Bro H. P. Mansfield is responding to a booklet “An Appeal to Troubled Brethren” written by bro Phil Barnard (son of bro P. O. Barnard) of the Concord West Eccelesia (Old Paths Fellowship) that distributed the booklet.

Logos Magazine, 1972, H. P. Mansfield

“An Appeal to Troubled Brethren”

We have been forwarded a booklet, with the above title, distributed by the Concord West Ecclesia (Old Paths Fellowship), which attempts to assess the cause of present disunity among Australian Ecclesias, and issues an appeal to those who are troubled, to seek a purer fellowship.

Among other things, the authors state that the Unity Book is not sufficiently explicit regarding doctrine, nor comprehensive enough concerning fellowship, and they believe that this is the cause of the present trouble. We do not agree with this. We believe that the trouble has been caused by the Ecclesias evading the implementation of the terms of the book, and by individuals claiming to accept its teaching whereas, in fact, they do not.

Let Ecclesias honour their solemn obligations in accordance with the requirements of this book, let individuals be honest in regard to their beliefs, and there would be an end to the trouble.

Is the Unity Book Adequate?

The author of the booklet referred to above takes issue with the Unity Book, on the grounds that the Carter-Cooper Addendum is inadequate. Similar accusations have been made to us personally by brethren who stand apart from the Central Fellowship, but who, on examination of the claim, reveal, either that they have not properly studied the Addendum, or else hold doctrinal views that are not in accordance with those generally accepted by the Brotherhood. In criticism of the Addendum, the booklet states.

"Disputed phrases include 'sin in the flesh' and 'defiled' (as applied to physical being). These form part of the BASF, but none appear in the Carter- Cooper Addendum. More seriously, the Carter - Cooper Addendum omits essential teaching conveyed by these words. It is therefore untrue to say that the Addendum states in simple straight language what these clauses (i.e. 5 and 12 — BASF) mean. A careful comparison of the Addendum with the BASF shows that the Addendum omits the following vital doctrines which are plainly expressed in the BASF 5 and 12: (1) — The defilement of Adam's nature (c.5). (2) — The physical defilement which through him passes upon all men (cl.5). (3) — The ‘condemnation of sin in the flesh’ through Jesus’ offering (cl.12).”

We do not agree with this. It should be recognised that the terms of unity, as stated in the book require:

“We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, WITHOUT RESERVATION, are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the BASF (with positive and negative clauses and the Commandments of Christ gives a true definition”.

Thus the Unity Book directs attention to the BASF, and the doctrines therein, including those referred to above. One cannot accept the unity basis without accepting the Statement of Faith, and it should be noted that it re- quires that the latter be accepted "without reservation." However, it does attach an explanation of Clauses 5 and 12 which reads as follows:

"We believe that Adam was made of the earth and declared to be very good; because of disobedience to God's law he was sentenced to return to the dust. He fell from his very good state and suffered the consequences of sin - shame, a defiled conscience and mortality. As his descendants, we partake of that mortality that came by sin and inherit a nature prone to sin. By our own actions we become sinners and stand in need of forgiveness of sins before we can be acceptable to God. Forgiveness and reconciliation God has provided by the offering of His son; that as Son of God he partook of the same nature — the same flesh and blood — as all of us, but did no sin. In his death he voluntarily declared God's righteousness; God was honored and the flesh shown to be by divine appointment rightly related to death. To share in God's forgiveness we must be united with Christ by baptism into his death, rising from baptism dead to the past to walk in newness of life. The form of baptism is a token of burial and of resurrection, and in sub- mitting to it we identify ourselves with the principles established in the death of Jesus 'who died unto sin', recognising that God is righteous in decree-ing that the wages of sin is death; and that as members of the race we are rightly related to a dispensation of death.

"In all His appointments God wills to be honored, sanctified and hallowed by all who approach unto Him. By His promises God sets before men a hope of life and a prospect of resuming those relationships that are lost by sin. With the setting forth of this hope there comes a new basis of responsibility. Times of ignorance God overlooks but with knowledge a man becomes an accountable and respon- sible creature with the obligation to believe and obey God."

We find nothing wrong with this. True, it does not specifically use the word "defiled," nor the phrase "the condemnation of sin in the flesh," for the simple reason that it has stated already that the doctrines "believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the BASF (with positive and negative clauses) gives a true definition," and these terms are found therein.

A nature that has inherited mortality (which it did not originally possess) and which has become "prone to sin," has obviously become "defiled" from its original "very good" state. We can acknowledge that it is "unclean" without going further and claiming that possessors of this fallen nature are alienated from God. It is true, also, that an acknowledgement of the "unclean" condition of human nature, and a repudiation of its lusts, are the requirements of God for acceptable worship, and are exemplified in the offering of the Lord, but in the absence of personal transgression, the Scriptures nowhere teach alienation by nature. To do so is to imply that in some way God holds us accountable for what Adam did, and so to lay the foundation for error, even if the error is not endorsed.

We believe that the book issued by the Concord Ecclesia is incorrect in such statements as the following:

"The Carter-Cooper Addendum represents an important concession as it restricts defilement to conscience" (p.6).

We fail to see how that anybody, fairly reading the Addendum, can come to such a conclusion, unless they see in the word "defiled" some different significance to what the BASF teaches. The clause in the Statement of Faith declares:

"Adam broke this law, and was............ sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken — a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity."

This, the Unity Book states, is part of that teaching which must be accepted "without reservation," in the light of the explanation given. Thus the Addendum states:

"Adam . . . . was sentenced to return to the dust. He fell from his very good state and suffered the consequences of sin - shame, a defiled conscience and mortality. As his desencendants, we partake of that mortality that came by sin and inherit a nature prone to sin"

Does not a "mortality that came by sin," and "a nature prone to sin," express a very real "fall" from the original "very good” state? Is not such a nature physically "defiled"?

How else can the Addendum be read? The booklet does not find this completely satisfactory because, we believe, it sees something more in the term "defilement" than the physical law of mortality and proneness to sin which we inherit in consequence of the fall of Adam. It defines "'defilement" as a state of alienation by nature.

But "defilement" and "alienation" are two different things. The former is a misfortune; the latter is a moral condition brought about by a fault. The former relates to "the law of sin and death which is in our members"; the latter comes about by giving way thereto. It is essential to acknowledge the former in order to correctly understand the true nature of flesh; but to claim that the latter is imposed upon us because of our physically defiled state that is our inheritance at birth, is to lay the foundation for widespread error if it is carried to its logical conclusion.

True it is that p.12 of this booklet, deprecates the teaching of the late Brother Andrew, listing one point of error as: "all men (including Christ) were — by descent from Adam — morally alienated from God at birth," but later it urges that alienation by birth does not apply to all humanity (p.15).

Indeed, we have had members of the Old Path's Fellowship express themselves in similar terms, in language which at least, is susceptible of misunderstanding.

Now, in the booklet before us, Concord takes a similar stand. It claims (pp.14-17) that there is a sense in which it is true to say that human nature alienates from God, though, at the same time, it quotes Brother Roberts as teaching that alienation "is a moral relation — not affirmable of an unconscious babe."

Of course alienation is a moral relation; it can mean nothing else. Therefore, to speak of alienation through nature, is to claim that God, in some way, holds us morally accountable for the fallen state that we inherit, and from which all (including Jesus) were or are in need of redemption. Christ's own sacrifice was an element in his personal redemption; whilst redemption, for us, requires that we recognise flesh for what it is (death-doomed and weak), that we embrace Christ in the way appointed, and that we elect to figuratively "crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Gal. 5:24).

But alienation is a moral relationship as Brother Roberts stated. Where, in Scripture, are we taught that we are alienated from God because of our nature? Concord replies:

"In this racial sense, newborn babes are, at birth, 'aliens from the common- wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12).'

But this reference relates to unconverted Gentiles. Was Jesus ever in the state defined in Ephesians 2:12? Remember, it is basic to the atonement, that we recognise that he was "made like unto his brethren' (Heb. 2:17), that as a representative sacrifice, what is affirmable to us by nature was shared by him. Was Jesus, at birth, "without hope and without God"? How can that possibly be said of "that holy thing born of thee" which shall be called "the Son of God"? We read of John the Baptist (and surely this applies equally to Jesus) that the Holy Spirit was with him "even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15); whilst of the Lord himself, it is written: "Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts" (Ps. 22:9). The overshadowing care of the Father was over the Son from his very birth, so that it cannot be said of him that he was in a state of alienation from God.

That he was of our nature is clearly affirmed; that that nature fell from its original "very good" state is obvious; that "the flesh profits nothing," Jesus himself proclaimed. That he obtained his own redemption from this fallen human nature through his own offering is specifically stated in Hebrews 9:12; 13:20, and elsewhere.

But that he was alienated from the Father, is not in accordance with the truth.

Why did Jesus have to die? Because, as the Addendum states, the "flesh is by divine appointment righty related to death”. Why did God demand sacrifice (culminating in the Lord’s own offering) as the appointed medium of approach? Because, as a basis of acceptable worship, man must recognise that God can only be acceptably approached, when it is acknowledged that flesh is unclean in that it is prone to sin, and that its lusts must be put to death. Jesus witnessed to that fact in his own redemption. In common with all humanity he had to suppress the flesh in order to render complete obedience to God.

But alienation is a different matter entirely. The Bible teaches that alienation is by "ignorance" or by "wicked works" (Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21). Jesus was guilty of neither, and therefore was not "alienated" from his Father.

The Concord Ecclesia writes:

"Supporters of the Unity Book argue that in no sense does human nature alienate from God. Do they realise that they are postulating that newborn babes are 'at one' with the Father before either knowledge, belief or baptism?"

We put that question another way. Does Concord realise that by introducing the doctrine of alienation by nature, it is teaching that Jesus was in such a state at birth? Could it then tell us when reconciliation was made: at circumcision, at baptism, or at crucifixion? If the first, then, at that early stage, he was reconciled "before either knowledge, belief or baptism"; if at baptism, how could the Lord style God as "my Father" at the age of 13; if at crucifixion, on what grounds could he declare, "I and the Father are one," before his death upon the cross?

We mention all three stages, because we have had all three stages claimed as the time at which reconciliation was affected!

The booklet quotes Brother Roberts as supporting the claim of alienation by nature, thus:

"That we do not pass entirely out of Adam into Christ at baptism is a self-evident fact when two things are realised: our physical connection with Adam: the physical nature of Christ. The Christ we are baptised unto is a glorified Christ: baptism does not give us his glory, yet will lead to our getting it. The nature we have received from Adam is a mortal nature: baptism does not deliver us from this nature, yet it will lead to our being delivered."

Concord has emphasised the word entirely as though this is the main import of Brother Roberts' comment. But it is not so emphasised in the original article. Brother Roberts is not saying that a believer passes out of Adam into Christ at baptism, but that baptism commences a process that can lead to that consummation at the Judgment Seat. On p.242 of the same issue, he makes this abundantly clear, and points out that many who are baptised will be rejected in the day of judgment, showing that baptism did not take them out of Adam. If "alienation" is a physical principle, how can baptism effect any change? Brother Roberts was at pains to point that out, and in doing so made a comment in the very paragraph which Brother Barnard has quoted, and which reads as follows: 'These are themselves 'first principles' and not statements 'seriously affecting first principles'."

In other words, he believed that the rejection of the doctrine of alienation as set forth then was "a first principle.' On p.439 of the same volume of The Christadelphian, Brother Roberts wrote:

"Brother Andrew's vague technicalities are responsible for some things which he now uses as stumbling blocks, 'alienation' and 'anger', for example, as applied to babes. "Alienation by wicked works', or 'alienation through ignorance', is the style of the apostolic usage where that phrase is concerned, and I naturally could not allow that such a definition could be applicable to a babe who had and could do no wicked works. But I did not therefore mean that a babe does not inherit the sentence of death from Adam, or that it is not made of that sinful flesh whose motions Paul himself found so troublesome, and which is the common stock of hereditary human nature. Let the several parts of truth be allowed for, and there will be no ground for the laboured effort made by brother Andrew to try and make out contradiction where there is none. I have never contended or said that 'Adam's descendants do not come under condemnation until they individually commit sin'. They inherit the sentence of death passed upon Adam, and are in that sense 'condemned already'; but this is an affair of physical inheritance; an affair of nature made mortal by condemnation    The difficulty begins when unscriptural statements are made and ideas imported into the situation that stultify reason, such as being 'held guilty of Adam's sin', 'Adam's sin imputed to his posterity', 'children of wrath at birth', etc. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven 'against all unrighteousness of men’ and not against misfortune."

Alienation being a moral and not a physical state, those who claim that we are alienated by nature at birth, virtually must accept responsibility for the error that the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants.

Page 17 of this booklet claims:

"There is scriptural proof that the condemned nature of the believer receives sacrificial purification through the blood of Christ  Having been buried into His death, they also partake of that purification by blood."

But, in fact, "condemned nature" remains exactly the same after as before baptism. It is surely just as "unclean" as before, because, as Brother Barnard agrees, the "defilement" or "uncleanness" is physical not moral, and once baptised, the believer must set about conquering it in the strength that comes from Yahweh. If alienation is also a physical principle (as Concord implies) it too remains the same after baptism, because baptism effects no physical change; therefore purification has not been effected.

Concord sees the point of this reasoning and attempts to meet it. It writes:

"It may be objected by some that this could not be so because baptism does not accomplish a physical change in our nature. True! But the same objection can be said of the forgiveness of sins in baptism. The physical consequences of sins committed before baptism remain. A drunkard whose organs have been damaged by his indulgence prior to baptism has the same damaged organs after baptism, although his immorality has been forgiven."

This is extremely poor reasoning, which could lead to dangerous error. The sins forgiven at baptism are very real, and their removal very complete: so that there is a purification of sin. If there was a purification of nature at the same time, there should be a removal of that in our nature which defiles or causes alienation! Baptism completely blots out past sins in that they are completely for given and will never again be brought up against the candidate for eternal life; and, at the same time, it changes our relationship with God. Previously "alienated from God through wicked works," the believer, through baptism, is "brought nigh by the blood of Christ," by which he becomes identified with him.

But what are we to make of the statement of Brother Roberts, quoted on p.18 of this book as follows:

"That burnt offering should be required in the absence of particular offence shows that our unclean state as the death-doomed children of Adam itself unfits us for approach to the Deity apart from the recognition and acknowledge of which the burnt offering was the form required and supplied."

Did Brother Roberts mean by this that man is alienated by nature? By no means, as the quotation from The Christadelphian quoted above clearly shows. What does the comment of Brother Roberts relate to? The reference is to the burnt offering, not the sin offering. The burnt offering represented a person totally dedicated to Divine use, utterly consumed in God's service. This is only possible when flesh is recognised for what it is (sin-proned and death-doomed, and so constituted that it will inevitably lead us astray and so deliver us into a state of alienation from God), when we put to death its sin proned propensities, and so live that the service rendered ascends as "a sweet savour" unto the Almighty (2 Cor. 2:14-16; Eph. 5:2). As Brother Roberts goes on to say in The Law of Moses.

"It was a beautiful requirement of the wisdom of God in the beginning of things that He should require an act of worship that typified the repudiation of sinful nature as the basis of divine fellowship and acceptability.'"'

That was accomplished by the offering of the Lord Jesus, and the reason why it is possible to say that he offered both for himself as those he came to save. But to claim that it was for alienation through nature is to destroy the beauty of the symbolism and the act.

It has been asked: Does God look with favour on the fallen state of flesh? The answer is, No; but He does not hold anybody accountable because they have inherited it. As Brother Thomas wrote: “It is our misfortune not our fault” that we possess sinful flesh. If a child is born with a serious deformity, do the parents treat it as an alien, and demand that it make restitution because of what he inherited? By no means; they would be considered quite unjust if they did so. They hate the deformity, but they love their child, and will co-operate with it to overcome the problem. But what, if that child when it comes to years of responsibility, refuses to submit to treatment? Will not the parents justly become impatient with it, and recognise that now it is to blame for what previously was not its responsibility? So it is with God and humanity. He has manifested Himself in love towards His creation, even in spite of the physical deformity which it has inherited as the result of the sin of the original couple, and will help any to overcome that in their nature which is distasteful both to Him and to them.

We Agree

Commenting on matters of fellowship, Brother Barnard writes:

"Those brethren in the Reunion who have endeavoured to isolate some of the error extant have not met with much co-operation. Some ecclesias insist on fellowshipping those who hold error. This has caused thoughtful brethren to examine the doctrine of fellowship . . . "

We agree with this assessment of the trouble. In 1958, when unity was established, Ecclesias made a solemn pact between one another, and before Almighty God, to refuse fellowship to any in their midst who did not endorse the basis of fellowship then laid down.

This has not been carried out. In the most flagrant manner, fellowship has been extended to those who have persistently refused to endorse the teaching agreed upon, and, moreover, who have proclaimed their right and determination to teach the error to others. For example, some years ago, a brother resigned from his ecclesia because he firmly believed that there is no future for the nation of Israel in the purpose of God, that no mortals will be found in the Kingdom when it is set up, that the BASF proclaims "blasphemy," and that the teaching of E. Brady expresses the truth of the Atonement. Another Ecclesia approached him and offered fellowship. At first he declined on the grounds that he could not accept the BASF. He was told that this was not necessary, and invited to fellowship with the Ecclesia, which invitation was accepted.

This case, which can be documented, is typical of others that have been resisted by brethren who consider that the word they gave in1958 is solemnly binding, and are determined to carry it out. They are not extremists, and are prepared to discuss these matters with any who should have an honest doubt; but they believe that the unity agreement should be carried out or abandoned. They are not prepared to live a lie, which they would be forced to do if they extended fellowship to such as the case mentioned above. In their appeal that the Unity Book be implemented, they have not met with co-operation by some Ecclesias, though others have done so. The result has been severance of relationships with some Ecclesias, and unless a halt is called, this could spread to open division. They do not want this; but they feel that to abdicate a position of doctrinal integrity at this stage would be to jeopardise their standing before Christ. This they are not prepared to do. May God guide and strengthen us all in these troublous times, and may the coming of His son be soon that his infallible wisdom and his undoubted authority may bring complete understanding and peace.

— H.P.M.