“Error of Harry Fry”

The Christadelphian, September 1923, Harry Fry

Written in Response to F G Jannaway's essay "Lest We Forget"

... As to the A. D. Strickler case and the “clean flesh” cry, I have proved from personal investigation that this is a mere “bogey.” Brother A. D. Strickler, in his much-condemned pamphlet, Out of Darkness into Light, says, “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God” (p. 13); “God’s commands run contrary to the mind of the flesh;” and of Christ he says, “Christ had the same flesh or nature that in all others save himself sinned” (p. 84). No one can read the section, “The mind of the flesh,” and honestly say that brother A. D. Strickler advocates “clean flesh” as a fact. He may not be a very clear writer, and is inclined perhaps to object to phrases because of their wrong use, instead of correctly explaining them. Hence he says, “The phrases, ‘clean flesh’ and ‘unclean flesh” are nowhere to be found in the Bible, and therefore I refrain from their use” (Reply to brother Dowling, p. 6).

Still he accepts the fact that “human nature is an evil nature” (p. 26), and this is all Dr. Thomas meant by the phrase “unclean.” He is nearer the truth than some of his critics who fail to distinguish the essential difference in the primary and secondary uses of the word “sin,” so clearly defined by Dr. Thomas in Elpis Israel (p. 113, Ed. 7).

Brother Roberts taught that as far as Christ was personally concerned, “without setting aside the fact that he partook of our mortal nature, and was redeemed from death because of his obedience. . . . ‘For himself’ it was unnecessary that he should have been nailed to the tree, except as part of the obedience the Father required at his hands. It was ‘for us’ he was thus slain” (The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 554, and 1894, p. 467).

Again in the Andrew Debate, speaking of Christ’s sacrificial death, in answer to question No. 284, “Did Christ require to die for himself?” he replied, “In view of the work he came to do, yes; but if there had been himself only, No.”

Again, No. 406: “Does it not teach that the sin nature, which in the first instance has no moral guilt, requires bloodshedding in order that it may be cleansed or justified?” Answer: “Bloodshedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin.” Brother Strickler’s great “offence,” in the eyes of some, appears to be that he reiterates this teaching of brother Roberts. At least he is in good company.

If it demands withdrawal why was it not demanded in the case of brother Roberts? Instead of that you patted him on the back and encouraged him (see The Christadelphian, 1894, p. 302). ...

With fraternal regards,

Yours in the anointed,

H. Fry

Bro G. F. Lake on bro Harry Fry

Bro G. F. Lake (author of The Clean Flesh Heresy), who chaired the debate between bro Roberts and bro Andrews in 1894, pointed out that bro Fry misrepresented the views of bro Roberts as expressed in his considered writings. See also Bro Roberts on the Andrews Debate.

"The statements quoted by Brother Fry from the Debate with Brother J. J. Andrew are not a true representation of Brother Roberts' teaching. The present writer was chairman at that debate, and followed it very closely. In the excitement of debate and under stress and pressure of very subtle and acute questioning, Brother Roberts was led into making statements which were at variance with his former writings. After the second night I made kind and brotherly remonstrance with him upon the matter. He admitted the mistake and undertook to correct it - which was done when he wrote immediately afterwards, The Blood of Christ (1895) and the Law of Moses (a series in the Christadelphian 1896, and book 1898). 

The Son of God and Alienation by G. F. Lake, Message, November 1926

Bro Harry Fry Previously Withdrawn From for Error

Bro Harry Fry had previously been withdrawn from in 1898 by the Bournemouth ecclesia over his beliefs but was later re-fellowshipped by another ecclesia.

Christadelphian May 1898 Intelligence

BOURNEMOUTH (WINTON).—Since our last report, we have had trouble in our midst, which has resulted in division. Brother H. Fry publicly proclaimed the doctrine that Jesus was not in a position requiring to offer himself as a sacrifice to secure his own redemption, that the sacrifice of Christ was required only to effect the salvation of actual transgressors. Jesus being no transgressor, for himself, his sacrifice was not needed. This teaching strikes at the root of the Scripture teaching of the condemnation of sin in the flesh, and also at the doctrinal basis of faith upon which our ecclesia has been founded for 12 years. It was necessary to meet this error in order to maintain the purity of the truth. After private and collective effort, which proved fruitless, it was decided to re-affirm and define our doctrinal basis of faith upon this subject, and as to those who refuse to acknowledge and accept it, we feel duty bound from such to stand aside. The following propositions were submitted to every member of the ecclesia for acceptance.

1st.—That the Scriptures teach: That Adam was created capable of dying, but free from the power of death, and when he disobeyed in Eden he was condemned to death for that disobedience, and that he came under the power of death solely on account of this sin; That in consequence of this offence all his descendants have been condemned to death, but without the moral guilt of his transgression attaching to them, and that those who are not actual transgressors die under the condemnation they inherit from their first parents.

2nd.—That the Scriptures teach: That Adam was created very good, and was then utterly devoid of that which the Scriptures style “sin in the flesh,” that from the time of his disobedience, and in consequence thereof, he had sin in his flesh; that sin in the flesh of his descendants, although not involving them in the moral guilt of Adam, has the power of death in them; that Jesus Christ who was sinless as to character by his sacrificial death and resurrection put away his sin nature (which was the only appointed means for the condemnation of sin in the flesh, that is, as a basis upon which it, the flesh, could be redeemed) and by which he destroyed the devil and death in relation to himself; That this destruction of sin and death by Jesus Christ has been made the basis of their future abolition in relation to all the righteous.

3rd.—That inasmuch as the foregoing scriptural truths substantially form part of our doctrinal basis of fellowship and are essential to “the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ” we hereby resolve from this time to discontinue fellowshipping all who believe that the descendants of Adam were not condemned to death on account of Adam’s sin, or that Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death was not necessary to redeem himself as well as others from that condemnation, until such time as they requdiate these antiscriptural doctrines.

Forty-five assented to them, and nine refused to acknowledge them, the result being that we have withdrawn from the following for refusing to endorse the truth as most surely believed among us: Brother Fry and sister Fry, brother H. Fry, sisters N. Fry, E. Fry, and A. Fry, brother J. Gamble, sisters R. Gamble and Fanny Gamble—the last two were only immersed about three weeks before this happened, and they then gave a clear expression of the faith as we believe it. This is a sore trial to us, but God will help us. The truth is first pure, then peaceable.—G. S. Sherry