The Christadelphian, September 1921, C. C. Walker

“Renunciationism”

Brother H. G. Ladson, of Wandin North, Victoria, Australia, writes:—

Two brethren who recently arrived in Australia from England (one from Birmingham), and who contemplated visiting this district, were informed on arrival by a member of the Masonic Hall ecclesia that brother H. Ladson had adopted the Renunciationist teaching and should be shunned in consequence. Now, I do not know what a “Renunciationist” is, but brother Roberts, who coined the word, should know, and in the 1894 Christadelphian, page 466, we have the words:

1. The Renunciationists maintained that all men were objects of God’s wrath because of Adam’s sin, and that the death that came by Adam was eternal death.

I maintain that no man is an object of God’s wrath because of Adam’s sin, and that the death that came by Adam was not eternal death.

2. The Renunciationists maintained that no man was able to redeem his brother, not because all sinned personallv, but because all were held guilty of Adam’s sin.

I believe that the only thing that prevented the human race from providing its own redeemer without God’s help, was because all sinned personally, and that no man is held guilty of Adam’s sin.

3. The Renunciationists maintained: That the law was ordained only to the present life, and the flesh which was weak (Rom. 8:3) was that of the animal sacrifices.

I maintain that the Law of Moses was ordained unto eternal life, and that it was solely on account of the weakness of the flesh of the human race (which weakness prevented them from keeping it) that no man was able to gain a title to life eternal.

I would be grateful if you could see your way to publish this, in case other brethren from overseas are again misinformed.

Answer.—We publish this communication as desired, not wishing to be parties to the misrepresentation of anyone. But brother Ladson, in referring to The Christadelphian of 1894, p. 466, does not put his finger upon the leading doctrine of “Renunciationism.” The writing he refers to is by “P.R.” not “R.R.” (though the latter approved it), and is dealing with some side issues in relation to the Resurrectional Responsibility Controversy and the allegation that The Christadelphian has changed.

Brother Ladson will see “what a ‘Renunciationist’ is” if he will consult The Life of Brother Roberts, pp. 333–5, in which we have given a careful definition of the doctrines in question, with reference to the very terms of the original documents. The following is an extract from the book in question:—

“Just at this time (June, 1873) there arose ‘the Renunciationist Controversy’ which threatened to undo Dr. Thomas’ work with regard to a vital element of divine truth. It concerned the nature of Christ, his relation to Adam and humanity, and the nature of his sacrifice for sins. Edward Turney, of Nottingham . . . issued in eight-page pamphlet form a series of “Thirty-two Questions and Answers concerning Jesus Christ” . . . The first lines of the concluding paragraph of this pamphlet ran as follows:—

“Brethren and Friends,—Whatever I have taught by mouth or pen contrary to the views of Jesus Christ herein set forth, I now Renounce.”

Whence have arisen the uncouth technicalities, “Renunciationist” and “Renunciationism.” Unhappily, the things “renounced” were true, and the things espoused were fables. These really and truly amounted to a phase of the old Gnostic heresies, the germs of which troubled the Apostles themselves—especially John, who is very severe on men who “confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jno. 4:3) and who thus manifest the spirit of antichrist.

Brother T. excluded Jesus from “Adam’s posterity” by defining that phrase to mean “Every human being who has been born of two human parents” (Quest. and Ans., No. 9). An “essential difference” was alleged to exist between “Jesus and the posterity of Adam” (Quest. 11). So much so that “Jesus Christ was not a son of Adam” (Quest. 13). It was alleged that “God gave life to Jesus direct from Himself, as he did to Adam” (Quest. 18), (another palpable untruth), and that in consequence “the body of Christ was not under condemnation” (Quest. 19), but possessed a free, unforfeited life. Consequently, it was alleged that Christ himself was not redeemed by his own sacrifice (Questions 24, 27), and “might himself alone have entered into possession of life eternal”! And many other similar statements were made.

Such was “Renunciationism” nearly fifty years ago. We do not think brother Ladson approves these doctrines. But it is a mistake to say of “the human race” that “all sinned personally.” Paul is careful to exclude that idea in what he says in Rom. 5:13, 14: “Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression” (Even over babes, for instance). And it is a mistake to say “the law of Moses was ordained unto eternal life.” In Rom. 7:10 (A.V.) “was ordained” is in italics, compare R.V. Eternal life was promised to Abraham ages before the law of Moses, which, Paul explains, “was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come” (Gal. 3:19). We have alluded to this in an article “Avoid strivings about the Law” (Christadelphian, 1919, April, p. 167. See also article “Abraham and Moses,” May, p. 205). In this last, brother Roberts rightly says, The law “was not designed as a system through which men might acquire deliverance from Adamic bondage.” And again, “The Mosaic law was national. Its rewards and penalties were confined to the conditions of mortal life. It took no cognisance of and made no provision for, life beyond the natural term of human existence.” These extracts are from Christendom Astray. Cannot the brethren at the antipodes agree to suspend their “strivings about the law” and concentrate on the “constant affirmation” of the gospel?