The Christadelphian August 1958, John Carter

“Dangers Arising Out of Controversy”

In the Visitor section we give the second portion of the Report on Australian ecclesias. The subject of the nature of man, his relationship to God because of sin, the nature of the Lord Jesus and his sacrifice, has been a theological battleground for ages. Even when the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul has been discarded, there still remain wide areas where disputants can range, and display their skill in battle. That is not to say that the field must be left for those who merely love disputation: we may have no liking for the fray but there are truths to be upheld, and which must not be surrendered.

In opposing error there is always a danger of over-emphasizing the opposite. We have spent considerable time over the years studying the contentions that have disturbed our community during the last 100 years. We have noticed when error has been resisted that not all the arguments advanced have been sound and good. At the time the arguments have been permitted without too close a scrutiny because they were advanced in opposition to the error which was being repulsed. Later the propounder of the unsound argument has pressed his case to its logical conclusion, and it has become evident that his position was faulty. In at least two cases when error has been propounded, we believe that the seeds of the error can be found in earlier writings of the same brother. It takes time for the logical end to become evident, so that it can be judged by its fruits.

Another possible evil result of contentions is seen when erroneous ideas are mistakenly attributed to one who takes part in a discussion. Because a brother opposes the idea that we are alienated from God merely because we are mortal, it is not therefore necessarily true to say that he believes that our mortality and the inherent moral frailty of human nature is not the result of sin. Such a conclusion is not a logical necessity. 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. We recognize that the views of every thinking person are generally subject to modification in one way or another, but that does not necessarily mean that a man’s views have altered basically. In fact, if a doctrine believed is true, maturer understanding of the Word will not only deepen the conviction of its truth, but that conviction will be more broadly based on an enlarged perception of the subject.

Let us illustrate. Our contentions as a body have sometimes been concerned with the phrase “sin in the flesh”. In discussion it has often been divorced from its context and treated as a theological definition of a doctrine when really it is not a definition at all. The phrase consists of the word “sin” which is the predicate in the sentence, together with a qualifying clause “in the flesh” which belongs to the verb “condemned” which precedes the phrase. But to perceive that, does not annul the idea that human nature (that is, really a man or a woman) is so prone to err as the result of an inherited bias for wrong that all of us sin and come short of the glory of God. The fact of universal sinfulness is the evidence that this is so, as Paul shows in Romans chapters one to three. In fact a correct interpretation really exhibits more fully the grievousness of sin.

The scriptures declare that sin is deceitful. It makes itself out to be other than what it is. To put it another way—a man who chooses to sin is soon subject to self-deception and he then justifies the sin. The inversion of moral values, calling evil good and good evil, was something recognized and sternly denounced by the prophets. But any one of us can be subject to this self-deception, and then to us Satan is transformed into an angel of light. We can even become unable to discern that a beam is in our eye, and that we cannot see correctly. So Isaiah and John plainly teach (Isa. 44:18–20 and 1 John 2:9–11).

Not only does sin deceive, but it quickly becomes a task-master. We sin, and after feeble excuses, sin again: and a habit is formed which is a part of ourselves. Our sin and ourselves become inseparable; we are in bondage. But where is this habit fixed? We are flesh and not spirit: and each thought and act of our lives leaves its impression on the mind, in other words, on the flesh that thinks. We may surrender to a weakness and think we can avoid counting the further sin. We may forget it, but the record is there in the molecules of matter by which we think. The effect is there, the habit asserting its enhanced power when next time that temptation assails us. It is a law that governs us as moral beings; and we cannot escape it. What can be done with sin that has become a person’s self? The gospel has an answer, but we appreciate the answer more when we have understood better what scripture and experience alike teach us about our sin and its effects upon ourselves. When we come to say with Paul, “it is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me”, we are then concerned with the answer to the cry, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” A man who cleans sewers does not argue about the need of a bath; and the man who has learned what sin is and what its effects are, does not dispute the need for a deeper cleansing which is beyond the power of water.