The Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.)

Website Article

“The Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.)”

Background to the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.)

In 1904 there was division in Australia between the Central and Shield ecclesias because of the Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell, who was the editor of The Shield magazine. These have always been considered as error on the essentials of the Truth by the Central ecclesias. 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.

In 1953, the Central and Shield ecclesias in Victoria agreed on the Victorian Basis for Union and Unity which 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” regarding the Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell. Bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper were 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 to interpret 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 “Time to Heal” Articles

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;

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)

The Time to Heal article of 1940 includes 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. This “Ten Point Statement” does not contribute to the significance of the “Time to Heal” articles.

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 the teachings of bro George Cornish in Melbourne, which were the precursor to the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell.

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 pillar 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.

Introduction of the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.)

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 mostly quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts. The problem was that these quotes from bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts were misused by the Berean brethren to support the extreme they had gone to in opposing the Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler.

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.

In 1956, bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper wrote to the conference in Adelaide and attached to their letter an addenfdum they had written in “an attempt to state in simple, straight language what we think those clauses mean”. They also attached an address on the Atonement given by bro John Carter at the Jersey City Conference in 1952 “to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject” as an elaboration on what they thought these clauses mean.

“What are the essentials of saving truth? We have generally recognised that these essentials are formulated in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Not that other Statements may not also give a true outline but the Birmingham Statement is the one most widely known. It is recognised by all in what we call the Central Fellowship and in the recent discussions in Great Britain it has been acknowledged by both Central and Suffolk Street groups of ecclesias as the one to which all could subscribe as setting out the First Principles of the One Faith. …

But we also have a duty to protest against error. …

While an individual ecclesia, we are also a part of the One Ecclesia—the Church, and our duty to other ecclesias is to preserve on our part the Truth and let the light shine unobscured by vain speculations. But the converse is sadly true—if an ecclesia wilfully and persistently preaches error, how can we avoid responsibility except by disclaiming association? If this principle has on occasion been pressed too far, we must not therefore fail to give it its proper place.

It is the duty of all to seek to promote unity. We must avoid the things that make for disunity, contentions and strifes of words. 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.

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.

We take, then, this opportunity to ask your co-operation in the pursuit of peace and unity of those of like mind. 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 addendum they attached to their letter became known as the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) and was subsequently adopted instead of the “Time to Heal” articles as an explanation of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F.

“Addendum

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

In all His appointments God wills to be honoured, sanctified and hallowed by all who approach unto Him. By His promises God sets before man a hope of life and a prospect of resuming those relationships that are lost by sin. With the setting forth of this hope there comes a new basis of responsibility. Times of ignorance God overlooks, but with knowledge a man becomes an accountable and responsible creature with the obligation to believe and obey God.” (Unity Book p8, The Christadelphian, July 1956)

Since bro John Carter’s understanding of the clauses in the B.A.S.F. follows the views of bro Robert Roberts, the C.C.A. was clearly intended to be consistent with the historic Central position on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F. in which “the essentials of saving truth” are formulated.

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 Carter Cooper 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 Cooper Carter 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. The C.C.A. explanation is fully consistent with the historic Central position on the Atonement.

The C.C.A. 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.

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.

The C.C.A. Explanation of the B.A.S.F.

It is important to note that the Carter Cooper 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 Carter Cooper 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 and the meaning of the C.C.A. itself, which was intended as a simple explanation of the B.A.S.F., also now needed to be explained, as its meaning is disputed by those who falsely contend that it is a “memorandum of understanding” that brought two “opposing points of view affecting fellowship” that “replaced the previous criteria for fellowship”. (“The Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias from the Australian Perspective”, Australian Christadelphian Committee, February 1987)

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 “those clauses mean”. Addresses and articles by bro John Carter were provided to elaborate and clarify what they believed and some are included in The Unity Book for this purpose.

“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)

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 position on the Atonement. Bro John Carter’s views on the Atonement are solidly based on the views of Bro Robert Roberts.

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.

“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 the extremes of Clean Flesh and the Berean “theories of alienation”, neither of which he considered to be the scriptural position.

Bro John Carter’s exposition 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. 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, 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 also 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.

The “Time to Heal” articles give a true interpretation of the B.A.S.F. and it was this interpretation of the B.A.S.F. by which 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 at the time of reunion in Australia which clarifies the intended meaning of 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 demonstrate the consistency of bro John Carter’s understanding of the Central position on the Atonement in line with the “Time to Heal” articles and bro Roberts synopsis in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ”.

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.

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.”

John Carter’s Intended Meaning in the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.)

The intended meaning of the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) can only be understood in the context of what bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper believed. At the time, addresses were given by bro John Carter and articles were written by him or reprinted by him to provide elaboration and clarity on the meaning intended in the C.C.A.

Bro John Carter and bro Cyril Cooper said this in their letter of 1956 when they provided the C.C.A. to the Australian ecclesias for consideration.

“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)

Bro Alfred Nicholls also stated this.

“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 John Carter’s view on the clauses of the B.A.S.F. were firmly grounded in the views of bro Robert Roberts and he used articles by him to elaborate on the meaning of its clauses.

“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”.” (The Christadelphian, December 1940)

The importance of bro John Carter’s expositions in understanding the true meaning of the C.C.A. was highlighted by bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant in 1988 in countering the false understanding of the C.C.A. and the Unity Agreement that it “specifically allowed two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to be acceptable in fellowship“.

“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)

Below are the articles by bro John Carter in the Unity Book as well as other articles he referred to in them. These more than amply elaborate and clarify the intended meaning of the C.C.A. “to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject“. They are grouped by author.

John Carter

Bro John Thomas

Bro Robert Roberts

Articles written or reprinted by bro John Carter on the Atonement at the time of the Australian reunion include;

John Carter

C. C. Walker

Islip Collyer

Other notable articles by bro John Carter, or referred to by him to illustrate his understanding on the Atonement, include;

Bro Robert Roberts

Bro C. C. Walker

Bro W. J. Young

Bro John Carter