Website Article

“Objections to ‘The Time to Heal’ Articles Answered”

Rejection of the ‘Time to Heal Articles’ in 1958

The "Basis for Union and Fellowship" agreed by the Victorian ecclesias in 1953 referenced the "Time to Heal" articles as an explanation 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 majority of Shield ecclesias had accepted the B.A.S.F. without reservation, but a minority did not. The "Basis for Union and Fellowship" agreed by the Victorian ecclesias in 1953 and “The Time to Heal” articles explicitly oppose the Clean Flesh views that this minority of Shield ecclesias wished to retain in fellowship. Bro John Carter outlined the Central position on the Atonement in The Time to Heal article of 1939 with particular reference to the doctrine of Clean Flesh. 

A number of Shield ecclesias, most notably the Halifax St, Regent Hall and Petrie Tce “Shield” ecclesias, rejected that basis and the "Time to Heal" articles. The Time to Heal article of 1940 included a "Ten Point Statement" to which some Shield ecclesias objected. They particularly objected to item 5 in the six items of the "Ten Point Statement" of the Time to Heal article of 1940 that sets forth the truth, which is a quotation from bro Roberts in 1873. 

"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." Point 83 in Questions and Questions by Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, October 1873

They considered that this clause, (amongst others), resembles the language of bro Andrews teachings. This is illogical and contradicts the obvious fact that bro Roberts actually opposed bro Andrew's teachings. It is difficult to understand how anyone could consider that bro Roberts language in this clause from Questions and Questions could possibly resemble the language of bro Andrews. It is the same language he used when opposing bro Andrews teaching in the Andrews debate, as bro Roberts points out in The Christadelphian September 1894 when he was accused of changing his position. Bro Robert’s beliefs and language in 1873 when opposing Renunciationist Clean Flesh were the same as his beliefs and language when opposing bro Andrews teachings. Bro Roberts language in this clause from Questions and Questions is the language of the Truth and the Central position on the Atonement. To read into it the language of bro Andrews teachings is to attach "a meaning to bro Roberts words that he did not intend" as bro Carter points out in The Christadelphian, September 1947 below.

Bro Carter endorsed the Ten Point Statement in the Time to Heal article of 1940 and defended it against objections raised against it in 1947 by the Buffalo and Philadelphia ecclesias, (see The Christadelphian, September 1947 below). The Time to Heal article of 1939 references an article bro Carter wrote to reaffirm the position of The Christadelphian and the Central ecclesias on the Atonement. In this article he endorses bro Roberts opposition to the Clean Flesh teachings of bro Cornish in Melbourne (The Christadelphian, December 1937, John Carter). These teachings of bro Cornish are very similar to the Shield Clean Flesh doctrines of bro John Bell that a minority of Shield ecclesias wished to retain in fellowship.

Bro John Carter outlined the Central position on the Atonement in The Time to Heal article of 1939 with particular reference to the doctrine of Renunciationism and the teachings of bro Cornish in Melbourne, which were the precursor to the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell. 

"This contention, 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)

The Central position on the Atonement that bro Carter outlines in The Time to Heal article of 1939 is the same position he outlines in his other writings on the Atonement including some reproduced in the Australian Unity Book, viz. the Cooper Carter Addendum,  "First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p17), "The Atonement" (Unity Book p25), "Reference to Pioneer Writings" (Unity Book p72). 

A Repeat of History Over the Same Error in 1952

This is a repeat of what happened in America in 1952. The "Time to Heal" articles in 1939 and 1940 originally enabled a number of Berean ecclesias to reunite with the Central fellowship. They had withdrawn from Central in the 1920's over the teachings of bro Strickler. There were further discussions between Central and the remaining Berean ecclesias in the 1940's culminating in the Jersey City Resolutions of 1952. 

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 (see bro Carter's response to their objections in The Christadelphian, September 1947 below).

The Philadelphia ecclesia distributed a circular outlining their objections to the Ten Point Statement in 1947, and had selectively quoted bro Roberts words in 1896 to suit their case. Bro Carter answered their objections (see The Christadelphian, September 1947 below) by showing that they attached a meaning to bro Roberts words that he did not intend. These ecclesias supported the teachings of bro Strickler that had caused the division between Central and Berean ecclesias in the 1920's, see Allan Strickler's Error. The Buffalo ecclesia was the ecclesia that retained bro Strickler in fellowship.

Furthermore, bro Carter 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."

A minority of the Shield ecclesias who rejected the "Time to Heal" articles could not accept the B.A.S.F. without reservation, and could only accept the B.A.S.F. by imposing an interpretation on it 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" to use the words of bro Carter. They incorrectly view the Cooper Carter Addendum as "a memorandum of understanding" that allowed for the Shield Clean Flesh view and "replaced the previous criteria for fellowship" (see Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias).

Bro Carter's remarks below are consistent with his endorsement of the Ten Point Statement in the Time to Heal Article of 1940 and his explanations of the Central position on the Atonement in the Time to Heal article of 1939 and in the Australian Unity Book which are consistent with his other writings, see  "First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p17), "The Atonement" (Unity Book p25), "Reference to Pioneer Writings" (Unity Book p72). The Central position that bro Carter consistently advocated is solidly based on the writings of bro Thomas and bro Roberts.

“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)

The Christadelphian, September 1947, John Carter

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) and Roberts (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.)