and can only endorse his verdict thereon, and exhort all and sundry to read Dr. Thomas’ and brother Roberts’ writings for themselves, and not to be misled by second-hand extracts therefrom and allusions thereto. We have been for many years, and are still, arduously engaged in the dissemination of these writings in their integrity; but if they really taught such things as some allege, we would have nothing to do with them. At the same time, it remains to be said that it is because of the faithfulness of these authors to the Word of God, that we stick to this enterprise, and even so, we are not committed to every detail of interpretation, as this issue bears witness. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” 

The Christadelphian, December 1921, C. C. Walker

(The teachings of bro Strickler lean towards the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine)

“The Shield Magazine Endorses Bro Strickler's Error”

BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, MSS., ETC., RECEIVED DURING THE MONTH

… The Shield, August 15th, with article on “Original Sin” approving brother A. D. Strickler’s recent essays and denouncing The Christadelphian for propounding “horrible teaching” on the subject, “the very same theory” as Rome, and so forth. The editor does not know what he is talking about. We draw attention to W.J.Y.’s repeated allusion to 2 Cor. 5:21 in this issue. Our antagonistic critics confuse character with nature when they accuse us of preaching “an unclean or defiled Christ.” The Shield has proclaimed that the Lord, in the days of his flesh, was “undefiled in every sense,” and therefore of course in nature. Then he was no wearer of “this corruptible,” and did “not come in the flesh,” and is no brother of ours, and cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts did not teach this. We shall reproduce Dr. Thomas’ teaching from Elpis Israel. We are always disseminating it, and agree with it absolutely.

The Christadelphian, April 1926

“Letter written by brother Strickler to brother Barnes, of Chicago”

136, Buffum Street,

Buffalo.

December 10th, 1924.

Dear Brother Arthur S. Barnes,—Your letter has just been received, and I am happy to answer you that I do still believe in atonement for personal sins only.

That I have not changed my position on that question since writing the book Out of Darkness into Light. Furthermore, that there is nothing in the pamphlet that conflicts with the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith when interpreted as Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts taught. It is the only Statement that the Buffalo ecclesia has ever met upon.

I am a firm believer in the fall and redemption of man, and that the only disability that God holds against man and for which man is responsible, is moral or a wicked state of mind resulting in “wicked works;” that alienation is because of this moral state, hence atonement has to do only with correction of it.

Immortalization follows automatically as a result. “The redemption which is in “Christ Jesus through his blood’ is the forgiveness of sins.” See Eph. 1:7.

There is no such thing found in the Bible as physical alienation; nor physical atonement.

Hoping that the time will soon come when falsehood and misrepresentation will cease.

I remain a believer in the gospel that Christ Jesus and his apostles preached; and in fellowship with all in fellowship with them.

Faithfully yours,

Allen D. Strickler.

The Christadelphian April 1923

“Brother Strickler Questioned”

In Canada and the U.S.A. there is much trouble and confusion over brother A.D. Strickler’s unhappy pamphlets, which he wrote, as he says, with a sincere desire to do the Truth service before he passed off the scene. But, alas, it has been a dis-service indeed. The intelligence items this month from various parts are conflicting and confusing, some crying out against the unfaithfulness of those who retain fellowship with those who decline to cast off brother Strickler, and others declaring that brother Strickler is not a heretic but a confused writer, clear in his own mind but quite unable to express himself unless he is interrogated and nailed down to short answers. And brother Strickler himself observes that he is withdrawn from not because of his beliefs, but because readers cannot understand his writings. Truly this last is not a simple matter, for brother Strickler’s real mind can only be found by reference and cross reference from part to part of his books, by discovering what certain phrases mean to him, and by direct questioning of himself. Without these precautions it is easy enough to compile a page of apparently erroneous teaching from his books.

The Toronto ecclesia seem to have taken a course that should help the situation. Knowing brother Strickler, they have submitted to him a series of plain questions, and have got from him plain answers. It will be well to accept plain answers to plain questions, and let the pamphlets fall into oblivion as imperfect expressions of the Truth as he sees it. The household should not be disrupted because of the vaguenesses of a very old brother who, when questioned, is found to be sound in the Faith.

Appended are the letter and list of questions sent by Toronto to brother Strickler, and his answers.

[ Copy .]

Toronto .

January 27, 1923.

Dear Brother A. D. Strickler ,—The confusion concerning your position in the Truth persists. Ecclesias are going on record as holding you unsound in the Faith. This feature disturbs our ecclesia and causes them to appoint us to draw your attention to this, and to seek your assurance in regard to yourself in the matter.

The ecclesia does not feel called upon to accept or reject your pamphlets, nor to review any opinion you have on unessential details. They are only concerned to ascertain your position in regard to fundamental truths so verily believed among us, and as succinctly set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.

It is recognised that one may be misunderstood when writing on Divine things. Language does not always convey similar ideas to all readers; neither are brethren careful enough about what meanings they attach to recondite phrases of Scripture or of their own coinage, and perhaps the present confusion arises more from this cause.

What perplexes the ecclesia most is the generalized manner of objection to your teachings. No ecclesia has yet stated specifically in detail the errors in your works. What, however, seems to be a prevalent impression is that you appear to except Christ from being a beneficiary in his ministry and death or sacrifice. Now, so that our ecclesia may have a statement of your own to set at rest the disturbed feelings, and to keep it from being a party to doing you an injustice, we have thought good might be done by your assenting to the following propositions:

(1) Are we right in believing that you have not sought to impose on the brethren any new dogma or doctrine to those sincerely believed to be contained in our Statement of Faith? Answer.—Yes.

(2) Are we safe to believe that you still adhere to the truths enunciated in that statement and that they still are your rule and basis of fellowship and co-operation? Answer.—Yes.

(3) The following appears in your pamphlet, p. 93:

“Although he (Christ) had no sins (transgressions) of his own to offer for, there was a sense in which this offering was for himself. . . . He (God) had appointed that Christ should be perfected through suffering even unto death, and accordingly it is written in a perfectly true sense that not through the blood of goats and calves but through his own blood (he) entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained redemption. Christ’s offering was therefore for himself as well as for the people. Christ as we are was in need of eternal redemption from mortal flesh and blood condition and from possession and dominion of sin, viewing sin as a personified power reigning unto death through and by means of mortal condition which mankind, including Jesus, inherited from Adam.”

Since this is a perfectly scriptural statement concerning Christ’s personal benefit in his own sacrificial life and death, are we right in assuming that others, who think you believe otherwise, have misapprehended your meanings in writing on the two aspects of Christ, viz., First , that Christ in character was undefiled, and separate from sinners, and, Second , In regard to his mortal flesh and blood condition under the possession and dominion of sin, viewing sin as a personified power reigning unto death, through and by means of mortal condition which mankind, including Jesus, inherited from Adam.

Answer.—Yes, viewing redemption as deliverance.

(4) Now since you view sin as a personified power reigning unto death, through and by means of mortal condition, which mankind, including Jesus, inherited from Adam; are we right in thinking that you do not object in that sense to it being said, Christ died for himself for sin, nor if in same sense the following synonymous terms are used for Christ’s mortal condition inherited from Adam, namely, “Sin,” “Sin in the flesh,” “Unclean,” “body of sin,” and so forth?

(5) When you write “Christ never offered up himself as a sin offering for himself,” we take you to mean in the sense of an actual transgression. Are we right?

Answers to (4) and (5).—Christ’s offering for himself was in the sense of rendering obedience to God, and by that obedience obtained redemption from mortality and death, using the word redemption in the sense of deliverance. Christ was mortal, and his nature was exactly like our own, and had he not restrained the impulses of it, he would have been a sinner.

(6) Are we doing you justice when we believe that you do not seek to emphasise the violence surrounding the death of Christ, beyond Christ’s obedience as the reason why sins are forgiven in Christ’s name, through baptism, but that you regard that which Paul said in Romans 5:19 : “For by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous”?

Answer.—Yes.

(7) Are we right in disbelieving that you have wished to teach the view that the wrath of God was on Christ because of his mortal condition, which mankind, including Jesus, inherited from Adam?

Answer.—Yes.

(8) It is thought by some that you teach substitutionary doctrine concerning Christ’s death. Are we right in thinking that you intended us to understand you to mean that Christ died for us, not instead of us?

Answer.—Yes.

(9) When you speak of Christ as clean, are we right in taking you to mean in regard to character?

Answer.—Yes.

The above are presented in love, without prejudice, with the hope that, having your assent to the nine propositions, our ecclesia may help to put an end, not only to the confusion in their midst, but assist in removing it from brethren generally.

Faithfully your brethren in Christ, and well-wishers.

George Waite .

Edwin Hill

The Christadelphian October 1923

“Brother Strickler’s Beliefs: A Final Word”

Whereas, brother A. D. Strickler’s answers to questions which were published in April Christadelphian , page 180, have been variously commented upon, and in some cases have been considered insufficient to meet the cleavage among certain ecclesias;

In view of this, we, the undersigned, have further taken up the matter with him, and discussed all the features of his case together, and our conclusions are as follows:—

1.—( a ) We find his position is the same as when he published in The Christadelphian “The Buffalo Statement,” 1902, and in perfect harmony with the position taken up by C. C. Walker and H. Sulley in their reply to the Chicago ecclesia at the time in relation to the nature of man, the sacrifice of Christ, and the objects in baptism, when at this time his opposition to the Andrew-Williams theory was generally approved by the Household and The Christadelphian .

( b ) That of late years he has perceived a growing tendency in the Brotherhood toward the heresy then refuted, i.e. , “That we and Christ, by descent from Adam are morally involved in Adamic Sin; that Christ and we needed an atoning sacrifice for “Justification from Adamic Sin,” “Sin in the flesh,” etc., etc. This line of teaching he strongly objects to.

( c ) That he wrote his pamphlet, Out of Darkness into Light , and his “Defence,” to thwart this tendency of imposing on the brethren ideas that would lead them to believe that we and Christ are guilty in any way for Original Sin and to direct their attention to Dr. Thomas’ and R. Roberts’ teachings thereon.

We find his position to be as follows:—

2.—That he never believed Christ had a free life, nor does he now, and never intended to convey such an idea.

3.—He has always, and does now, believe man is mortal because of sin, and subject to death by physical, not moral, inheritance from Adam.

4.—He believes, to teach that the guilt of Adam’s sin is extended to us by inheritance, is foolishness and error to be rejected.

5.—He believes that it is by God’s decree that man is mortal. God’s wrath is not against mankind on that account but for wickedness of their own. God’s wrath was against Adam personally. We only are subject to the physical effects of that.

6.—He believes there is only one kind of human nature styled scripturally “the flesh,” and “one flesh of men,” that this has come to us by inheritance from Adam under condemnation to death.

7.—He believes the nature of Jesus was the same as ours, scripturally stated “as concerning the flesh Christ came,” suffering with us all disabilities of our nature from Adam because of sin.

8.—He believes that since Jesus “was faithful to Him that appointed him,” he thereby became entitled to and secured his own redemption from the death which has passed on all men because of sin.

9.—He believes that therefore Christ died for himself only to obtain deliverance from death and for us also that he might be endowed with power to redeem us from sinful flesh, mortality or death nature.

10.—He believes that redemption is not atonement for or forgiveness of Adamic Alienation, Adamic Sin, Adamic Sentence, but physically considered is being taken out of one order or condition of being into another, styled by Paul “This corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality.” Christ the firstfruits in this regard, and we afterwards so that we may rejoice together.

11.—The believes that as moral creatures we have no moral concern in being sin’s flesh, sinful flesh or “sin in the flesh.” That these expressions are scriptural ones denoting only that we are mortal because of Adam’s sin. Being “made sinners” means nothing more than being descendants of Adam.

12.—He rejects the teaching of being justified from Adamic Alienation as unscriptural, but believes all in Adam are alien to the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the Covenents of Promise, and without hope in them.

13.—He believes we are commanded to cease being alienated to them, and to lay hold of God’s Covenant confirmed in Christ’s blood, by faith and obedience in baptism and for remission of personal sins.

14.—He believes that “Atonement” in Christ is the means God has given us whereby we may come before God seeking justification from our own sins that are past, “through the forbearance of God,” even Christ Jesus whom God has set forth “a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past” ( Rom. 3:25 ). So that Christ may present us faultless before the presence of God’s glory with exceeding joy ( Jude 24 ), thus entitling us at that time to receive also, as he did, immortality.

15.—He has endeavoured to teach that Christ in character was spotless, and in this sense was a clean thing; and where He says, “God exacted the price of redemption and that price was not an unclean thing,” is to be taken as meaning that God had purposed to grant redemption for perfect righteousness, this being the price so to speak Christ tendered on his own behalf for his redemption and our forgiveness of sins in his name.

16.—He believes Christ was the bearer of our sinful nature physically, and that Christ was a sin bearer of our sins in sacrifice only precisely as Dr. Thomas recites, “In the Mosaic and Christian Systems the unsinning victim is regarded as a sinner in the sense of being a sin bearer,” and that he never intended to convey literal sin bearing or substitution. See his “Defense,” page 29–30, and further that whatever Christ did must be understood to be for us not instead of us.

17.—We find brother Strickler to be in all respects a firm believer in all the truths recited in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, without reservation, and that he repudiates all accusations against him of being a believer in Free Life or Clean Flesh or Substitution.

18.—We respectfully submit to our brethren everywhere the above as covering all the fundamental truths involved in the present divergence of views concerning brother Strickler, and that they be accepted as fitting assurance on his behalf, and so let this be the end of the strife.

( Signed ) George Waite .

Edwin Hill .

I have read and approved of the above.

( Signed ) Allen D. Strickler .

Buffalo, August 20 th , 1923.

[This correspondence is closed.— Ed. , C .]