This This article refers to a number of articles bro John Carter wrote to re-affirm the position of The Christadelphian and the Central ecclesias on the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ. These articles are listed in the first "Time to Heal" article in "The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ" May 1939. The second "Time to Heal" article below led to the reunion in the 1940's of the Berean ecclesias with Central. 

The Christadelphian, December 1940, John Carter

“A Time to Heal”

Careful readers of The Christadelphian from December, 1937, onwards will have noticed that there has been a certain emphasis on the Bible teaching concerning the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ. These are subjects upon which much dispute has arisen in the past—particularly during the early seventies, and at one or two periods later.

Some ecclesias in the U.S.A. for some years have been separated from the ecclesias represented by The Christadelphian because of doubts about the teaching of a brother now deceased, and of the attitude of ecclesias to the question of fellowship. The publication of the recent articles on the disputed subject has awakened hopes of a possible reunion of the ecclesias divided on this matter, and already some reunion has been effected. The Petersham ecclesia (Australia) asked the Arranging Brethren of Birmingham Central ecclesia whether they endorsed the statements published in The Christadelphian concerning both doctrine and fellowship. They at once replied that in their considered judgment the article in The Christadelphian, May, 1940, pages 228–230 set forth the truth in regard to doctrine and fellowship. With this assurance the Petersham ecclesia resumed fellowship.

The Los Angeles ecclesia sent out an appeal (in March, 1940) that in view of the articles published in The Christadelphian, ecclesias in America should heal the wounds of division where no grounds for it existed. They circularised the ecclesias in the U.S.A. and Canada quoting the articles in recent issues showing that the barriers to fellowship were now removed, and urging that steps be taken to close up the breaches.

The response to this effort of the Los Angeles brethren has led them to send out a second appeal. In it they indicate the nature of the responses, the desire on the part of most for reunion, and the doubts, sincerely held, in the minds of some whether the right conditions exist for reunion.

This appeal is fourfold in form:

1. To ecclesias who separated from us in 1923, it is wisely pointed out that it would be profitless to engage in discussions on what a deceased brother may have believed and to demand a statement declaring his teaching to be erroneous, especially when some are not sure what the brother taught, but are quite clear what they themselves believe and are in absolute agreement with the Birmingham Statement of Faith. It urges that if there is doubt about the position of a neighbouring ecclesia they should ask if the statements put forward in the second portion of this appeal are approved.

2. The second portion is addressed to ecclesias who have remained in fellowship with Birmingham Central ecclesia throughout the controversy. It sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in 1923:

1. That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.

2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ never made any offering for himself.

3. That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurity only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that Christ needed cleansing.

4. That Christ died as a substitute; i.e., that he was punished for the transgressions of others and that he became a bearer of sin by suffering the punishment due for sins.

In six items the truth is set forth:

1. That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.

2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.

3. That the word “sin” is used in two principal acceptations in the scriptures. 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 to dust.

4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned nature.

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.

6. That the doctrine of substitution, i.e., that a righteous man can, by suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty of his sin, is foreign to scripture and is a dogma of heathen mythology.

The ecclesias addressed in this portion are asked to state their assent to these statements of truth and to give assurance to ecclesias now separated, and to help reunion.

3.  The third portion is addressed to the Birmingham Central Ecclesia. The soundness of this ecclesia is recognised and it is asked to give a clear cut statement that fellowship is only recognised when the truth is held. The readiness to give the assurance when asked by Petersham is approved, and it is urged that fifty ecclesias are now involved, and that to publish a repudiation of the four erroneous statements and an endorsement of the six positive statements of truth, would give immeasureable help to reunion.

4.  The fourth portion is addressed to the Editor of The Christadelphian. It expresses appreciation of the articles on the controverted subjects which have been published, and asks support in the appeal made for reunion.

We desire to help. In making a further effort, we would like first to try to clarify the position on the doctrines set out. Objections have sometimes been raised that the Statement of Faith is man-made. It is man-made, but how otherwise could we have a statement of what we believe to be the teaching of the Bible? It is because there are great differences among people who acknowledge the authority of the Bible that a definition of what we believe it to teach is essential. Every lecture is, in a way, a statement and demonstration of our belief as to what the Bible teaches. It does not consist of nothing but the words of Scripture, but of propositions attested by citations of Scripture. A statement in the words of Scripture could be accepted by every professing Christian who reserved the right to attach his meaning to them. The objection that it is man-made is not a good one.

It might be objected by some that the Statement has ambiguities, or that it might be expressed more clearly in other language. We agree that it has the limitations of human expression, but we believe it to be an honest and capable attempt to set out the essential truths of Bible teaching. The author’s meaning is well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-day. A sympathetic supporter of truth will say, “We know what is meant and we agree with that”. As an example of such slight ambiguity, item 2 of the true teaching of the Scriptures, which is from the Statement of Faith, if rigidly construed, says “the sentence” was transmitted to all Adam’s posterity. The writer’s meaning is well known to be that the defilement which followed man’s sin, which came as the result of God’s sentence and which also became a physical law of man’s being, was transmitted to all his posterity. Any such form of words will make some small demand on the goodwill of the reader.

The need for definition is seen from certain terms which have been the cause of much strife of words. One of these is the word “mortal”. As a simple opposite of the word “immortal”, we are logically compelled to say that since Adam when made was not immortal, he must have been mortal. But then we have at once to define what we mean by mortal. If we say “capable of dying” it must be admitted that Adam was such. But if we say “subject to death”, then it must be denied that Adam was in that state when made. Hence the necessity that terms be clearly defined, and if ambiguous, avoided when an effort is made to set out controverted truth. The matter might be illustrated by the word “perfect”. If a thing is not perfect it must be imperfect; but the want of perfection may be due to some marring element, or merely to the fact of being unfinished, which is expressed in Scripture by the word “unperfect”. There is the imperfection of flaw and the imperfection of incompleteness.

Some have objected to having one form of words imposed: we have heard objections to the Birmingham Statement being used by other ecclesias. Wise men will not insist about the use of one particular form of words if the same thing is meant. On the other hand, when a particular form of words has come to be recognised and accepted as stating certain truths, wise men will not create doubt or risk misunderstanding by insisting on the liberty of saying the same thing in words of their own choosing, particularly when grave issues are involved.

We willingly declare again our attitude as Editor of The Christadelphian, in the hope of helping forward the present effort for reunion. We believe the Statement of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be maintained.

The six statements, acceptance of which is asked, are from the following sources:

(1) is quoted in The Christadelphian, 1937, page 553; (2) is the fifth proposition of the Statement of Faith; (3) is from Elpis Israel; (5) is from bro. Roberts in The Christadelphian, 1873, page 468; No 83 (4) and (6) are statements of fact.

We have no doubt that the Central ecclesia will frankly indicate its position. We do not doubt ecclesias in Great Britain are doctrinally sound on this issue. We join in the appeal that ecclesias in Canada and U.S.A. should willingly re-affirm their position if by so doing this division can be healed. It is a time for doing all possible to remove misunderstanding, and so bringing union where there is oneness of mind.

It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”.

The following reply has been sent by the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central ecclesia:

November 17th, 1940.

To the Arranging Brethren of

Los Angeles ecclesia.

Dear Brethren,

We have read carefully your “Second appeal to the ecclesias of the United States and Canada”, and in reply to the section addressed to ourselves, we would say that in our judgment the four items of doctrine to which objection is taken in your appeal, are contrary to the Truth, and the six items in which you state the opposite view, are the Truth.

The teaching set out in these six items is embodied in Clauses III. to X. of The Statement of Faith.

We have already declared, as you know, our attitude to these questions in reply to an enquiry from the Petersham ecclesia, and accepting as we do the doctrines set out in The Statement of Faith, we regard them now and have always regarded them as the basis upon which fellowship should be maintained.

We hope that this declaration will help in your efforts to restore the harmony among the ecclesias in America, and our best wishes are with you in what you are doing.

With fraternal greetings,

Sincerely your brother in Christ

The Christadelphian February 1941

“A Time to Heal”

The North London ecclesia, it will be remembered, were also disturbed by the teaching of the brother referred to in this article and by the attitude of ecclesias at this time to the question of fellowship. In consequence, we were ourselves for a period separated from the majority of ecclesias in Great Britain. Happily we later received assurances which resulted in this separation being ended. It is therefore with pleasure and approval that we have read the article “A Time to Heal” and we pray it may be instrumental in restoring harmony in many places.

For the Managing Brethren,

North London Ecclesia,

Geo. S. Clark.