The Christadelphian September 1894, Robert Roberts

“Bro Robert’s Comments on the Andrews Debate”

B. M.—It is a total misapprehension on the part of the Advocate to allege or suggest that we have altered our position with regard to the sacrifice of Christ. We hold absolutely by all we wrote 20 years ago at the time of the Renunciationist controversy. It is all on record for inspection, and the London debate will be found in absolute harmony with it. Where it might for a moment seem otherwise is where we refused to consider the case of Christ apart from the race for whose salvation he was brought into being. The reason for this is explicitly stated in the answers 393, and from 706 to 724—namely, that if there had been no human race to save, there would have been no Christ; and if there had been, he would not have been in the position he stood in as a member of that race. Even in the Renunciationist tussle, we recognised this reasonable distinction (see article in Christadelphian for March, 1875 page 139, the very heading of which is “For himself that it might be for us.”) Run through the Christadelphian for 1874 or 1875, and you will find abundant corroboration of what we now say. If you want particular reference, see Christadelphian, 1873, pages 402–409; also 434 to 468 (The Slain Lamb); Christadelphian for 1874, page 139; also 140–2; and many other places too numerous for citation.

Answers in the Debate Referred to Bro Roberts

392. That is fully recognized. The question relates to the basis. Did not Christ enter into the most holy place or immortality on the basis of the shedding of his blood? Does not that mean that he could not enter in without? Does it not also mean that the blood cleansed him individually from corruption which was an impediment to his obtaining eternal life? Answer: I do not deny that.

393. Why did you say that Christ did not die for himself, apart from others? Answer: Because you were asking me to consider him in his individual capacity, detached from the human race, and I refuse to consider him in that capacity.

704. What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place in regard to Christ? Answer: Cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly.

705. Shedding of his blood and raising him from the dead? Answer: The whole process.

706. In relation to himself, personally, apart from his position as a sin-bearer for others? Answer: You cannot take him apart from that position.

707. Have you not taken him apart from that position formerly? Answer: Never.

708. Not in the argument with Renunciationists? Answer: That is too general a question altogether. There never would have been a Christ if there had not been a sin race to be redeemed. If he had been by himself, he would not have required to die at all, if he had been disconnected from our race.

709. What do you mean by that? Answer: I mean if he had been by himself—a new Adam—having no connection with the race of Adam first; not made out of it.

710. But if as a descendant of Adam, he had been the only one to whom God granted the offer of salvation, would he not have had to die before he could obtain that salvation? Answer: I refuse the question in that form, because it is an impossible “if.” He was not sent for himself, but for us.

711. Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up for himself for the purging of his own sin nature? Answer: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, and a son of David, yes.

712. First from the uncleanness of death that having by his own blood obtained eternal life himself, he might be able to save others? Answer: Certainly.

713. Then he died for himself apart from being a sin-bearer for others? Answer: I do not admit that: I cannot separate him from his work.

714. Was he not so separated 20 years ago to refute the free life theory? Answer: Not by me, it might be by you.

715. How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, “made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” if he had not died for himself as well as for us? Answer: He could not.

716. Then he offered for himself as well as for us? Answer: Oh, certainly.

717. Is it not clear then from this that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power? Answer: Certainly.

718. That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh? Answer: No doubt of it.

719. And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection? Answer: Certainly, I have never called that in question in the least.

720. Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to shed his blood for himself? Answer: That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a new Adam altogether.

721. I never introduced that position. Answer: You are unfortunate in not conveying your ideas to me.

722. I never introduced that idea to you. Answer: You asked me to consider him apart from us.

723. Apart from us, but still a descendant of Adam? Answer: That is my point, that you cannot separate him from the work he came to do. There never would have been a Christ at all if he had not been for that work.

724. Then as a descendant of Adam, it was necessary for himself to shed his blood in order to obtain eternal life? Answer: I have already answered that question several times.

Bro G. F. Lake on the Andrews Debate

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 Harry Fry’s Error.

"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