The Unity Book p17, John Carter

Extract from “The Truth in Australia” The Christadelphian, July 1958

“First Report on Unity in Australia”

The Difficulties

We will next consider the difficulties. That there were such we hinted in the article “The Truth in Australia” in “The Christadelphian”, 1956, page 311. Now perhaps we should put the issue plainly. The Concord ecclesia was at one time in Central fellowship; then separated and, we believe, was associated with the Berean group; but again resumed fellowship about 1940 with Central ecclesias. Over the years a series of pamphlets and circulars have emanated from a Bro. P. O. Barnard of Concord, sometimes with the endorsement of the ecclesia, but at other times on his own responsibility. A feature of the “Berean” fellowship has been a leaning towards the teaching of J. J. Andrew which was controverted in the 1890’s; not, be it said, to his views on resurrectional responsibility, but to those doctrines of condemnation and inherited sin and alienation which were the basis upon which he built the denial of resurrectional responsibility. This tendency was evident years ago in the U.S.A. and was pointed out in a “Message to all Christadelphians” which was sent to a conference convened in October, 1947, when Detroit was chosen as the meeting place. In that “Message” we sought to meet some questions to which answers were demanded by a brother in the Berean group and who has again separated himself since reunion in England. In our reply we showed there was not only identity of thought but identity of language with that of J. J. Andrew. The same doctrinal outlook is discernible in the teaching of Bro. Barnard and those who support him.

Clear Doctrinal Issues

We propose going into this matter in some detail next month, as we think something should be said not only to help the brethren in Australia but also to put the doctrinal issues in clearer perspective. There are doubtless brethren with Bro. P. O. Barnard who know little of these issues but who have been imbued with the idea of doctrinal unsoundness on the part of those who do not subscribe to Bro. Barnard’s teaching, and something should be said for their sakes. In all contentions extremes tend to beget extremes and some utterances by “Shield” brethren have doubtless been provoked by this teaching and must be looked at in this context. Again and again we found that brethren thought the B.A.S.F. had to be interpreted in the way Concord ecclesia taught. After patient enquiry it was evident that the “Shield” ecclesias were more representative of Central position than either Concord or Brisbane (Elizabeth Street) so far as the latter can be judged by the statements of their arranging brethren.

Alienation by Ignorance and Wicked Works

The contentions current are not new, as we have said. They concern condemnation and alienation for our physical nature; being children of wrath by birth; that Jesus needed because of his physical inheritance to be “brought nigh” to God. Yet the facts of Scripture are quite simple. If we ask, For what are we baptized? the answer of the Scripture is always, For the remission of sins. Was Jesus a child of wrath? To ask such a question is to answer it, for everyone who is not entrammelled in the legal mystifications of the arguments advanced. Is a man estranged because of his physical nature? The answer of Scripture is that we are alienated by ignorance and by wicked works.

A few words might be added in response to requests made several times to clear up points of uncertainty concerning the usage of Bible language. What are the broad facts of Scripture teaching? Adam sinned and death came by sin. But two other things followed; death passed through to all men for that all sinned (Rom. 5:12). It is a fact that all have sinned (except the Lord Jesus) and this fact is explicable only because through Adam’s sin the original very good state was lost, and his posterity inherit a nature with a tendency to sin to which all have succumbed. Because this inherited tendency is so evident a characteristic of human nature, and because it is the result and the cause of sin, Paul by the use of metonymy can describe it as sin: “It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me.” He gives it other names as well, such as “a law—evil present with me,” the “flesh”, “a law in my members,” etc. (Rom. 7).

A similar usage of metonymy is found in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul says that “Him who knew no sin God made to be sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This statement is one of a whole series of paradoxes in 2 Cor. 5:7. Christ the sinless was made to be sin in sharing in the effect of sin in his life, and by his death providing the conditions for the forgiveness of sins and, finally, the removal of all the effects of sin. The same usage occurs in Heb. 9:28, which declares that Jesus will appear the second time apart from sin unto salvation. It is a fallacy in reasoning to say that what is affirmable of sin literal must apply to sin used in this metonymical way. We are blameworthy for our sins, but we cannot help the possession of the natures with which we were born. Sins need forgiving and our nature needs changing. Sins are forgiven now for Christ’s sake but the change of nature takes place when the Lord comes. “The most outrageous statement that has been made (in the Andrew controversy) is the one that men are objects of divine anger because they are flesh” (“The Christadelphian,” 1894, page 466).

Personification of Sin

In Romans 5:8 by the figure of personification Sin is represented as a Master that pays wages, as a king that reigns, and as a slave owner. By the same figure Sin is represented in a court scene as being condemned—its ownership of men was lost and its own destruction was decreed. God condemned Sin in the work and death of Jesus. Hence Jesus shared our nature that in the very arena where Sin ruled, its claim could be contested and overthrown. Therefore, Paul adds. that God condemned Sin, in the flesh—the flesh in question being the flesh that Jesus and all other men alike share. Much confusion has arisen from treating the phrase “sin in the flesh”, which occurs but once, as a hyphenated expression. Similarly, the phrase “sinful flesh” which also occurs only once, is strictly “flesh of sin”, in which phrase the figure of personification and ownership is continued.

Another Difficulty

Another cause of difficulty arises out of the Lord’s relationship to his own death. It is affirmed in Scripture that “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption”; and that “God brought from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant”; and that he was saved out of death. He needed redemption; he needed salvation from death. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was there to be our Saviour, and but for our needs we may reverently say he would not have been there.

The Purpose of God

God purposed that as by man came death, by man must come resurrection. He must be one who died but whose resurrection was assured. God set him forth to declare His righteousness, that identifying ourselves with him we subscribe to the declaration of God’s righteousness made by him. He did these things for himself that it might be for us. We are not entitled to say what he would have had to do had he stood alone—that is purely hypothetical, neither may we say that because God required his death in the given circumstances in becoming our Saviour, God would have required the same under different conditions. We do not know. On the one hand we must accept what is written concerning his benefit from his own work, while on the other hand we keep clearly in mind that the purpose of it all was that we might be saved through him.

These added comments will, we hope, help to keep in right perspective the revealed facts concerning sin, and the use of the word by the figure of personification and metonymy.

The Love of God

The wondrous love of God in giving Jesus, his perfect obedience to the Father, even unto death on the Cross, the offer of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of life by the transformation of our bodies like unto the body of his glory, the provision of one who ever liveth to make intercession for us, and who can save to the uttermost— these and kindred truths can be overlaid with cloudy and mystifying strifes of words, which dishearten the simple earnest believer, annoy the earnest seeker after the deeper things of divine truth, and destroy the soul enlarging and purifying effects which God intended the offering of His Son should produce. The love of Christ constrains to holiness, not to strife.