Two extracts from a paper compiled by the Wilston Ecclesia in their discussions with the Brisbane (Petrie Terrace) Ecclesia over the latter's acceptance of Clean Flesh in fellowship - 1971

“Petrie Terrace Teaching in 1971”

Summarised from a transcript of a meeting between the Arranging Brethren of Petrie Terrace Wilson Ecclesias during June 1971, and from a report of a meeting between delegates of the Cumberland Ecclesia and Arranging Brethren of the Petries Terrace Ecclesia held on 10th October 1971.

1. The inheritance of a nature prone to sin” means that Adam’s descendants inherit the nature he was created with and that they do not now possess a prone-ness to do wrong which Adam did not possess, ie. Adam was equally “prone to sin”, before and after transgression.

2. Human lusts are not good in themselves. It is “the works of the flesh” that are evil.

3. The serpent was not essential for the temptation and transgression, because Adam and Eve had “unlawful lusts” prior to the serpents arrival. It was only a matter of time before they would have sinned.

4. Blood shedding was only for the remission of sins and that no-where in the Bible is it required for purging of nature.

5. By merely dying Jesus abrogated the Law of condemnation for himself. His offering was “for us” not to obtain eternal redemption for himself.

6. The shedding of Christ’s blood had no relation to his own salvation or redemption; it had no reference to him, either by nature or personal transgression.

Quotations from Bro Jack Watson (Petrie Terrace), June 1971

1. On clause 8 of the B.A.S.F.

“I can say that I believe that Jesus by dying abrogated the law of condemnation for himself and you would believe that it would be right to say that by offering he abrogates the law of condemnation. Now the Unity Booklet completely nullifies the idea that he offered but it is true that he did die to abrogate the law”.

2. Shield Ecclesias position on Jesus offering for himself

“The Shield ecclesias, or what was known as the Shield ecclesias, have never been able to accept that Jesus had to offer for himself. But they have always believed that he had to die for himself. And this is the difference. And, the Unity booklet made that distinction, the Cooper-Carter Addendum makes that distinction: as distinct from a basis of fellowship that already did exist in Victoria and in the English ecclesias. They united on the idea that Jesus did have to offer. The Shield ecclesias, when Bro. Carter came out here, would not touch that: never have since 1904, and consequently, the Shield ecclesias, even in 1904, separated on the basis that they could not accept the B.A.S.F. without reservation. Every ecclesia has the right to reserve what they meant by “Jesus dying for himself”. And what clause 5 meant; in what sense defilement took place after transgression”.

3. On 1958 rejection of “Time to Heal” articles by P.T.

“In 1958 they tried to make the basis, accepting it with the “Time to Heal” articles and the fact that Jesus had to offer for himself. The Shield ecclesias turned it down. The Cooper-Carter addendum was formed to show the distinction between that both sides believed that by dying, he abrogated the law, but the Shield ecclesias never ever believed, and never could, and I never will personally, believe that Jesus had to offer to bring about his own salvation.”

4. On the C.C.A. and the Shield ecclesia’s position

“But eh cooper-Carter addendum brough both brethren together. Both believed that he had to die. One believed that the death meant involving his own blood in order to cleanse him and so forth. the other side didn’t. But both believed that he dies and thus abrogated mortality. That was the Cooper-Carter addendum that brought them together.

5. On Christ’s blood purging his nature

“When you said to people that Jesus had to die for himself or benefit by his own death, they meant that he had by his own blood, to purge his nature … now that’s not Scripture …”

6. On the purpose of Christ’s blood

“Now the blood of Christ was for the remission of sins and nothing else. There is nothing in Scripture that you can quote, associating the blood of Christ with anything else but that by the shedding of blood there can only be remission of sins, or remission of sins can only be by the shedding of blood. Now the shedding of Christ’s blood has no reference to him, either by nature or personal transgression. Now that’s the position, when you say that he had to die for himself you bring in the thought that he had to offer for himself.”

7. On the C.C.A. and Jesus offering for himself

“The English ecclesias said that providing you believe that he was in Adam, that he came in the flesh, and by it meant that in Adam all die, they said we would accept you, and that is what the Cooper-Carter Addendum did. It brought the ecclesias who just could not accept what they believed, what was blasphemous to believe, that Jesus needed his blood. The blood of Jesus doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on our mortal nature, or our condemnation in Adam …”

8. On the B.A.S.F. and Christ’s offering

“No, I know that Wally, but that is what Bro. Herb was saying, and it is what we fought, and are still fighting. And it is the acceptance of the B.A.S.F. without reservation that’s got that implicit in it, that Jesus had to offer, and if you don’t believe it, Wally, you just read this new draft.”

9. On the Central position

“… the majority of the brotherhood I would say believed that Jesus had to offer. As I say, The English “Suffolk St. - Temperance Hall” basis of fellowship is that he did have to offer for himself. “By his own blood”, “through the blood of the everlasting covenant”, “having obtained eternal redemption”. The “for us” is cut out completely. He was in as much need of the blood of the everlasting covenant as we were. That is how they believed, it became the basis of fellowship on it.”

10. On the B.A.S.F. and its compilers

“Now to accept it without reservation in most quarters has become to mean that accepting it as the pioneers meant when they composed the B.A.S.F.”

11. On the Unity Book and “without reservation”

“Now, what the Unity booklet does say, we believe, you must accept the principles of all doctrines that are in Scripture and which are defined in the B.A.S F. It is not saying you must accept them as defined in the B.A.S.F. but all the doctrines that are defined in the B.A.S.F. must be accepted and obviously all the doctrines that are defined in the B.A.S.F. must be are the ones found in the Scriptures. They must be accepted without reservation. … Now it doesn’t mean that you have to define them in terms of Adamic Condemnation, or Jesus having to die for himself. You could use terms which preach and teach that Jesus came in the flesh and was in Adam and therefore of necessity, like all of Adam’s children, whether he sinned or not, would die. And that doctrine that we all believe and should bring us together no matter how we say it …”

12. On the teaching of J.B. Watson

“Now, my father spent his whole life trying to prove that Adam was mortal by creation.”

13. On the purging of Christ’s nature

“I never have and never will …I don’t say that brethren that do believe it are believing blasphemy. Don;t misunderstand me there. But for me to believe it, it would be blasphemy as far as I am concerned. To think that Jesus needed any … either physically or ceremonially or any other way needed to be brought nigh to God by his own blood. I believe that the blood of Christ was for remission of sins only, personal sins, personal for transgressions, and as objected to by Birmingham, that Jesus only had to offer … personal transgressions. I believe that is all he had to offer for. He had no involvement in that himself.”