Bro G. F. Lake was a well respected brother and his standing in the Truth was such that he was appointed to preside at the debate between bro R. Roberts and bro J. J. Andrew on Resurrectional Responsibility. Bro G. F. Lake was strongly opposed to both the teachings of bro Andrews and the those of bro Bell and bro Strickler. He was a member of the North London ecclesia and he reported his ecclesia's withdrawal of fellowship from bro J. J. Andrew.

“The Clean Flesh Heresy”

Renunciationism and the Bell Doctrine

G. F. Lake 1924

The Australian Heresy defined from the writings of its Author and answered from Scriptures and the writings of Dr. Thomas

Introduction

The doctrine that there is no “sinful flesh” and that the nature of man is now the same as that of Adam when he was first created, is a plain and clear denial of fundamental and essential features of the Truth.

Many are deceived by misleading statements of John Bell that the nature of Christ was the same as that of His brethren. This conceals the real point of John Bell’s teaching, which is that neither in Christ nor in his brethren was there “sinful flesh.”

The following statement gives John Bell’s position accurately-from his own writings – over the last 20 years.

That position is-that the fall of Adam did not effect any change in his nature-that sin in the flesh is not a part of man's natural state­ and that therefore, there is no "sin in the flesh” to be destroyed, “condemned” or removed by the death of Christ.

The present corrupt condition of the flesh is painfully self-evident. It is undeniably unclean. If, as the Bell doctrine teaches, there was no change in the flesh as the result of the sin of Adam, then sin in the flesh as we know and experience it must have existed from the creation of man.

This is one of the consequences which flow from this unscriptural theory. 

The Clean Flesh Heresy

All men are born with certain natural proclivities, tendencies and gifts – either good or evil and sometimes with both.

Some are born artists, poets or musicians; some are naturally kind and benevolent, others are destructive, cruel and malicious.

These gifts and propensities are inherited­ they are not acquired although they may be cultivated. They come to us from past generations. For this reason there is no honour or dishonour to those who have them, and no credit or discredit attaches to the mere possession of them. They are natural advantages or disadvantages with which we are born. We shall not be rewarded or condemned for possessing them, but we shall be judged for the use we make of them. Our natural gifts or defects both of mind and body come to us unsought, without our consent, and the righteous Judge will call us to account only for the manner in which they have been employed and the use to which they have been put.

The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-28) proves this.

“For unto every one that hath shall be given, but from him that bath not shall be taken away even that which he bath.” Referring to the use to which the talents had been put And so we are glad to know that the eternal Judge will reward every man according to his works – and to the wise use he shall have made of such gifts and opportunities as shall fall to him-and not according to the abundance or otherwise of his natural endowments.

Now as we perceive that men are born with certain natural propensities-a fact so plainly perceived that it needs no demonstration-so we can understand the Scriptural doctrine, that men are born sinners. That is that from birth they are possessed with desires and propensities to sin and are as Dr. Thomas says thus “constituted sinners.”

“By one man's disobedience many were made sinners.” (Romans 5:19).

This principle is clearly recognised in the Bible and often referred to.

Paul in Romans 6:6, “Our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed.”

Verse 12, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof”

Verses 17 and 20, “Ye were the servants of sin.”

The apostle constantly refers to sin as a principle and quality – residing in the flesh and as an influence or power besetting the man, to which the man is constantly subjected. As in Romans 7:8 “Sin taking occasion by the Commandment wrought in me.”

“The Scripture bath concluded all under Sin.” (Galatians 3:22).

“Without the law sin ‘was dead’.” That is, the motions of the flesh – sin in the flesh in fact – did not make the man responsible until the Jaw of God was laid upon him.

“Another law in my members” (Romans 7:23).

“Evil is present with me” (v. 21).

“The law of sin which is in my members,” (v. 33).

“Sin that dwelleth in me,” (v. 20).

We are then in a position to define “Sin” and “Transgression.” Sin is that principle in the flesh, brought into the world by the offence of Adam which is the cause of transgression.

The mind of Dr. Thomas on the question is expressed with perfect clearness in Elpis Israel, p. 112. 

“At this crisis, there appeared a natural system of things, with two transgressors, in whom sin had enthroned itself”

“This population … was to act for itself under the uncontrolled dominion of sin.”

“Their natural tendency, under the impulses of their uncontrolled propensities.”

On page 113 the Dr. lays down “the rudimental constitution of the world,” and the first item is: “SIN IN THE FLESH, the enemy of God.”

On page 115 the Dr. writes: 

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the Scripture. It signifies in the first place “the transgression of law,” and in the next it represents THAT PHYSICAL PRINCIPLE of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust.”

“Inasmuch as the evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled “sinful flesh,” that is, flesh full of sin: so that Sin in the sacred style came to stand for the substance called man.”

“All the evil that a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him.”

On page 116. 

“Sin, I say, is a Synonym for human nature.” Hence the flesh is invariably regarded as Unclean. It is therefore written “How can he be clean who is born of a woman?”

Transgression, then, is the offence against the law of God, which proceeds from the SIN which is in our members.

We are not responsible for the latter – although we are defiled by it – but we shall be held responsible for the first, because our freewill has been exercised.

Unless this is so, it is impossible to define the Scriptural devil. If there is no sin in the flesh – no impulses against God moving to transgression – what is the devil ?

The only satisfying reply is that the devil is sin in the flesh – which has the power of death and which Christ died to destroy. (Hebrews 2:14).

The Apostle James is not less clear than Paul upon the nature of man and its moral defilement.

“Whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence even of your lusts that war in your members?” (Jas. 4:1).

And Jas. I:15, “When lust bath conceived it bringeth forth sin.”

And David in the Psalm 51:5, “Behold I was shapen in iniquity.”

This sin in the flesh is a defilement which alienates all men from God, and is thus referred to in the Scriptures.

Galatians 5:17, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh … So that ye cannot do the things which ye would.”

Ephesians 2:3, “We had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” ...

Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful flesh”; that he inherited the same condemned and sinful nature as was possessed by his brethren, that the motions of sin which are in our members were in his members.

We again quote Dr. Thomas, Elpis Israel, page 116:

“Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there. The body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom be died.”

“Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin.”

Clerical Theology: Unscriptural. The Dr. writes:-

“Because he transgressed the Eden law, Adam is said to have sinned. Evil was then evolved in his flesh as punishment for sin, and because evil was the punishment for sin, it is also styled sin. Flesh and blood is naturally and hereditarily full of this evil. It is therefore styled ‘sinful flesh’ or ‘flesh full of sin’.”

“To say that the man Jesus was corporeally pure, holy, spotless and undefiled, is to say that he was not ‘made of woman,’ for Scripture teaches that nothing ‘born of woman’ can possibly be clean; but it is credibly testified that he was ‘born of a woman,’ he must therefore have been corporeally unclean.”

Take away the doctrine that Christ partook of the sinful flesh of his brethren – and the glory of his work is taken away.

In his death sin was destroyed. He who was MADE SIN in the sense which has been defined – destroyed SIN – and is now WITHOUT SIN as a consequence of his death UNTO SIN.

“Death bath no more dominion over him” says Paul. (Romans 6:9).

So that the work of the Lord Jesus had for its first result, the deliverance of himself from the effects and consequences of the offence of Adam – that is from death and from sinful flesh.

These elementary truths have been laid down emphatically and plainly in the writings of Dr. Thomas, Bro. Roberts and the present editor of The Christadelphian (C. C. Walker).

But they are now assailed and denied. The author of these denials is John Bell, of Sydney, N.S.W. and these denials constitute a clear division or departure from sound doctrine which faithful man must refuse and reject.

It is not a matter of difference upon a point of minor or secondary importance. It is a fundamental doctrine upon which there can be no compromise or agreement.

To place Bell’s position and his teaching beyond dispute, the following are quotations from his writings:

The Shield, November 1904, page 207.

“My reason is that a sentence cannot defile a man nor can a sentence become a physical law.”

March 1905, page 53.

“All those propensities are not sin. They are not in any way wrong. They formed part of the very good man.”

January 1905, page 14.

'”How can the mind conceive of a defiled nature?”

“We can only say our nature is as God made it.”

“Moral defilement is not inherent.”

August 1921.

“We are quite at one with the purpose to denounce the HORRlBLE TEACHING which has crept insidiously into the theories of our leading magazine.”

“They teach that human nature has sin in the flesh by inheritance from Adam.”

“Thus it was that the Christ was so defiled by nature that he had to offer for his own sin, which he in common with all mankind was tainted with by generation although he was perfectly sinless.”

“It is in protest against this monstrous blasphemy that Bro. Strickler has written.”

“We would dearly like to organise a crusade against the fastening of such a slur upon the Bible as to say that it teaches or allows for an unclean or defiled Christ.”

“Rather than accept such a slander upon God we would prefer to join Canon Barnes.”

January I922, page 2.

“Unwise words which make Adam a physically defiled man by moral transgression and so passing on to his progeny the imagined uncleanness of his body.”

Jesus was “without any personal physical taint.”

February 1922, page 23. Quoting Elpis Israel which reads –

“Sin I say is a synonym for human nature hence the flesh is invariably regarded as un­ clean.”

Bell remarks: “YES, BY DR. THOMAS, BUT NOT BY GOD, IN THE BIBLE."

March l922, page 42.

“Seeing that God made Adam ‘very good’ how could sin which had no existence till it was enacted enter into Adam’s flesh and make it sinful, for transmission to an unbegotten posterity.”

“The physical phase of the Dr.’s view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture.”

Page 43.

“The grievous mis-statement made by Dr. Thomas that they were endowed with a nature like his WHICH HAD BECOME UNCLEAN as the result of disobedience.”

“No flesh full of sin could have thus triumphed over trial.”

“Jesus never offered any sacrifice for his human nature.”

April 1922, page 65.

“This damnable theory of an unclean Christ.”

The contrast between the teaching of Dr. Thomas – which is beyond question the teaching of the Word – and the theory put forward by Bell can be summarised thus –

Dr. Thomas.

Death came by the offence of Adam.

Bell. 

Adam “Was a mortal body before he sinned, Shield, June, 1905, p. 117.

“What was the condition of Adam before he fell? I say he was mortal.”

Dr Thomas.

Sin “pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh’—so that sin came to stand for the substance called man.”

Bell.

“How can the mind conceive of a defiled nature?

“Our nature is as God made it.

“Moral defilement is not inherent.”

Dr Thomas.

“Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died.”

Bell.

“This damnable theory of an unclean Christ.”

“This monstrous blasphemy.

“Jesus was without any personal physical taint.”

Dr. Thomas’ “grievous mis-statement.”

The contrast of these teachings is here put down in order to show the brotherhood plainly and unmistakably where they stand. We are face to face with a plain open denial of first principles – and doctrines are being promulgated from Australia which we emphatically reject. And we refuse the fellowship of all who hold these.

The Bell theory has been rightly described in The Christadelphian as Renunciationism. It offers a new and false explanation of the death of Christ. His sacrifice becomes under Bell’s theory a mere slaughter – undergone to turn aside the anger of a violent and cruel God.

For contrast to this let us briefly state the truth of the matter.

He who “was offered to bear the sins of many” came in the flesh which was that of his brethren, it was flesh and blood – and it contained or possessed the devil – that is sin in the flesh. By death and resurrection this sin nature was destroyed in the Lord Jesus. Through the power of God, who thus condemned sin in the flesh, and who for Christ's sake, forgives the sins of those who believe in him.

Forgiveness thus becomes an act of voluntary mercy on the part of the Father and not a concession wrung from an angry Deity.

“God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” A glorious heart-moving statement which could not be true under the new theory now being published abroad from Australia.

Resolutions adopted by the London Ecclesia, May 1876.

(See "Christadelphian," July 1876) - London Intelligence “On Sunday, the 21st of May, after months of patient and careful investigation, and after the fullest opportunity offered to those who differ, to maintain their position, we resolved to discontinue fellowshipping such as believe that the descendants of Adam were not condemned to death on account of his sin, or that Jesus Christ’s death was not necessary to redeem himself as well as others from that condemnation.”

I.-That the Scriptures teach –

1. That Adam was created capable of dying but free from the power of death,

2. That 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 his sin,

3. 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 that they inherit from their first parents.

II.-That the Scriptures teach –

1. That Adam was created “very good” and was then utterly devoid of that which the Scriptures style “sin in the flesh,”

2. That from the time of his disobedience and in consequence thereof he had “sin" in his "flesh,”

3. That “sin in the flesh” has been inherited from him by his descendants, Jesus Christ included,

4. 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,

5. That Jesus Christ who was sinless as to character, by his death and resurrection put away his sin nature and was cleansed from the Mosaic curse, thereby destroying the devil and death in relation to himself, and

6. That this destruction of sin and death by Jesus Christ has been made the basis for their future abolition in relation to all the righteous.

III. – That inasmuch as the foregoing substantial 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 his sin, or that Jesus Christ’s death was not necessary to redeem himself as well as others from that condemnation.