Website Article

“The B.A.S.F. and The Australian Unity Agreement”

The Central Position on the Atonement in the B.A.S.F.

In 1939 and 1940, bro John Carter wrote what is known as “The Time to Heal” articles, which were a restatement of the historic Central position on the doctrines on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F.

The special significance of the “Time to Heal” articles and the supporting articles referred to in them, is that they demonstrate a consistent position on the doctrines on the Atonement by the Central fellowship since the time of bro Robert Roberts as defined in the B.A.S.F.

The two articles by bro John Carter known as the “Time to Heal” articles are;

• “The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ” The Christadelphian, May 1939

• “A Time to Heal” The Christadelphian, December 1940

Bro John Carter wrote these articles to overcome the confusion caused by bro A.D. Strickler’s Clean Flesh teachings that had led to division, in an attempt to effect reunion. The "Time to Heal" articles by bro John Carter in 1939 and 1940 precipitated the reunion of a number of Berean ecclesias with the Central fellowship.

“Some ecclesias in the U.S.A. for some years have been separated from the ecclesias represented by The Christadelphian because of doubts about the teaching of a brother now deceased, and of the attitude of ecclesias to the question of fellowship. The publication of the recent articles on the disputed subject has awakened hopes of a possible reunion of the ecclesias divided on this matter, and already some reunion has been effected.” (The Christadelphian, December 1940)

During the 1940’s there were further discussions between Central and the remaining Berean ecclesias culminating in the Jersey City Resolutions of 1952. 

In 1937, bro John Carter had started the process by reprinting bro Roberts synopsis of the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” as a “restatement of our position … for the double reason that they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references” These are discussed in more detail further on.

“Other correspondence from the U.S.A., Canada, and Australia indicates the need for restatement of our position on the subject of the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ. We therefore reprint some words and propositions of brother Roberts, for the double reason that they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references.” (The Christadelphian, December 1937)

In 1939, bro John Carter further restated the historic Central position on the doctrines on the Atonement that at the time, had “been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”.

“During the last eighteen months we have drawn attention to what we believe to be the true teaching of the Bible on these subjects (The Christadelphian, 1937, p. 552 (The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ); 1938, pp. 127 (Sin, Sins and Sin-Offering), 173 (The Reign of Death). These doctrines have been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, which is in use in the majority of ecclesias, in the following clauses:—

IV.  That the first man was Adam, whom God created out of the dust of the ground as a living soul, or natural body of life “very good” in kind and condition, and placed him under a law through which continuance of life was contingent on obedience.

V.   That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and 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.

VI.  That God, in His kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals.

VII. That He inaugurated this plan by making promises to Adam, Abraham and David, and afterwards elaborated it in greater detail through the prophets.

VIII.  That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, 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.

IX.  That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God.

X.   That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in the flesh—yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal men, being made of a woman, of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam’s transgression, including the death that passed upon all men, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature.

The statement of the principle underlying the sacrifice of Christ in “The Statement of Faith” is elaborated in the pamphlet The Blood of Christ, which, in our judgment, sets out the truth on this subject.” (The Christadelphian, May 1939)

Bro John Carter illustrated “the true teaching of the Bible on these subjects” by the Scriptural exposition in bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” because “they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references”, and in “The Blood of Christ” which elaborates “the principle underlying the sacrifice of Christ”.

He also referred to two editorials he wrote at the time, one of which was written in 1938 “Sin, Sins and Sin-Offering” to defend his use of bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” against some of the Clean Flesh persuasion who expressed their disagreement with it. He explained that “the synopsis by brother Roberts was plainly written and well supported by Scripture, and was chosen for these reasons”.

“In The Christadelphian of December (1937) last we reprinted some words written by brother Roberts on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.” This was done to set forth once more the teaching of the Bible on a subject upon which there has always been some confusion of thought. The subject is at the heart of most religious controversies, and this is true in connection with the history of the Truth in the last days. The synopsis by brother Roberts was plainly written and well supported by Scripture, and was chosen for these reasons. But we are now exhorted by correspondents, who apparently do not agree with this synopsis, to go back to Dr. Thomas. But a series of propositions which are demonstrated by Scripture quotations takes us back to the final authority on the matter.” (The Christadelphian, March 1938)

While the Central position on the Atonement is defined in clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F., it is not a creed or an authoritative document in itself. Bro John Carter always stressed that it was the teaching of the Scriptures was the authority in doctrine and morals and that the B.A.S.F. served as a definition of this Scriptural teaching only.

“The Statement of Faith is a necessary definition of our Faith, but behind it is the divine Scripture as the ultimate seat of authority in matters of doctrine and of morals.” (The Christadelphian, November 1958)

In the Time to Heal article of 1940 he said;

“It might be objected by some that the Statement has ambiguities, or that it might be expressed more clearly in other language. We agree that it has the limitations of human expression, but we believe it to be an honest and capable attempt to set out the essential truths of Bible teaching. The author’s meaning is well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-day. A sympathetic supporter of truth will say, “We know what is meant and we agree with that. … Any such form of words will make some small demand on the goodwill of the reader.” (The Christadelphian, December 1940)

Bro John Carter used “articles and in books” by the author of the B.A.S.F. to illustrate his meaning on the Scriptural teachings it defines. This was to elaborate the meaning and intent of the clauses on the Atonement in the B.A.S.F. as the Central position on the Atonement.

For example in 1938, after quoting some extracts from bro John Thomas as Scriptural exposition on the Atonement, he said that “his concern is to get the teaching of the Scriptures”.

“Our concern is to get the teaching of the Scriptures; this, we believe, is faithfully given in the extracts quoted. …

The truth on these matters has been before the Brotherhood for two generations in the following clauses from the Birmingham (Central) Statement of Faith:—

V.—That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and 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.

VIII.—That God’s promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, 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.

The literature of the Truth has maintained this teaching. For the sake of those who would examine the subject further we recommend: The Blood of Christ (the best exposition of the subject, in our judgment), The Atonement (which collects the passages which bear on the subject), and articles contributed to The Christadelphian by W.J.Y., ni 1913, p. 531; 1915, p. 106 (Sin and Sin-Offering); 1915, p. 343 (Condemnation of Sin); 1921, p. 489 (Made to Be Sin On Our Behalf); 1922, p. 310 (Original Sin in Jesus).” (The Christadelphian, March 1938)

Bro John Carter used “the literature of the Truth” to elaborate the Scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. as the Central position on the Atonement. In 1947 bro John Carter again referred to the literature of the Truth that maintained the teaching of the B.A.S.F.

“Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

These “certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937” are bro Roberts synopsis of the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” written in 1896 to oppose the Clean Flesh teachings of bro George Cornish whom he met in Melbourne. These were the precursor to the Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell that would cause division in 1904, only eight years later.

Bro Robert Roberts wrote his synopsis on the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” one year after he wrote “The Blood of Christ” and two years before he wrote “The Law of Moses”.

These “articles and in books” illustrate “the author’s meaning” of the Scriptural teaching in the clauses of the B.A.S.F. on the Atonement. They represent the mature well reasoned understanding on the Atonement by bro Robert Roberts toward the end of his life after defending the Truth from the extremes of error.

Bro Roberts synopsis of the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” is also known as “The Melbourne Synopsis”. It was a key pillar that bro John Carter referred to multiple times in his restatement of the Central position on the Atonement.

The Melbourne Synopsis

The relevance of this synopsis by bro Robert Roberts referred to in the 1939 Time to Heal article, is that it addresses very similar Clean Flesh errors to those of bro A. D. Strickler that had caused the division in America that the Time to Heal articles were intended to help resolve.

In the “Time to Heal” articles bro John Carter connected the Renunciationist Clean Flesh errors of bro Edward Turney and the teachings of bro George Cornish in Melbourne with the teachings of bro A.D. Strickler which “revived” this “in certain of its aspects in recent teaching in America”. 

"This contention [i.e. Renuniationist Clean Flesh], 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)

When announcing the death of bro A. D. Strickler, bro John Carter specifically referred to bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ”, amongst other articles, to “indicate the attitude of this Magazine on the doctrines in dispute”. His stated objective in doing so was “to maintain the teaching of The Statement of Faith, in opposition to the doubts on these subjects which have been put forward.”

“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, 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.” (The Christadelphian, February 1939)

Bro John Carter referred to this synopsis multiple times to set out “what we believe to be the true teaching of the Bible on these subjects” and that “these doctrines have been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”.

“During the last eighteen months we have drawn attention to what we believe to be the true teaching of the Bible on these subjects (The Christadelphian, 1937, p. 552 (The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ); 1938, pp. 127 (Sin, Sins and Sin-Offering), 173 (The Reign of Death). These doctrines have been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, which is in use in the majority of ecclesias, in the following clauses:—” [B.A.S.F. clauses 4-10] (The Christadelphian, May 1939)

Bro John Carter used bro Roberts’ synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” as a key pillar in clarifying the meaning and intent of clauses 4-12 on the Atonement in the B.A.S.F. in his restatement of the Central position on the Atonement.

“Other correspondence from the U.S.A., Canada, and Australia indicates the need for restatement of our position on the subject of the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ. We therefore reprint some words and propositions of brother Roberts, for the double reason that they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references.

In Australia brother Roberts met a man named George Cornish who was trying to subvert the brethren on these matters. Brother Roberts describes the teaching of Cornish, and comments as follows:

“It is a plausible theory to the effect that we do not inherit death from Adam by any physical law, but merely by denial of access to the tree of life; that the sentence of death took no effect on Adam’s body, and therefore is not in ours: that, in fact, we are the ‘very good’ and uncursed Adamic nature that God formed from the ground in the first case; that our nature is not an unclean and sinful nature; that there is no such thing as sin in the flesh, or sinful flesh, or ‘sin that dwelleth in us.’

“Having sought to establish such a very good case for human nature, it easily opens the door for a Christ of immaculate nature, notwithstanding its having to admit that he was made in all things like to his brethren, and partook of their identical nature. It is the old doctrine of Renunciationism in a new form. It is worse than Renunciationism. Renunciationism, while denying Christ as the bearer of sin for its abolition through death and resurrection, did at least admit that the race was under condemnation. But this ‘ism’ denies the very first fact of the gospel testimony, that ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death hath passed upon all men.’ By denying this, it denies the death of Christ in its testified character as God’s appointed method of taking away the sin of the world. It declares that ‘Christ died because he was killed,’ in destruction of the gospel testimony that ‘he gave his life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); laid down his life for the sheep (John 10:15); put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:26); offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, by which he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:12–14), through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (5:10).

“It reaches these disastrous results through the apparently harmless idea that the body of Adam was unaffected by the sentence of death, and that therefore Jesus was pure and holy and good in body as well as in character. Those who are young in the faith are easily carried away by a theory that appears to honour Christ. A maturer acquaintance with the scriptures, and especially with the shadowings of the entire Mosaic economy, will show them that in this particular it honours him at the expense of his work as the sin-bearer. It pleases inexperience to hear that Christ’s nature was ‘undefiled’ in the days of his flesh, but it is the pleasure of sentiment as opposed to truth. If the pleasure of sentiment is to guide us, we may as well go on to say that he was strong, in face of the testimony that he was weak (2 Cor. 13:4; John 4:6); glad, in face of the testimony that he was a man of sorrows (Isa. 53:3); beautiful, in face of the testimony that he had no form or comeliness (verse 2); immortal, in face of the testimony that he had to be saved from death (Heb. 5:7), and had to obtain eternal salvation.”

The dispute led brother Roberts to draw up the following synopsis:—

The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.

1.—That death entered the world of mankind by Adam’s disobedience. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). “In (by or through) Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). “Through the offence of one many are dead” (Rom. 5:15).

2.—That death came by decree extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence. “God made man in his own image . . . a living soul (a body of life) . . . very good” (Gen. 1:27: 2:7: 1:31). “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife . . . unto dust shall thou return” (Gen. 3:17, 19).

3.—Since that time, death has been a bodily law.—“The body is dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10). “The law of sin in my members . . . the body of this death” (Rom. 7:23, 24). “This mortal . . . we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened” (1 Cor. 15:53; 2 Cor. 5:4). “Having the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead” (2 Cor. 1:9).

4.—The human body is therefore a body of death requiring redemption.—“Waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). “He shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his own glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24). “This mortal (body) must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53).

5.—That the flesh resulting from the condemnation of human nature to death because of sin, has no good in itself, but requires to be illuminated from the outside.—“In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18). “Sin dwelleth in me” (Rom. 7:20). “The law of sin which is in my members” (7:23). “Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of Lights” (James 1:17). “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts” (Matt. 15:19). “He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). “Put off the old man which is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22).

6.—That God’s method for the return of sinful man to favour required and appointed the putting to death of man’s condemned and evil nature in a representative man of spotless character, whom He should provide, to declare and uphold the righteousness of God, as the first condition of restoration, that He might be just while justifying the unjust who should believingly approach through him in humility, confession, and reformation.—“God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). “Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same, that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14), “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body to the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Rom. 6:6). “He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the World” (Jno. 16:33). “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).

7.—That the death of Christ was by God’s own appointment, and not by human accident, though brought about by human instrumentality.—“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). “Him being delivered by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). “Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:27). “No man taketh it—my life—from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (Jno. 10:18).

8.—That the death of Christ was not a mere martyrdom, but an element in the process of reconciliation.—“You that sometimes were alienated in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:21). “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by death of his Son” (Rom. 5:10). “He was wounded for our transgressions: He was bruised for our iniquity: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). “I lay down my life for my sheep” (Jno. 10:15). “Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh, let us draw near” (Heb. 10:20).

9.—That the shedding of his blood was essential for our salvation. “Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5:9). “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even for the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14). “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). “This is the new covenant in my blood, shed for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). “The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (Jno. 1:29). “Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5). “Have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14).

10.—That Christ was himself saved in the Redemption he wrought out for us. “In the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. Though he were a son, yet 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. 5:7–9). “Joint heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). “By his own blood he entered once unto the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). “Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect, etc.” (Heb. 13:20).

11.—That as the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that he should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented.—“And by reason hereof, he ought as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that said unto him, etc.” (Heb. 5:3). “Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer” (Heb. 8:3). “Through the Eternal Spirit, he offered himself without spot unto God” (Heb. 9:14). “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s: for this he did once when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens (that is, the symbols employed under the law), should be purified with these (Mosaic sacrifices), but the heavenly things themselves (that is, Christ who is the substance prefigured in the law), with better sacrifices than these” (that is, the sacrifice of Christ—Heb. 9:23).”. (The Christadelphian, December 1937)

Bro Robert’s synopsis of the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” is a key article used by bro John Carter in the 1939 Time to Heal article to clarify “the author’s meaning” of “the essential truths of Bible teaching” defined in the B.A.S.F. “for the double reason that they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references”.

The Time to Heal articles written by bro John Carter, and the “many articles … and books” he refers to in them, are a true and accurate interpretation of the B.A.S.F. that restate the historic Central position on the Atonement.

The “Ten Point Statement”

The Time to Heal article of 1940 also included a “Ten Point Statement” which was an appeal sent by the Berean Los Angeles ecclesia to Central ecclesias in America, the Birmingham Central ecclesia, and The Christadelphian magazine. This appeal sought assurances that the doctrines on the Atonement defined in the B.A.S.F. were being upheld in fellowship.

“It sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in 1923:

1. That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.

2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ never made any offering for himself.

3. That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurity only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that Christ needed cleansing.

4. That Christ died as a substitute; i.e., that he was punished for the transgressions of others and that he became a bearer of sin by suffering the punishment due for sins.

In six items the truth is set forth:

1. That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.

2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.

3. That the word “sin” is used in two principal acceptations in the scriptures. It signifies in the first place “the transgression of law”, and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death and resolution to dust.

4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned nature.

5. That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him.

6. That the doctrine of substitution, i.e., that a righteous man can, by suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty of his sin, is foreign to scripture and is a dogma of heathen mythology.”

("A Time to Heal" The Christadelphian, December 1940)

In 1940, bro John Carter endorsed the “Ten Point Statement” and reiterated acceptance of the B.A.S.F. without reservation, as did the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central ecclesia. They did so based on the interpretation of the B.A.S.F. bro John Carter outlined using “many articles and … books in active circulation to-day” to clarify “the author’s meaning”, especially bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ”.

“We willingly declare again our attitude as Editor of The Christadelphian, in the hope of helping forward the present effort for reunion. We believe the Statement of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be maintained.

The six statements, acceptance of which is asked, are from the following sources:

(1) is quoted in The Christadelphian, 1937, page 553; (2) is the fifth proposition of the Statement of Faith; (3) is from Elpis Israel; (5) is from bro. Roberts in The Christadelphian, 1873, page 468; No 83 (4) and (6) are statements of fact.

We have no doubt that the Central ecclesia will frankly indicate its position. We do not doubt ecclesias in Great Britain are doctrinally sound on this issue. We join in the appeal that ecclesias in Canada and U.S.A. should willingly re-affirm their position if by so doing this division can be healed. It is a time for doing all possible to remove misunderstanding, and so bringing union where there is oneness of mind”.

It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”. ("A Time to Heal" The Christadelphian, December 1940)

The "Ten Point Statement" of the Time to Heal article of 1940 was not included in the Jersey City Resolutions of 1952 because it was not unanimously accepted by every Central ecclesia. Ten out of the twelve Central ecclesias accepted the "Ten Point Statement" but the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias would not accept it.

The Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias represented an extreme position in America that supported the Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler. They opposed the teachings of the Berean ecclesias because they went to an opposite extreme in opposing the errors of bro A. D. Strickler and had swung towards the views of bro J. J. Andrew.

Both extreme positions misused quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to impose their own false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. in support of their position. These two extreme positions have plagued the brotherhood in Australia and America with controversy ever since.

The significance of the “Time to Heal” articles is not in the “Ten Point Statement” of the Time to Heal article of 1940 but in bro John Carter’s restatement of the historic Central position on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F. in the 1939 Time to Heal article. This is the true and correct interpretation of the Scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. which is demonstrated by a consistency with the “author’s meaning (which) is well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-day”.

Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding the “Ten Point Statement” has detracted from the importance and significance of bro John Carter’s restatement of the Central position in the “Time to Heal” articles, yet it is echoed in all of his writings and addresses as “what we believe to be the true teaching of the Bible on these subjects”.

The true balance of the historical Central position on the Atonement that bro John Carter restated in the Time to Heal article of 1939 has been overshadowed by the controversy of brethren going to extremes in opposing error.

False Interpretations Imposed Upon the B.A.S.F. in America

These two extremes became evident during the discussions between the Central and Berean ecclesias in the 1940’s. In 1947 the Philadelphia Central ecclesia distributed a circular “which quotes at length with approval a circular from Buffalo, in which is set forth the position of these two ecclesias with regard to certain clauses of the Statement of Faith”.

The Philadelphia and Buffalo Central ecclesias supported the teachings of bro A. D. Strickler that had caused the division between Central and Berean ecclesias in the 1920's, see Allan Strickler's Error. It was the Buffalo ecclesia that had retained bro A. D. Strickler in fellowship.

The Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesia imposed an interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. that accommodated the erroneous Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler based on selectively quoting bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

Bro John Carter responded to this circular in The Christadelphian, September 1947 and questioned the Buffalo and Philadelphia ecclesia's acceptance of the B.A.S.F., "The interpretation which is being imposed upon the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith by the Philadelphia circular is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts."

“BUFFALO AND PHILADELPHIA.—We have received a circular of May 10, 1947, from Philadelphia, which quotes at length with approval a circular from Buffalo, in which is set forth the position of these two ecclesias with regard to certain clauses of the Statement of Faith. While claiming “unswerving loyalty and belief” of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, the circular defines that belief by reference to a selection of extracts from the writings of brethren Thomas (1855) [“Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall”, The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1855] and Roberts (1869) [“The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin and Death”, The Christadelphian March 1869]. We have withheld Intelligence, but have written these ecclesias giving bro. Roberts’ own explanation in 1877 (reproduced in The Christadelphian, Nov., 1944, page 127) of the article of 1869, from which it is evident a meaning is being attached to his words quoted in the circular that he did not intend. Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia. Of one of these theories to which he was opposed he wrote: “it is a plausible theory to the effect that we do not inherit death from Adam by any physical law, but merely by denial of access to the tree of life; that the sentence of death took no effect on Adam’s body, and therefore is not in ours: that, in fact, we are the ‘very good’ and uncursed Adamic nature that God formed from the ground in the first case; that our nature is not an unclean and sinful nature; that there is no such thing as sin in the flesh, or sinful flesh, or ‘sin that dwelleth in us’.” (Refer to “The Nature and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ” John Carter, The Christadelphian December 1937)

With regard to the extract quoted from Dr. Thomas in support of the Buffalo interpretation of the Statement, we have given them several citations from his works written before, at the time, and after the extract, which give the general teaching of Dr. Thomas in harmony with which his words in their quotation must be understood. We have also added several citations from other writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts; and have invited the two ecclesias to say if they accept the Clauses of the Statement as meaning the same as the teaching in the extracts quoted to them. The interpretation which is being imposed upon the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith by the Philadelphia circular is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts. We are prepared to interpret the Statement by the pamphlet The Blood of Christ in which, in our judgment, there is a clear exposition of the Scriptures on this subject of man’s nature and Christ’s sacrifice in relation thereto. (Ed.)” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

While claiming to accept the B.A.S.F., the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias defined “that belief by reference to a selection of extracts from the writings of brethren Thomas (1855) and Roberts (1869)” in which they misrepresented their teachings to impose their own interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. This position followed bro A. D. Strickler’s Clean Flesh teachings.

“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.” (“Letter from A. D. Strickler”, The Christadelphian, April 1926)

Bro A. D. Strickler even wrote a pamphlet called “A Defence of Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts” in which he tried to justify his misrepresentation of their teachings. This was commented on by bro B. J. Dowling writing to bro C. C. Walker.

“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 principles of Truth set forth in the pamphlets, The Slain Lamb and The Blood of Christ and also in your July editorial, [i.e. Christ the Firstfruits] have been upheld as you say, “from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated, and should not be now.”” (The Christadelphian, September 1921)

Regarding the quote from bro John Thomas that the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias used, bro John Carter said, “With regard to the extract quoted from Dr. Thomas in support of the Buffalo interpretation of the Statement, we have given them several citations from his works written before, at the time, and after the extract, which give the general teaching of Dr. Thomas in harmony with which his words in their quotation must be understood”.

Regarding their quote from bro Robert Roberts of 1869, bro John Carter said, “it is evident a meaning is being attached to his words quoted in the circular that he did not intend”. In 1944, bro John Carter had addressed a similar misrepresentation of this article by bro Robert Roberts.

“A man has a right to explain what he meant and to admit the obscurity in his terms; but if we want to quote him, we must quote what he says he meant.” (The Christadelphian, November 1944)

The Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias had seized upon two articles that were obscure to portray bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts as supporting the interpretation they imposed onto the B.A.S.F., despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary consistently found in their other writings.

Bro John Carter questioned their claim to accept the B.A.S.F. that they defined by their “reference to a selection of extracts from the writings of brethren Thomas (1855) and Roberts (1869)”

"The interpretation which is being imposed upon the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith by the Philadelphia circular is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts." (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

Bro John Carter provided evidence of what bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts really meant from the general teaching their writings to the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias, and then challenged them to accept the B.A.S.F. “as meaning the same as the teaching in the extracts quoted to them”.

“With regard to the extract quoted from Dr. Thomas in support of the Buffalo interpretation of the Statement, we have given them several citations from his works written before, at the time, and after the extract, which give the general teaching of Dr. Thomas in harmony with which his words in their quotation must be understood. We have also added several citations from other writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts; and have invited the two ecclesias to say if they accept the Clauses of the Statement as meaning the same as the teaching in the extracts quoted to them.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

The citations from the writings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts that bro John Carter used to illustrate the teaching defined in the BASF are not specified, but in the same article bro John Carter had illustrated the consistency of bro Robert Roberts writings on the Atonement, which included his synopsis on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ”.

“Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

Bro John Carter was very clear as to how the clauses in the B.A.S.F. that define the beliefs on the Atonement should be clarified and understood from the writings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts. This was exactly the historic Central position on the Atonement that he had restated in the Time to Heal articles.

The synopsis by bro Robert Roberts in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” was a key element in this restatement by bro John Carter of the historic Central position on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F. It specifically opposes the same Clean Flesh errors of bro A. D. Strickler and bro John Bell.

After bro John Carter reprinted the synopsis by bro Robert Roberts in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” in 1937, it was challenged by supporters of the Clean Flesh error who disagreed with it. They selectively quoted bro John Thomas in support of their contention, but bro John Carter demonstrated a consistency of Scriptural teaching by bro John Thomas.

“In The Christadelphian of December (ie, 1937) last we reprinted some words written by brother Roberts on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.” This was done to set forth once more the teaching of the Bible on a subject upon which there has always been some confusion of thought. The subject is at the heart of most religious controversies, and this is true in connection with the history of the Truth in the last days. The synopsis by brother Roberts was plainly written and well supported by Scripture, and was chosen for these reasons. But we are now exhorted by correspondents, who apparently do not agree with this synopsis, to go back to Dr. Thomas. But a series of propositions which are demonstrated by Scripture quotations takes us back to the final authority on the matter. All that is true in the writings of Dr. Thomas is based on the Word of God, and he would be the first to say, Prove all things by the Scriptures. But what has he to say on the nature of man and Christ’s relationship to that nature? … (The Christadelphian, March 1938)

After quoting bro John Thomas to prove what he meant from his consistent writings, bro John Carter then says;

“It is possible that having now quoted Dr. Thomas someone will write to say he wrote something else which differs or appears to differ from what we read in Elpis Israel. It may or may not be so. But the issue is not whether he wrote on one occasion that which contradicted what he had written elsewhere. Our concern is to get the teaching of the Scriptures; this, we believe, is faithfully given in the extracts quoted. …

The truth on these matters has been before the Brotherhood for two generations in the following clauses from the Birmingham (Central) Statement of Faith:—

V.—That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and 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.

VIII.—That God’s promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, 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.

The literature of the Truth has maintained this teaching. For the sake of those who would examine the subject further we recommend: The Blood of Christ (the best exposition of the subject, in our judgment), The Atonement (which collects the passages which bear on the subject), and articles contributed to The Christadelphian by W.J.Y., ni 1913, p. 531; 1915, p. 106 (Sin and Sin-Offering); 1915, p. 343 (Condemnation of Sin); 1921, p. 489 (Made to Be Sin On Our Behalf); 1922, p. 310 (Original Sin in Jesus).” (The Christadelphian, March 1938)

Bro John Carter did not quote the pioneers as an authority to support his own interpretation imposed on the B.A.S.F. His concern was “to get to the teaching of the Scriptures” from the expositions of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts. This is the basis for the Scriptural teachings that are defined in the B.A.S.F.

Supporters of the Clean Flesh error have a penchant for selectively quoting the writings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts on the Atonement to misrepresent their teachings. They also misrepresent bro John Thomas and bro Rober Roberts as disagreeing with each other, and that bro Robert Roberts changed his beliefs over time.

But the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias were not the only brethren imposing an interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. that “is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts”.

As bro John Carter observed, “… in every controversy for the last eighty years, both sides have quoted Dr. Thomas, and in the 1890’s Bro. Roberts’ earlier writings were quoted against himself despite his denial of the inferences which were drawn from his earlier writings.” (“Reference to Pioneer Writings” Unity Book p72, The Christadelphian, November 1958)

The Berean ecclesias also misused quotations from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to impose an interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. that “is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts”.

In the very same month, bro John Carter had to challenge the extreme of the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesia’s for the false interpretation they imposed on the B.A.S.F. in support of the Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler, he also pointed out the opposite extreme of the Berean brethren in swinging towards the teachings of bro J. J. Andrew.

“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”. (“A Further Important Message to All Christadelphians” bro John Carter, September 1947)

These two extremes were paralleled in Australia and had significant effects on the Australian reunion between the Central and Shield ecclesias in 1958. The Shield ecclesias had held the extreme Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell since 1904, which were very similar to the Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler. Some brethren in the Australian Central ecclesias went to the same extreme as the Berean brethren in opposing the Shield Clean Flesh error in the 1930’s to the 1950’s.

False Interpretations Imposed Upon the B.A.S.F. in Australia

The division between the Central and Shield ecclesias in 1904 was caused by the Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell, who was the editor of The Shield magazine. Both the Central and Shield ecclesias accepted the B.A.S.F. but they differed in the interpretation of clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F.

One particular point of contention was the use of the word “defiled” in clause 5 of the B.A.S.F. In 1904 the Shield brethren sought to impose their false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. by substituting the word “defiled” with the word” degraded”. This seemingly minor change disguised serious doctrinal error on the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ.

This is mentioned in a paper by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) issued in 1987 that supports the extreme Shield position.

“In response to the need for more formal organisation, many Australian ecclesias began the process of adopting the Birmingham Statement of Faith as their basis of fellowship, some substituting the word “degraded” in Clause 5 for the original “defiled”. This seems to have been the trigger point which led to increasingly vehement expressions of divergent viewpoints with CF and the refusal of CF to fellowship “Shield” brethren. …

The greater proportion of Australian ecclesias supported the reasoning behind the word change (although the change of wording was eventually dropped). “The Shield” was blamed as the chief influence for disagreement on the original wording and from 1904 may be dated the public debate between UK and Australia [ie Shield Fellowship] on the issue.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

Ecclesial Correspondence at the time reported by the Albert Hall, 413 Elizabeth Street, Central ecclesia provides further perspective on this change of wording to clause 5 of the B.A.S.F. after it was dropped.

“[The I.O.O.F. Temple, Elizabeth Street, Shield ecclesia] … have accepted the Birmingham Statement of Faith, saying that they will put their own construction upon the 5th clause.” (The Christadelphian, December 1904)

In June 1905 the I.O.O.F. Temple, Elizabeth Street, Shield ecclesia defended their position in correspondence to The Christadelphian magazine. While stating that the B.A.S.F. is in force in the ecclesia, they contradict that by discussing the alteration they made to clause 5 and their opposition to some of its terms and statements.

“… have to advise that the Birmingham (Amended) Statement of Faith was adopted at a meeting of the whole ecclesia called prior to the division, and a large proportion of those who have left us were present and voted for the motion for its adoption; and the said statement is now in force in the ecclesia, and agreed to by every member of this body.

In regard to the alteration in clause 5 of the Statement of Faith in the year 1900 we also deny that this was made in a “mysterious” way—the matter of amendment was brought forward at meetings of a committee of twenty brethren appointed “to revise the constitution and statement of faith,” and formed the subject of correspondence with other ecclesias, and was brought before the ecclesia in the report of the committee, and adopted by a ballot vote of the ecclesia three years prior to the amalgamation. (The Christadelphian, June 1905)

Bro C. C. Walker noted the contradictions in this declaration by the I.O.O.F. Temple, Elizabeth Street, Shield ecclesia that they had adopted the B.A.S.F. They gave assent to the B.A.S.F. but only by the false interpretation they imposed on it.

“There was the fact of an unskilful modification of a proposition in the Statement of Faith. And there was the argument running in the Shield. …

As to the Statement of Faith we may say frankly that we cannot reconcile the declaration that it is “agreed to by every member of the body” with brother Bell’s strenuous arguments in the Shield against some of its terms, particularly the definition of physical defilement to which Adam became subject by transgression.” (The Christadelphian, June 1905)

Like the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias, “while claiming “unswerving loyalty and belief” of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith” the I.O.O.F. Temple, Elizabeth Street, Shield ecclesia defined “that belief by reference to a selection of extracts from the writings of brethren Thomas and Roberts” which they used to misrepresent their general teachings.

The serious error of the Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell and their misuse of quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts was reported by the Central Albert Hall, 413 Elizabeth Street ecclesia.

“The heresies mentioned consisted principally of the following items:—

1, Adam was created mortal; the sentence passed upon him did not defile Adam, nor did it introduce any physical law into his being;

2, There is no sin in the flesh. Man is not a dying creature in his normal condition; his flesh becomes sinful only through his individual act of transgression;

3, The Lord Jesus, having never sinned, had a body of flesh and blood that was pure and clean; he was undefiled in every sense; having kept the law, he could claim everlasting life without dying; he died not for himself, but manifested his love to us by giving his, purchased by the law, life for us. …

… cunning craftiness of these men to show how badly our late esteemed brethren Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts contradict themselves and each other in their writings. About a fortnight after we had withdrawn from them, they also adopted the Birmingham Statement of Faith (which, in the disputed details, does not express their views.—Ed. C.),” (The Christadelphian, January 1905)

The Shield ecclesias gave assent to the B.A.S.F. but only by imposing their false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. Like the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias, they misused quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts in a way that "is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts".

They misrepresented the writings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts as being contradictory, and that they taught different things at different times. Bro Robert Roberts is portrayed as having changed his mind and gone to an extreme in his later life.

The A.C.C. paper justifies this misrepresentation of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts, even raising the discredited allegations of literary fraud against bro C. C. Walker, which he rebuffed in "Alleged Literary Fraud and Tampering" The Christadelphian, June 1906.

“Bro. Harvey published a booklet “Dr. Thomas and the Mortality of Man” in which he showed that Bro. Thomas’ earlier writings had supported the “Shield’ position on this subject. Bro. Roberts’ earlier writings had done so too, but Bro. Harvey claimed that, later, Bro. Roberts changed his mind. …

Earlier Bro. Bell had discovered that in reprinting some of Bro. Thomas’ works some of the text had been altered. The first amended reprints had not been marked with footnotes where amended. The alterations had disguised the differences with Bro. Roberts’ later opinions and suppressed the parallels between Bro. Thomas and the Australian position [ie Shield position]. The combination of these circumstances with the writings of Bro. Harvey reflected adversely on the UK position. …

In Australia, a small group of ecclesias that had been in fellowship with CF in UK had opposed the “Shield” ecclesias with extremes of the later Robertsian views.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

This contrasts sharply with the observation of bro John Carter who harmonised the writings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to understand the consistency of their general teaching. He did this with the Philadelphia and Buffalo ecclesias who likewise misrepresented the teachings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

“Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia. …

With regard to the extract quoted from Dr. Thomas in support of the Buffalo interpretation of the Statement, we have given them several citations from his works written before, at the time, and after the extract, which give the general teaching of Dr. Thomas in harmony with which his words in their quotation must be understood. We have also added several citations from other writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts; and have invited the two ecclesias to say if they accept the Clauses of the Statement as meaning the same as the teaching in the extracts quoted to them.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

Note how bro John Carter uses the so-called “extremes of the later Robertsian views” to illustrate bro Robert Roberts’ “constant attitude … from the time of the Reninciationist controversy”.

As reported by the Albert Hall, 413 Elizabeth Street, Central ecclesia in The Christadelphian, 1904 the Shield brethren “accepted the Birmingham Statement of Faith, saying that they will put their own construction upon the 5th clause.” The false interpretation they imposed upon the B.A.S.F. is documented by the A.C.C. in their paper.

“It is important to note that this characteristic Australian position on the effects of sin upon human nature and the relation of Jesus to such effects has been strongly maintained until the present day within the Unity Agreement. This historic and persistent Australian ecclesia view, with a number of related subjects such as no physical change after the sentence in Eden, the possibility of all men being sinless as was Jesus (but never attaining it), was a consistent feature of articles in “The Shield”. …

From these sources it is clear that a consistent, well-argued, Scriptural position had been developed which differed from the CF [Central Fellowship] dogma. Shield brethren maintained

1. no physical change arising out of the fall in Eden

2. mortal flesh is “not given to sin”

3. evil in human beings is not inevitable nor is it impossible for “sinful flesh” to keep the law

4. defilement is of character and not physical

Further it is clear that the editor John Bell was supported in these points of view by, a variety of authors including Bre.A.J. Webb, R.Irving, J.B.Watson, A.E.Harvey.

“The Shield” noted that the B.S.F. had been amended several times by the Birmingham ecclesia including the replacement of a phrase describing God as having “implanted” a principle in human nature, by a less offending one, demonstrating that the biasing of human nature by such a description was too much for some, even in the UK. In Bro. Bell’s view the B.A.S.F, was still faulty and Christadelphian beliefs should only be expressed in Biblical words and phrases. (In 1938, some 8 years after his death, a Sydney conference adopted an amended Clause 5 which omitted the word “defiled”.) While the “Shield” brethren recognised a difference in beliefs with CF, they maintained that these differences were not a bar to fellowship.

The unaltered position of the Australian [Shield] brethren can be demonstrated by a number of booklets written over a period from 1938 to 1945 by Bre.A.E.Harvey and J.B.Watson on subjects such as the atonement, mortality of man and the nature of Christ.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

The “unaltered position” of the Shield ecclesias they maintained is opposed to the historic Central position on the Atonement as restated by bro John Carter. These views were identified as error on essential doctrine by respected brethren in Central such as bro C. C. Walker and bro John Carter. The authors mentioned above who supported bro John Bell in his views are well known advocates of Shield Clean Flesh error.

By the 1950’s many Shield ecclesias had come to accept the historic Central position on the Atonement because of the influence of The Logos magazine, but others still held the Shield Clean Flesh error and supported it in fellowship.

In 1953, the Central and Shield ecclesias agreed on the Victorian Basis for Union and Unity which supported the historic Central position on the Atonement as restated by bro John Carter. This created the impetus for wider discussions throughout Australia on reunion between Central and Shield ecclesias. Bro Carter referred to the circumstances surrounding the Victorian Basis for Union and Fellowship in The Christadelphian, May 1956.

“For fifty years there have been two groups of ecclesias in Australia. The division arose out of the teaching of the first Editor of The Shield, and the name of the magazine has been used to define the group of ecclesias. …

But the Shield brethren can help. Most of them meet on the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. The Victoria agreement bases fellowship on the acceptance of the truths therein set out, and the refusal of fellowship to any who do not. Those ecclesias, both Shield and Central, who have subscribed to the Victoria basis, are in a position where they must seek, as their own agreement in fact requires, to clarify the position with regard to those Shield ecclesias against which the charges of holding wrong doctrine are made. If the charges are correct, then the Shield ecclesias have a duty to set matters right. If the charges are not correct then let the fact be established. That there is need for something to be done we believe many Shield brethren recognize. The Editor of The Shield has virtually called for it. If there are one or two perverse men whose voices create discord and make division, then the Scriptures tell us what our duty is (Rom. 16:17, 18). A splendid opportunity is before the Shield ecclesias to remove stumbling blocks; a fine opportunity is before the Central ecclesias to meet such action by a willing response.” (The Christadelphian, May 1956

The Victoria agreement required the Victorian ecclesias “to clarify the position with regard to those Shield ecclesias against which the charges of holding wrong doctrine are made.” Bro John Carter was clear that “if the charges are correct, then the Shield ecclesias have a duty to set matters right”.

Bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper were also clear in a letter they sent to a conference of Shield ecclesias in Adelaide, that the continued presence of brethren in the Shield fellowship who held the teachings of bro John Bell were an obstacle to reunion between the Central and Shield ecclesias.

“Unity is a unity of faith, however, and that involves agreement on essentials. Here perhaps we may be permitted to speak plainly. In our efforts to seek unity and peace in Great Britain brethren abroad have reminded us in various ways of the problems that exist in other lands where there are extensions of the troubles here, aggravated by their own local differences. The citations of utterances such as that the Statement of Faith contains blasphemous assertions, by brethren in Australia who are still retained in association, create great difficulties for us. If we have a duty to avoid putting any stumbling block in your path, is not the duty reciprocal and should not you seek to remove grave hindrances to unity, either by so instructing your members that you can happily declare there is oneness of Faith, or by removing from your association, sad though it may be to have to do it, the teacher of error. “Purge out the old leaven” is apostolic counsel. …

“If the Lord could hold against a first century ecclesia that they held a doctrine which he hated, or suffered those who held such a doctrine, we see how seriously he views some things. Surely none of us would adopt a position where He would have to say it of us. As, therefore, we hear reports of vocal protagonists of things which are not believed amongst us, making also stout charges against things we do believe, might we ask you to help us either by removing those brethren who make discord and division by their words, or by showing (after enquiry) that the charges made against them are not true. We feel sure that by so doing you will greatly help the cause of truth throughout the world and the work of peace in ecclesias of your land and of ours.” (Unity Book p8, The Christadelphian, July 1956)

The Victorian Basis for Unity and Fellowship used the "Time to Heal" articles as an explanation and interpretation of clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F.

“It is accepted that, should the need arise for a further elaboration of clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith”, the “Time to Heal” articles shall be deemed quite satisfactory for the purpose.” (Basis for Union and Fellowship in Victoria 1953. The Christadelphian, May 1956). Refer to the Time to Heal articles ("The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ" 1939 and "A Time to Heal" 1940).

The "Basis for Union and Fellowship" agreed by the Victorian ecclesias in 1953 was endorsed by bro John Carter as it upheld the B.A.S.F. as the basis for reunion. The “Time to Heal” articles it referenced as an explanation of clauses 4-12 was bro John Carter’s restatement of the historic Central position on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F.

However, many of the Shield ecclesias outside of Victoria rejected the Victorian Basis for Union and Fellowship because it used the “Time to Heal” articles as an explanation of clauses 4-12 in the B.A.S.F.

The main reason for this was because of the “Ten Point Statement” in the Time to Heal article of 1940. They felt that the language of the “Ten Point Statement” resembled the language of bro Andrews teachings, despite the fact that the six items that set forth the truth are quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts, as bro John Carter noted.

“The six statements, acceptance of which is asked, are from the following sources:

(1) is quoted in The Christadelphian, 1937, page 553; (2) is the fifth proposition of the Statement of Faith; (3) is from Elpis Israel; (5) is from bro. Roberts in The Christadelphian, 1873, page 468; No 83 (4) and (6) are statements of fact.” (The Christadelphian, November 1944)

The language of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts and the B.A.S.F. in no way resembles the language of bro Andrew’s teachings. After all, it was bro Robert Roberts who opposed the teachings of bro J. J. Andrews. These quotes from the writings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts are the language of the truth, and bro John Carter used them at times to clarify the intended meaning of the B.A.S.F. as the historic Central position on the Atonement.

These quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts express the historic Central position on the Atonement in the context of their intended meaning, but the Berean brethren had misused these quotes to misrepresent the teachings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to impose their own false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. They had swung towards the teachings of bro J. J. Andrew, in the opposite extreme of the Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler they opposed.

In Australia, some of the Central brethren had gone to the same extreme as the Berean brethren in opposing the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell, and had imposed a false interpretation on the B.A.S.F. in line with the Berean view.

In particular, bro P. O. Barnard was the main advocate for these ideas. He belonged to the Concord ecclesia in Sydney which was formerly the Petersham ecclesia that had been associated with the Berean ecclesias over the teachings of bro A. D. Strickler. The Petersham ecclesia rejoined the Central fellowship in 1940 as a result of the “Time to Heal “ article 1939 [refer to The Christadelphian, June 1939 and The Christadelphian, December 1940].

The misuse of these quotes of bro Thomas and bro Roberts by some Central brethren in Australia led to sensitivites towards the Time to Heal articles, which is was why many Shield ecclesias did not accept them as “a further elaboration of clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith” in the "Victorian Basis for Union and Fellowship".

“Now perhaps we should put the issue plainly. The Concord ecclesia was at one time in Central fellowship; then separated and we believe was associated with the Berean group; but again resumed fellowship about 1940 with Central ecclesias. Over the years a series of pamphlets and circulars have emanated from a bro. P. O. Barnard, of Concord, sometimes with the endorsement of the ecclesia, but at other times on his own responsibility. A feature of the “Berean” fellowship has been a leaning towards the teaching of J. J. Andrew which was controverted in the 1890’s; not, be it said, to his views on resurrectional responsibility, but to those doctrines of condemnation and inherited sin and alienation which were the basis upon which he built the denial of resurrectional responsibility. This tendency was evident years ago in the U.S.A. and was pointed out in a “Message to all Christadelphians” which was sent to a conference convened in October, 1947, when Detroit was chosen as the meeting place. In that Message we sought to meet some questions to which answers were demanded by a brother in the Berean group and who has again separated himself since reunion in England. In our reply we showed there was not only identity of thought but identity of language with that of J. J. Andrew. The same doctrinal outlook is discernible in the teaching of bro. Barnard and those who support him.

There are doubtless brethren with bro. P. O. Barnard who know little of these issues but who have been imbued with the idea of doctrinal unsoundness on the part of those who do not subscribe to bro. Barnard’s teaching, and something should be said for their sakes. In all contentions extremes tend to beget extremes and some utterances by Shield brethren have doubtless been provoked by this teaching and must be looked at in this context. Again and again we found that brethren thought the B.A.S.F. had to be interpreted in the way Concord ecclesia taught. After patient enquiry it was evident that the Shield ecclesias were more representative of Central position than either Concord or Brisbane (Elizabeth Street) so far as the latter can be judged by the statements of their arranging brethren.” (The Christadelphian, July 1958)

In 1958 bro John Carter challenged bro P. O. Barnard for misusing quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to impose a false interpretation on the B.A.S.F. in line with the Berean extreme. Bro John Carter demonstrated this by a series of quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts that correctly demonstrated their consistent teachings

“What then of his [ie bro P.O. Barnard’s] quotations from Dr. Thomas and Bro Roberts? The answer is that in every controversy for the last eighty years, both sides have quoted Dr. Thomas, and in the 1890’s Bro. Roberts’ earlier writings were quoted against himself despite his denial of the inferences which were drawn from his earlier writings. …

The extracts quoted above [from bro Thomas and bro Roberts] are clear: they were written to refute the very ideas now being imposed as the correct interpretation of the STATEMENT OF FAITH, and which it would appear are being endorsed by the ‘minority’ in Great Britain, who have separated with the cry of purity of doctrine, and now espouse old errors which have twice been overthrown.” (“Reference to Pioneer Writings” Unity Book p72, The Christadelphian, November 1958)

Bro John Carter recognised from the writings of bro P. O. Barnard that he was propounding the same extremes of the Berean fellowship that swung towards the teachings of bro J. J. Andrew.

“Last month we reported on the reunion efforts in Australia, and pointed out that in the cross currents and agitations there, ideas had been put forward by certain brethren which were as far astray one way as ideas they were opposing were the other. As we pointed out last month, we have long recognized the tendency on the part of some “Berean” brethren to swing towards the doctrines of the late J. J. Andrew; and the same can be recognized in the contentions of some in Australia. We will now examine some of these contentions, which have been dogmatically but, in our judgment, mistakenly advanced as representing the views of the Central fellowship. …

This brings the matter to a focus. We mentioned in The Christadelphian, 1957, page 311, the similarity between the teaching of brethren P. O. Barnard and J. J. Andrew.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958)

With the Time to Heal articles rejected as an interpretation of clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F. another explanation of these clauses was needed.

The Reunion Committee of Great Britain wrote to the recording brethren of all Australian ecclesia endorsing the Victoria basis, which included the “Time to Heal” articles as an explanation of clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F., but they also suggested “the addendum to the Carter-Cooper letter” “in which they set out … what they believe was intended by these Clauses” may also be accepted as a statement as a basis for reunion.

“The basis which the ecclesias in Victoria agreed upon was published in The Christadelphian for May, 1956 (page 189). ... The particular issues with you have been caused by contentions concerning the subjects set out in Clauses 5–12 of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. It was for this reason that brethren Carter and Cooper included an addendum to their letter in which they set out (without the use of those clichés which have become war-worn shibboleths in this contention) what they believe was intended by these Clauses. We do not favour additions to the B.A.S.F.; nor are explanations and definitions very desirable. But when division exists a re-statement such as the Final Statement has its uses as a basis for Reunion.

We understand that most of The Shield ecclesias already use the B.A.S.F. … The fact that so many ecclesias in Australia of both fellowships already recognize this Statement of Faith as the basis of their fellowship should surely be of great help in promoting reunion in Australia.

This letter is an appeal to all Central and Shield ecclesias to decide whether the proposals put forward in Victoria can be accepted elsewhere, or failing that, some other Statement be drawn up to which ecclesias could subscribe. It may be that a simple endorsement of the B.A.S.F. coupled with the addendum to the Carter-Cooper letter, or some equivalent, together with a clause defining fellowship (cf. Clause 2 of the Final Statement) would prove all-sufficient.” (The Christadelphian, June 1957)

The Reunion Committee of Great Britain obviously regarded the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) as an equivalent explanation of the B.A.S.F. to the “Time to Heal” articles that expressed the same views on the Scriptural doctrines of the Atonement. Afterall, they were both authored by bro John Carter and set out what he believed was intended by these clauses.

When writing about “The Ecclesial Situation in Australia” in 1972, bro Alfred Nicholls explained that the interpretation of the B.A.S.F. had been in dispute and that the resolution to the interpretation of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. was the introduction of the Carter Cooper Addendum (C.C.A.) by bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper. He makes it clear that the C.C.A. explanation was in line with the historic Central position on the Atonement as the B.A.S.F. had always been understood throughout the world.

“During the 1950’s there was a movement towards reunion of the “Shield” and “Central” groups which Brother John Carter, by his expositions of the doctrine of the Atonement, both in The Christadelphian and on his visit in 1958, helped to fruition. The way had been prepared by what is now known as the Carter-Cooper Addendum, a joint statement of belief by the brethren named in explanation of the Atonement Clauses (5–12) in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith of which the interpretation had been in dispute. The doctrinal part of the Unity Basis in Australia became the B.A.S.F. with these explanatory clauses, and is in line with the common belief of the Central Fellowship throughout the world.” (The Christadelphian, Sep 1972)

Bro Alfred Nicholls made it clear that the C.C.A. was a “statement of belief” by bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper “in explanation of the Atonement Clauses (5–12) in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”. He said that the “B.A.S.F. with these explanatory clauses, … is in line with the common belief of the Central Fellowship throughout the world” as it had historically been understood. Bro John Carter explained and clarifed this “by his expositions of the doctrine of the Atonement, both in The Christadelphian and on his visit in 1958”.

Clearly the C.C.A. was intended by bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper to interpret the B.A.S.F. in line with the historic Central position on the Atonement in the same way as the “Time to Heal” articles did, at the exclusion of the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell.

Little did bro John Carter realise that soon after the reunion in Australia, the Shield brethren who supported the Shield Clean Flesh error would misuse the C.C.A. to impose a false interpretation on the B.A.S.F. to allow the Shield Clean Flesh view in fellowship alongside the historic Central view.

These Shield brethren also rejected the Time to Heal articles as “a further elaboration of clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith” because the Time to Heal article of 1939 refers to bro Roberts’ synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” which directly opposes the precursor to their Shield Clean Flesh error. They could not accept the historic Central position on the Atonement as an interpretation of the B.A.S.F.

Misusing the C.C.A. to Impose a False Interpretation Upon the B.A.S.F.

These Shield ecclesias were able to accept the Unity Agreement because they used the C.C.A. to impose an interpretation upon clauses 4-12 in the B.A.S.F. to allow for two views on the Atonement in fellowship, to include the Shield Clean Flesh view.

This view that the C.C.A. changed the interpretation of the B.A.S.F. from how it had been historically understood in Central, to allow two views on the Atonement in fellowship that had always opposed each other, is stated by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) in 1987.

“Both brethren visited Australia separately to come to grips with the reasons behind the Australian objections to some of the expressions of the BASF. The solution proposed was not the alteration of the wording of the BASF but an addendum by which the disputed passages might be understood taking into account the Australian [i.e. Shield Clean Flesh] point of view. There was no requirement to believe that a physical change took place in Eden resulting from the first sin. The Carter/Cooper Addendum statement that human nature is “prone to sin” did not exclude the belief that flesh was not inevitably “given to sin”.

Disputed phrases such as “a sentence which defiles” and “condemned nature” were to be understood in harmony with the Cooper/Carter Addendum. There were to be no implications read into, or restrictions of belief applied beyond, that stated. On this basis, the “Shield” ecclesias accepted the Unity Agreement and fellowship was re-established with CF in the UK. …

The special significance of the Cooper/Carter Addendum becomes apparent when it is placed alongside the historical doctrinal arguments of Australian Christadelphians since 1903, especially when the relevance of the present fellowship difficulties of Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills is noted. No renunciation of the propositions of John Bell, J.B.Watson, A.J.Webb or A.E.Harvey were called for, required or given. Many of the assertions about fellowship and salvation levelled by those who opposed the “Shield” brethren were set aside. What seemed to be opposing points of view affecting fellowship between UK and Australia were replaced as far as fellowship was concerned with a memorandum of understanding to which all parties agreed. The acceptance of this understanding replaced the previous criteria for fellowship.

The relevance of this historical data to the present problems of fellowship of the Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills ecclesias will be apparent.

The purpose of this document is to examine what has been said in the past concerning the perceived requirements for fellowship as they have unfolded in the past 80 years. It is the view of the A.C.C, from its awareness of the doctrinal positions of the Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills ecclesias that their fellowship positions conform with the Unity Agreement.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

It should be noted that at the time the A.C.C issued this paper in 1987, the Petrie Tce and Beverly Hills ecclesias had been withdrawn from by many Australian ecclesias for tolerating in fellowship the erroneous doctrines of Shield Clean Flesh and holy spirit possession respectively.

The A.C.C. make the point that the Shield position on the Atonement “has been strongly maintained until the present day within the Unity Agreement” with the four main tenets of its teachings.

“It is important to note that this characteristic Australian position on the effects of sin upon human nature and the relation of Jesus to such effects has been strongly maintained until the present day within the Unity Agreement. This historic and persistent Australian ecclesia view, with a number of related subjects such as no physical change after the sentence in Eden, the possibility of all men being sinless as was Jesus (but never attaining it), was a consistent feature of articles in “The Shield”. …

From these sources it is clear that a consistent, well-argued, Scriptural position had been developed which differed from the CF [Central Fellowship] dogma. Shield brethren maintained

1. no physical change arising out of the fall in Eden

2. mortal flesh is “not given to sin”

3. evil in human beings is not inevitable nor is it impossible for “sinful flesh” to keep the law

4. defilement is of character and not physical ” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

This has become evident with the acceptance in fellowship by a number of ecclesias of brethren that believe in Theistic Evolution that has recently emerged, which shares some common beliefs with Shield Clean Flesh.

For example, the Halifax St ecclesia in Adelaide has justified its fellowship of brethren who believe in Shield Clean Flesh errors that are in common with Theistic Evolution.

“1)    Adam's nature was mortal and biased to sin (like current humans) before the fall;

2)    There was no change in Adam's nature as a consequence of his transgression;

3)    Contemporary evolved humans were coexisting with Adam and Eve at creation, and

4)    Not all humans have descended from Adam …

Adelaide Ecclesia maintains that it is possible for someone believing any one or more of those things to still credibly and validly assent to the Unity Agreement and all its constituent parts. …

We acknowledge that there has been a diversity of views on the 4 points raised by Salisbury held by respected brethren, past and present, over many decades. (Adelaide says) this was demonstrated in the handout presented to Salisbury (i.e. the 14-page document it tabled at the meeting) and therefore Adelaide Ecclesia confines its insistence for fellowship to the words of the Unity Agreement,” (Statement of Outcomes: Adelaide Salisbury Meeting, 2020)

They could only do this on the premise that the B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the C.C.A. was a "memorandum of understanding" between "two opposing views that replaced the previous criteria for fellowship" to allow the Shield Clean Flesh view in fellowship.

The Halifax St ecclesia misues quotes from “respected brethren” including bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts in a vain attempt to portray a diversity of views in the Central position on the doctrines listed. This 14 page document the Halifax St ecclesia produced is nothing more than a collection of selective and vague quotes.

In the history of the Central fellowship from the time of Bro Roberts there was never any diversity of views on these points by any respected brother, nor was any diversity on these views allowed in fellowship. Respected brethren in the Central fellowship have always opposed these points as false doctrine not to be fellowshipped for many decades, as can be amply demonstrated.

The Halifax St ecclesia even use the quote from bro Robert Roberts of 1869 which the Phialdelphia and Buffalo ecclesias used. Bro John Carter gave them “bro. Roberts’ own explanation in 1877 (reproduced in The Christadelphian, Nov., 1944, page 127) of his article of 1869, from which it is evident a meaning is being attached to his words … that he did not intend”. Bro John Carter’s comments were “if we want to quote him, we must quote what he says he meant”.

The Halifax St ecclesia went on to criticise the “Reaffirmation Statement Concerning Creation and the Fall of Man” issued by the Inter-Ecclesial Advisory Committee in 2016 for “misrepresentation of the Statement of Faith” by “an insistence the BASF & CCA be understood with a particular explanation” in opposing these doctrines in common with Theistic Evolution.

“Of particular concern to the Adelaide Ecclesia in the current environment is an insistence the BASF & CCA be understood with a particular explanation …

Further to this concern is the misrepresentation of the Statement of Faith

.The explanation under that heading says “..teaches that the sentence passed upon Adam due to his disobedience ‘became a physical law of his being’ so that ‘he fell from his very good state’.” The serious misrepresentation here is the joining of the two statements with the expression “so that”. By co-joining the two statements the impression given is cause and effect, however in the BASF & Addendum the clauses are not stated as cause and effect.

BASF clause 5 simply states “…a sentence that defiled and became a physical law of his being…”. In the addendum the statement that directly relates to the sentence is “..he was sentenced to return to the dust”, not the expression “fell from his very good state”. …

Considering the Addendum was crafted to resolve the differing views on what was meant by “physical law of his being” and by extension the meaning of “very good state”, any misrepresentations or changing in emphasis of these elements of the Unity Agreement are distortions of the intent.

In a further misrepresentation, the Reaffirmation Statement adopts a position with respect to the state of man before the fall commenting; “We reaffirm that Adam’s transgression brought about both a sentence of death (resulting in a change in the condition of his nature to become a dying creature) and a proneness to sin.”

This statement flies directly in the face of advice by brother Roberts on this very consideration of Adam’s nature as it related to death when he wrote;

"Uncertain Detail —Would he have died if left alone, unchanged, in that state if he had not sinned? Who can tell? The testimony is that death came by sin: but the fact also is that, not being a spiritual body, he was presumably not immortal. Are we going to insist upon an opinion on a point like this, which no man can be certain about? We shall act unwarrantably if we do so. It is sufficient if a man believe that Adam after creation was a very good form of flesh and blood, untainted by curse. The uncertain points must be left to private judgment”. (“An Appeal to member Ecclesias of the IEAC”, October 2019)

The Halifax St ecclesia try to give credibility to their charge of a "misrepresentation of the Statement of Faith" by misusing a quote from bro Rober Roberts in an attempt to portray him as leaving this open as an uncertain detail on which a diversity of views can be held. This clearly flies in the face of his other writings, especially his synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” and his comments that accompanied it.

It is the Halifax St ecclesia that misrepresents the Statement of Faith and the “interpretation which is being imposed upon the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith” by them “is contrary to that understood by others, and contrary to all other statements on the subject in all the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts”.

The false interpretation imposed on the Unity Agreement, (which incorporates the B.A.S.F.), that it is “a memorandum of understanding” that “replaced the previous criteria for fellowship” to accommodate “opposing points of view affecting fellowship” was the cause of continued division for 30 years after the reunion of 1958.

The issue of brethren holding Shield Clean Flesh error in fellowship was not resolved by the Australian Unity Agreement. Opposition to the Shield Clean Flesh error in Australia led to the formation of another extreme within Central that imposed their own false interpretation onto the B.A.S.F. similar to the Berean position in swinging towards the errors of bro J. J. Andrews.

In 1988, bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant were invited to Australia to help resolve this division. Their report in The Christadelphian, April 1988 referred to these two extremes.

“Thirty years ago Brother John Carter, a former Editor of The Christadelphian, was invited to Australia to render assistance in framing the basis upon which reunion between Shield and Central Ecclesias was achieved. The good work which Brother Carter was blessed to be able to perform has been respected by all who have enjoyed the fruits of his labours.

Consequently, during the ensuing period the Unity agreement itself has rarely been challenged, but unhappily the perfect accord and true fellowship which might have been expected have been enjoyed only in a few parts of the country. Over the years two major groups of ecclesias (not identifiable with the fellowships which were reunited) have been formed in most of the states. Association between the groups has been minimal and at times an unChristlike spirit has been evident between them. …

Nevertheless, it is now commonly admitted that within the last two decades, each group has hardened into a polarised position. This originally arose from a disagreement on how to address doctrinal problems.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

The Petrie Terrace ecclesia in Brisbane, which is specifically referenced by the A.C.C. in their paper and is on record as having rejected the “Time to Heal” articles, was a notable example of an ecclesia that had continued to justify Shield Clean Flesh in fellowship.

In their report, bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant refer to the Shield Clean Flesh error as being the root cause of continued division.

“In Queensland in particular, doctrinal errors on the nature of man and of the Lord Jesus Christ have for many years been the cause of great concern and breach of relationship. Some brethren have propounded an unacceptable doctrine of the nature of Christ, suggesting that it did not contain the proneness to sin common to all men. Other brethren, in countering these views, have suggested that in his work the Lord Jesus had to atone for his nature. …

“There is a serious irony in the fact that the different groups claim assent to the same Unity agreement, but have no real unity in practice. The saddest fact of all is that the doctrinal problems which have existed concern the central doctrine of the gospel of truth—the Atonement. It is a paradox that there should be division over a doctrine which concerns reconciliation. …” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

Bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant commented on the false interpretations being imposed on the B.A.S.F which involved the toleration in fellowship of the Shield Clean Flesh error and those who went to the other extreme in opposing it.

“Extreme views on the implementation and import of the Unity agreement have not assisted the cause of unity. Some brethren have wished to apply it too rigidly, others have wished to reduce its intended impact. For example, it has been insisted that the Statement of Faith is “only a man made document” and therefore is flexible in the doctrines to be accepted. Another view is that the agreement demands acceptance of every word in the Statement of Faith “without reservation”. Both of these attitudes are wrong.

It is not correct to speak of the Statement of Faith disparagingly as merely a “man made document”. It is not a correct definition anyway because it has been framed by brethren, but the attitude displays a serious misunderstanding of the summary of the Scriptural teachings which has bound together brethren throughout the world. However, some brethren have gone so far as to suggest that the Unity agreement (which of course incorporates the Statement of Faith used by Christadelphians throughout the world) specifically allowed two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to be acceptable in fellowship. It is difficult to see how this understanding could have arisen. Furthermore, we believe this view seriously challenges the integrity of the brethren who were responsible for drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement. It is impossible to read the transcripts of the addresses given throughout Australia by Brother Carter when these subjects were under discussion and believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship. Significantly, two of these addresses are printed in the Unity booklet itself, thus showing the importance of this exposition in the process of reunion which took place in 1958.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

Indeed, it is difficult to understand how the idea arose that the Unity Agreement specifically allowed two views on the Atonement in fellowship. The Unity Agreement and the Unity Book are completely silent on any such notion that “what seemed to be opposing points of view affecting fellowship … were replaced as far as fellowship was concerned with a memorandum of understanding to which all parties agreed. The acceptance of this understanding replaced the previous criteria for fellowship”.

This interpretation has been imposed onto the Unity Agreement, (which incorporates the B.A.S.F.), by those who wish to retain the Shield Clean Flesh error in fellowship. Such an interpretation “seriously challenges the integrity of the brethren who were responsible for drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement” especially that of bro John Carter.

During their visit, bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant held meetings to clarify the meaning of the B.A.S.F. in harmony with the C.C.A. as these had “become subject to distortion”. The correct interpretation of the B.A.S.F. was expounded to reiterate how the various clauses in the Statement of faith “are understood by the worldwide brotherhood”.

“In each of the cities we visited formal meetings were also arranged for the benefit of brethren representing all the ecclesias in the local area. The purpose of the meetings was to emphasise the basis of fellowship which was prepared in 1958, to explain those provisions which have become subject to some distortion during the intervening years, and to expound various clauses in the Statement of Faith showing how they are understood by the worldwide brotherhood. …

Bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant pointed out that the C.C.A. was an explanation of the Scriptural doctrines “epitomised in the Statement of Faith … in different words” but fully consistent with the historic Central position on the Atonement “upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren”, especially bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

The Unity agreement also correctly states that it is the doctrines in the Scriptures of truth which are to be received and taught “without reservation”. These doctrines are those epitomised in the Statement of Faith and thus a framework of truth is provided on which baptismal interviews and fellowship discussions can be based. Australia has already provided a clear example of the fact that these doctrines can be adequately and helpfully expressed in different words. One of the significant factors in achieving agreement to the Unity basis in 1958 was the concise explanation of Clauses 5 & 12 of the Statement of Faith which is now known (after the brethren who drafted it) as the Cooper-Carter addendum. …

During our meetings it was shown how accurate in its definitions is each clause of the Statement of Faith, and how closely the clauses are interlinked, becoming dependant on each other in a remarkable way. The brethren were encouraged to re-examine this basis which confirms the doctrinal position upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren, and particular emphasis was placed on Clauses 4–12 which set out the crucially important teaching on the Atonement. …

In addition the Scriptures relating to the Statement of Faith were also expounded to show how accurately the Statement of Faith summarises the true teaching concerning the nature of man, of the Lord Jesus Christ and his sacrifice, and the unique wonder and importance of his begettal (i.e. his conception by the power of the Holy Spirit). It is to be deplored that, by pressing certain teachings on these exalted subjects—teachings which cannot be supported by Scripture, the faith of the average brother and sister has been disturbed or confused. We know that one thing which the Lord deplores is sowing “discord between brethren”, and we should examine ourselves closely lest it be true of us.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

Far from interpreting the B.A.S.F. to allow another view on the Atonement in fellowship, the C.C.A. explanation is fully consistent with the historic Central position on the Atonement defined in the B.A.S.F. It did so in different words while preserving “the doctrinal position upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren”.

This aligns completely with bro John Carter’s restatement of the Central position on the Atonement defined in the B.A.S.F. in the Time to Heal article of 1939 in which he said “These doctrines have been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”.

These doctrines have been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, which is in use in the majority of ecclesias, in the following clauses:—” [B.A.S.F. clauses 4-10] (The Christadelphian, May 1939)

This certainly did not include the Clean Flesh error, as bro Robert Roberts opposed the Renunciationist Clean Flesh teachings of bro Edward Turney and the teachings of bro George Cornish, which were the precursor to the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell.

Using the C.C.A. to Correctly Interpret the B.A.S.F.

It is important to note that the Cooper Carter Addendum provided by bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper was a statement of belief by them to explain clauses 5–12 of the B.A.S.F. “to state in simple, straight language what we think those clauses mean”.

“When it is necessary in the interests of definition of a disputed item of doctrine, sound, simple, clear language should be sought and the basic principles set forth. For example, Clauses 5 and 12 of the Statement have been much discussed and we are afraid the doctrines therein set out disputed. We attach an attempt to state in simple, straight language what we think those clauses mean. In addition, an address on these clauses was given at the Jersey City (U.S.A.) Conference four years ago by the request of the delegates, to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject. We understand that the recordings of this address have reached Australia and have been listened to by some among you.” (Unity Book p8, The Christadelphian, July 1956)

The Reunion Committee of Great Britain also described the Cooper Carter Addendum as an explanation of what bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper believe is the meaning that “was intended by these Clauses” 5-12 of the B.A.S.F.

“The particular issues with you have been caused by contentions concerning the subjects set out in Clauses 5–12 of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. It was for this reason that brethren Carter and Cooper included an addendum to their letter in which they set out (without the use of those clichés which have become war-worn shibboleths in this contention) what they believe was intended by these Clauses. …

We certainly think that the particular issues that have troubled the ecclesias in Australia have been aggravated by the technical elaboration of Clauses 5–12. Such elaborations if pursued with great fervour and intense feeling provoke opposition; extremes beget extremes; and the ecclesial atmosphere can become fogged by technicalities beyond the range and interest of most brethren and sisters.” (The Christadelphian, June 1957)

Extremes did beget extremes, so the true intended meaning of the C.C.A. as an explanation of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. must be understood in the context of what bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper believed. Addresses and articles by bro John Carter were provided to elaborate and clarify what they believed.

“We attach an attempt to state in simple, straight language what we think those clauses mean. In addition, an address on these clauses was given at the Jersey City (U.S.A.) Conference four years ago by the request of the delegates, to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject. We understand that the recordings of this address have reached Australia and have been listened to by some among you.” (Unity Book p8, The Christadelphian, July 1956)

As bro Alfred Nichols explained.

“During the 1950’s there was a movement towards reunion of the “Shield” and “Central” groups which Brother John Carter, by his expositions of the doctrine of the Atonement, both in The Christadelphian and on his visit in 1958, helped to fruition. The way had been prepared by what is now known as the Carter-Cooper Addendum, a joint statement of belief by the brethren named in explanation of the Atonement Clauses (5–12) in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith of which the interpretation had been in dispute. The doctrinal part of the Unity Basis in Australia became the B.A.S.F. with these explanatory clauses, and is in line with the common belief of the Central Fellowship throughout the world.” (The Christadelphian, Sep 1972)

As bro Michael Ashton wrote.

“It is impossible to read the transcripts of the addresses given throughout Australia by Brother Carter when these subjects were under discussion and believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship. Significantly, two of these addresses are printed in the Unity booklet itself, thus showing the importance of this exposition in the process of reunion which took place in 1958.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

The five articles in the Unity Book that discuss the Atonement written by bro John Carter amply clarify the intended meaning of the C.C.A. These are consistent with all the other writings of bro John Carter on the Atonement in which he upheld the historical Central view on the Atonement. Bro John Carter’s views on the Atonement are solidly based on the views of Bro Robert Roberts, “which confirms the doctrinal position upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren”.

Bro John Carter’s explanation in the C.C.A. did not allow for the Shield Clean Flesh error in fellowship as he was consistently opposed to it. The letter from bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper to the Adelaide Shield conference in 1956 made it clear that they regarded the Shield Clean Flesh error as an obstacle to reunion that needed to be removed.

“We mention this because it has already been said that we now advocate what is described as “clean flesh”. This is not true. Neither is it true that in opposing these theories of alienation we have changed our view. We studied the arguments by writers on both sides very carefully forty years ago: we saw then that bro. Roberts’ position was the scriptural one.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958)

Bro John Carter states that he did not change his view for forty years after he saw that bro Roberts position was the scriptural one. He remained balanced in his views and opposed both Clean Flesh and the Berean “theories of alienation”, neither of which he considered to be the scriptural position.

Bro John Carter’s expositions on these clauses on the Atonement in the B.A.S.F. was consistently based on the position of bro Robert Roberts for forty years “which confirms the doctrinal position upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren”. The Central position on the Atonement defined in the B.A.S.F. that bro Carter restates in The Time to Heal article of 1939 is exactly the same position he outlines in his other writings on the Atonement including those reproduced in the Australian Unity Book.

Therefore, the C.C.A. should be understood to mean the same as bro John Carter’s expositions on the Atonement, which includes the “Time to Heal” articles as an explanation and interpretation of clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F. in line with the historic Central position on the Atonement. This includes bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” which he refers to in the “Time to Heal” articles and which was a key pillar in his restatement of the Central position on the Atonement “for the double reason that they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references”.

To dismiss the “Time to Heal” articles because of the presence of the “Ten Point Statement” is to miss the point of bro John Carter’s restatement of the Central position on the Atonement defined in the B.A.S.F. that he consistently expounded.

This is the true interpretation of the B.A.S.F. and it was the basis for all the reunions bro John Carter was involved in as he attests.

"But a protest must be made at the reckless assertion of the circular (by bro Snelling of Old Paths, UK) that there has been a retreat from the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. This is simply not the case. The proof that it is not true consists in the fact that not only at the Jersey City Conference, whose decisions the circular-writer approved, was the B.A.S.F. defined as a true exposition of the oracles of God, to be believed by us, but in the Final Statement in Britain, and in the Statement for Reunion in Australia, the same affirmation was made. In each case such a statement was made the leading clause in the basis set out for reunion." (The Christadelphian, November 1958)

Bro John Carter’s explanation of the B.A.S.F. that define the Scriptural doctrines of the Atonement in the Time to Heal article of 1939 is exactly the same explanation he gave on the Atonement which clarifies his intended meaning in the C.C.A. ("First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p18, The Christadelphian, July 1958).

Below is a comparison of these two explanations which address the main issues of contention in the controversy over Clean Flesh error and the extreme of those who opposed it. Both of these articles are in the context of reunion.

One article is close to the beginning of his tenure as editor of The Christadelphian magazine, and the other article is close to the end of it. This comparison between these articles demonstrates the consistency of bro John Carter’s understanding of the Central position on the Atonement which is in line with bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ”.

The Nature of Adam Before and After the Fall

Time to Heal article 1939

“We believe that because of disobedience Adam was sentenced to return to the ground, and that this sentence brought him at last to death. “By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). “By man came death” (1 Cor. 15:21). Death “came by decree extraneously to the nature bestowed upon him in Eden,” to use the words of brother Roberts; or, in other words of brother Roberts, “Death did not come into the world with Adam, but by him after he came.”

We believe it is contrary to the meaning of Scripture to say (1) that the words “Dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return” described the condition of man when first created, and are therefore not a sentence of death subsequently passed by God upon Adam as a result of transgression; and (2) that the “death which has come by sin” is not the death common to all men, but the second death. The true teaching of the Bible, we assert, is that we are dying creatures, inheriting a nature which is “evil” (Matt. 7:11), in which “evil is present,” which evil is further described as “a law in our members,” “the law of sin in our members” (Rom. 7). Such phrases could not be used of Adam before he sinned.” (“The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ” The Christadelphian, May 1939)

First Report on Unity 1958

“What are the broad facts of Scripture teaching? Adam sinned and death came by sin. But two other things followed; death passed through to all men for that all sinned (Rom. 5:12). It is a fact that all have sinned (except the Lord Jesus) and this fact is explicable only because through Adam’s sin the original very good state was lost, and his posterity inherit a nature with a tendency to sin to which all have succumbed.” ("First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p18, The Christadelphian, July 1958)

Sin and Sinful Flesh

Time to Heal article 1939

“The Scriptures define sin, in the primary sense, as transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4) or, as in the R.V. with a closer reproduction of the original, “sin is lawlessness.” In a few passages of Scripture the word “sin” is used in a secondary sense, by metonymy, of human nature. As Paul could speak of “sin that dwelleth in me” so he could describe the nature in which dwells “the law of sin” as “sin,” inasmuch as it inevitably produces sin in all, with the exception of the Lord Jesus who always obeyed God. Thus Paul says, “God made Jesus to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor., 5:21); again, “He shall appear the second time apart from sin” (Heb. 9:28 R.V.).” (“The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ” The Christadelphian, May 1939)

First Report on Unity 1958

“Because this inherited tendency is so evident a characteristic of human nature, and because it is the result and the cause of sin, Paul by the use of metonymy can describe it as sin: “It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me.” He gives it other names as well, such as “a law—evil present with me,” the “flesh”, “a law in my members,” etc. (Rom. 7).

A similar usage of metonymy is found in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul says that “Him who knew no sin God made to be sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This statement is one of a whole series of paradoxes in 2 Cor. 5:7. Christ the sinless was made to be sin in sharing in the effect of sin in his life, and by his death providing the conditions for the forgiveness of sins and, finally, the removal of all the effects of sin. The same usage occurs in Heb. 9:28, which declares that Jesus will appear the second time apart from sin unto salvation. It is a fallacy in reasoning to say that what is affirmable of sin literal must apply to sin used in this metonymical way. We are blameworthy for our sins, but we cannot help the possession of the natures with which we were born. Sins need forgiving and our nature needs changing. Sins are forgiven now for Christ’s sake but the change of nature takes place when the Lord comes. “The most outrageous statement that has been made (in the Andrew controversy) is the one that men are objects of divine anger because they are flesh” (“The Christadelphian,” 1894, page 466).

In Romans 5:8 by the figure of personification Sin is represented as a Master that pays wages, as a king that reigns, and as a slave owner. By the same figure Sin is represented in a court scene as being condemned—its ownership of men was lost and its own destruction was decreed. God condemned Sin in the work and death of Jesus. Hence Jesus shared our nature that in the very arena where Sin ruled, its claim could be contested and overthrown. Therefore, Paul adds. that God condemned Sin, in the flesh—the flesh in question being the flesh that Jesus and all other men alike share. Much confusion has arisen from treating the phrase “sin in the flesh”, which occurs but once, as a hyphenated expression. Similarly, the phrase “sinful flesh” which also occurs only once, is strictly “flesh of sin”, in which phrase the figure of personification and ownership is continued.” ("First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p18, The Christadelphian, July 1958)

Relationship of Christ to His Death

Time to Heal article 1939

“Jesus possessed our nature, which is a condemned nature. Because of this he shared in the benefits of his own sacrifice, as Paul declares:—

Heb. 7:27: “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Heb. 9:12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.”

Heb. 9:23: “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”

Heb. 13:20:“Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”

Therefore, it is testified that “he obtained eternal redemption” and that “he was saved out of death” (Heb. 9:12; 5:7–9).

We believe that we cannot consider Jesus alone in this matter, but must always remember that he was “the arm of the Lord,” raised up for the work of reconciliation of mankind who are perishing. God set forth Jesus to declare His righteousness as a condition for the forgiveness of sins in the exercise of His mercy. To effect those objects it was necessary that Jesus should be of our nature, yet sinless. If he had not been of our nature which is under condemnation he could not have righteously died: had he not been sinless he could not have been raised from death to everlasting life. The wisdom of God is shown in the raising up of a Son who, though tempted and tried like all of his brethren, was yet without sin; who, therefore, by the shedding of his blood confirmed the new covenant for the remission of sins and obtained eternal redemption for himself and for us. (“The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ” The Christadelphian, May 1939)

First Report on Unity 1958

“Another cause of difficulty arises out of the Lord’s relationship to his own death. It is affirmed in Scripture that “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption”; and that “God brought from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant”; and that he was saved out of death. He needed redemption; he needed salvation from death. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was there to be our Saviour, and but for our needs we may reverently say he would not have been there.

God purposed that as by man came death, by man must come resurrection. He must be one who died but whose resurrection was assured. God set him forth to declare His righteousness, that identifying ourselves with him we subscribe to the declaration of God’s righteousness made by him. He did these things for himself that it might be for us. We are not entitled to say what he would have had to do had he stood alone—that is purely hypothetical, neither may we say that because God required his death in the given circumstances in becoming our Saviour, God would have required the same under different conditions. We do not know. On the one hand we must accept what is written concerning his benefit from his own work, while on the other hand we keep clearly in mind that the purpose of it all was that we might be saved through him.”