banner

Last Updated on :
Saturday, November 22, 2014

 

sp spacer

CONTENTS | Nazarite's Guiltless "Sin" And Sacrificial Cleansing

spacer

The Purifying of The Heavenly


spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer


Brother ANDREW: "Is it not clear that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power, and that he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection?"

Brother ROBERTS: "CERTAINLY. I have never called that in question in the least."


THE Berean fellowship is charged with "Andrewism" because we point out the truths concerning the Sacrifice of Christ which brethren Thomas and Roberts taught. What is "Andrewism?" Where does the Truth end, and "Andrewism" begin? Wherein did brethren Andrew and Roberts agree on this subject, and wherein did they disagree? Some are quoting brother Andrew where he and brother Roberts agreed, and are calling it "Andrewism."

We do not deny there is such a thing as "Andrewism," and that it is an error, a dangerous, harmful, Truth- destructive error, a current, active error, like Stricklerism.

We would not for a moment want to belittle or undermine the necessary effort to warn brethren against it, and against the whole Resurrectional Responsibility error. We are glad some are still concerned about fellowship, and that they realize the necessity, and appreciate the value, of brother Roberts' strong fellowship stand in 1898 against this error. The last thing we want to do is to weaken hands that are striving for sound fellowship, and are resisting blandishments to return to the confused condition from which the sound 1898 action delivered them.

Andrewism had to do with Resurrectional Responsibility. The debate between brethren Andrew and Roberts was the "Resurrectional Responsibility Debate." The book brother Roberts wrote to defend the Truth against Andrewism was "The Resurrection to Condemnation." The matters of the relation of the Law of Sin and Death to baptism, and of Christ's offering for himself are side issues, because of a theory brother Andrew developed to support his theory that the unbaptized will not be raised to judgment.

The theory went like this: The sentence on Adam ("Adamic Condemnation") was eternal, uninterruptible death. Once the grave doors snapped shut, no one - not even God - could open them to bring out anyone who had died under Adamic Condemnation. Brother Andrew did not deny God's intrinsic power to do anything He chose.

But he argued that, within the fixed framework of the laws of life and death that God's wisdom and justice had set up regarding the human race, God Himself could not raise any not freed before death from Adamic Condemnation.

And he argued that in the present dispensation, it is baptism that frees a man from the inexorable Adamic Condemnation of uninterruptible death. That's why baptism and the Law of Sin and Death come into the debate.

Brother Roberts did not deny that baptism had a relation to the Law of Sin and Death. But he did deny that it had the relation that brother Andrew asserted. Brother Roberts recognized that baptism "potentially and eventually" frees from the Law of Sin and Death, and that there can be no freedom from that law without baptism (in the present dispensation). Summing up the debate, he says afterwards, in the preface:

"What is cancelled at baptism (and it is only cancelled potentially - for there is an 'if' all the way through) is the condemnation resting upon us as individual sinners, AND the racial condemnation which we physically inherit. I have never diverged from this view . . . 'Legal mortality' would be that which is constituted, ordered, or determined by law. In this sense, we pass (potentially) from death to life at baptism - which is a very important sense certainly, for without it there could be no hope of the physical deliverance that waits at the coming of Christ."

 

Brother Roberts agreed with brother Andrew to this point, but he goes on to say he did not agree with the arguments brother Andrew built on these truths. We note brother Roberts herein explains his previous use of the term "legal mortality." Brother Andrew used the term for his conception of release from the penalty of eternal death that he said baptism brings, making it possible for a man to be raised from the dead. Brother Roberts subsequently avoids this term because of brother Andrew's application of it to a false theory.

Brother Roberts taught that we are freed "potentially" at baptism from the Law of Sin and Death, and by this he explains that he meant that if the process begun at baptism is faithfully carried through to the end, then at the resurrection and judgment we shall be changed from mortal to immortal, and thus and then be actually freed from the Law of Sin and Death - as a final result of our baptism, and which could only come by baptism. In this sense, baptism frees us from that Law.

But to brother Andrew, the freedom from the Law of Sin and Death at baptism is a "legal" release from the Adamic sentence of eternal, uninterruptible death, enabling resurrection to occur.

Brother Roberts taught that, as a FINAL result of baptism, and dependent upon baptism, we are "justified" from Adamic Condemnation (that is, our nature is cleansed) at the resurrection by change of body. But brother Andrew taught that, by baptism, we are "justified" from Adamic Condemnation immediately, making resurrection possible.

Brother Roberts taught that "justification from Adamic Condemnation" is, in its fulness, a physical change (though he recognized it had a present bearing as to relationship to life or death - "cancelled potentially at baptism").

It is not Andrewism to say that baptism (potentially and eventually) frees us from Adamic Condemnation - if we are saying it with the meaning brother Roberts attached to it (though it's wise to try to avoid any possibility of giving a wrong impression - especially when controversy has made some expressions potentially provocative).

We would urge a careful reading of the preface to the debate, where brother Roberts explains why he gave certain answers to some of brother Andrew's questions - because he and the audience knew the false meanings brother Andrew attached to some of the words in the questions, and the wrong inferences brother Andrew drew from certain truths.

As to the matter of Christ needing, and being cleansed and saved by, his own sacrifice, brethren Andrew and Roberts were agreed. But brother Andrew, to support his theories, repeatedly pressed brother Roberts to say that Christ needed a cleansing sacrifice apart from the race. This brother Roberts steadfastly refused. Christ apart from the race is not Christ at all.

Because of this refusal, by quoting some questions and answers only, it can be made to look as if Brother Roberts resisted admitting that Christ needed a cleansing, bloodshedding sacrifice; but reading it all, we find brother Roberts several times said he did. The Resurrectional Responsibility Debate has been quoted to disprove the Berean position. Let us see what it really does say. Throughout the following, brother Andrew is always questioning brother Roberts, and begins each paragraph. "R:" means brother Roberts' reply, and what follows this in each paragraph is by brother Roberts. (Remarks in THIS type are our comments). The numbers are question numbers in the published debate -

111. Is "sin in the flesh" the subject of justification through the blood of Christ?

R: It will be ultimately. [Brother Roberts disagreed as to the TIME, not the FACT].

114. I said "acquittal from actual or imputed guilt."

[Here is brother Andrew's theory of "imputed guilt" showing through. This is why brother Roberts had to be careful in answering].

284. Did Christ require to die for himself.

R: In view of the work he came to do, YES. But if there had been himself only, No.

287. Was the shedding of his blood not necessary for himself apart from others?

R: Since we cannot contemplate him apart from others, it is no use putting the question. He was one of the whole race.

288. You put it (that) if there had been no others, his death would have been unnecessary?

R: That is putting an abstract question which it is not convenient to discuss.

290. But did he not fulfil the Aaronic type of offering for himself, and then for the sins of the people?

R: NO DOUBT.

291. What was it in relation to himself for which he had to shed his blood?

R: He stood there as bearing the sins of his whole brethren.

[Brother Roberts explains how Christ "bore the sins of his brethren" when he says: "The ceremonial imposition of sins upon the animals was the type. The REAL "putting of sin" on the Lamb of God, in the bestowal of a prepared sin-body wherein to die, is the substance (Christadelphian, 1873, page 462). Again: "Iniquities laid on him ... this was laid on Jesus in his being made of our nature" (Christadelphian, 1873, page 400). Therefore brother Roberts says: "He offered for himself, first, by reason of his participation in Adamic mortality" (Christadelphian, 1873, page 555).

That is: He came to save the race. He bore our sins in being made of Sin's Flesh. Being made of Sin's Flesh, he personally needed a cleansing sacrifice. Being, as one of the race, so cleansed, that cleansing covers all who become part of him.]

292. Did he have the sin-nature himself, as well as the sins of his brethren, which required the offering of himself as a sacrifice?

R: He had no sin except the possession of a nature which leads to sin, but which in him did not lead to sin.

293. Did it not require blood-shedding to cleanse him, although it did not lead to sinning?

R: In order to declare God's righteousness is Paul's explanation, which to me is the all-sufficient explanation, and to me profoundly philosophical. Any other is so much cloud of dust.

296. Did Christ's own sin nature require blood-shedding in order that he might be cleansed? R: As you cannot put him apart from others, it is no use asking the question.

[Brother Roberts knew that brother Andrew was trying to get him to speak of Christ "apart from others", and that is why he appears to be evading a plain statement of truth. He explains this later (see 393 and 715-724). Some stop here, and quote it to "prove" brother Roberts did not believe Christ had to offer for himself. But he later repeatedly and emphatically says he DID, as we shall see].

392. Did not Christ enter into the most holy place, or immortality, on the basis of the shedding of his blood? Does this not 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?

R: I DO NOT DENY THAT.

393. Why did you say that Christ did not die for himself, apart from others?

R: 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... What is the use of discussing a case that does not exist ... His work is the saving of mankind, and you cannot discuss him apart from that.

[Note these two answers well. They explain much. Later answers are even clearer].

399. We both recognize Christ did not commit transgression, and that his blood was not required in regard to himself for anything of that kind. Yet he did shed his blood for himself. What was it then for which he shed his blood for himself?

R: I have answered that several times, brother Andrew. He was a mortal man, inheriting death from Adam.

[Both agreed Christ shed his blood for himself, and could not otherwise attain to life. But brother Andrew contended it was to "atone" (in the orthodox sense) for the "imputed guilt" of Adam, while brother Roberts taught it was the necessary God-appointed cleansing from the physical defilement of the sin-nature that made him one with his brethren in need of a sacrifice].

400. You have answered it by evading it.

R: By no means. I have not answered it in your precise terms, which conceal meanings.

401. Did he not require to shed his blood to cleanse himself from his own sin nature, and has not God made that the basis by which those in him may be justified from the sin of that nature, and have forgiveness of sins?

R: I prefer the Scripture description of what was done by the death of Christ. The Scriptures never use the word cleanse, in that sense.

[Some use this to "prove" brother Roberts taught Christ wasn't cleansed by his own sacrifice. This sets him against himself when he says: "Christ should first of all be PURIFIED with better sacrifices than the Mosaic" (Law of Moses, chapter 10, page 90,1946 Edition). And again: "Christ must have been PURGED by the antitypical blood of his own sacrifice" (Law of Moses, chapter 18, page 170). And many other places. The "that sense" brother Roberts objected to was cleansing from "imputed guilt," as question 405 shows].

402. Never use the word "cleanse" in regard to physical sin?

R: Not in that connection.

403. Did not the inanimate things of the Mosaic Tabernacle require to be cleansed, justified, or atoned for, by bloodshedding?

R: Yes, as a shadow, doubtless.

404. Was there any moral guilt attaching to them?

R: You do not require me to answer that, of course?

405. Then it was for imputed guilt?

[THIS was what brother Andrew was driving at; and THIS was what brother Roberts was denying. Here we can see why brother Roberts was so very cautious and seemingly evasive. Brother Andrew was trying to get brother Roberts to say that Christ by his bloodshed, and we at our baptism, are "cleansed" or "justified" from the "imputed guilt" of Adam. Brother Andrew's theory compelled him to believe that the "condemnation" that came on all men (including Christ), was "imputed guilt" This becomes clearer] -

414. Are they (Adam's posterity) not under condemnation for the offense of Adam before they do anything themselves, right or wrong?

R: They are mortal because of Adam's sin.

415. That is not an answer. Are they not under condemnation for the offense of Adam before they do anything, right or wrong? R: God condemns no man for Adam's offense in the individual sense. Condemnation comes through it, which is a very different idea.

416. Do you deny the statement, "By the offense of one, judgment came on all men to condemnation"?

R: No, I do not deny it.

417. You do!

R: No. I explain it.

422. Are not they (babies) "children of wrath," and do they not die under the condemnation under which they were born?

R: They are children who would grow up to be men who would provoke God's wrath by disobedience if they lived, but as babies the wrath is not begun.

[Here is where brother Roberts takes issue with brother Andrew's mechanical theory of "justifying" babies by the blood of Christ from the "imputed guilt" of Adam. We must observe where he agrees and where he takes issue. He agrees that the faithful are eventually justified from Adamic Condemnation by the blood of Christ, when they are made immortal] -

431. Does not that justification (of the faithful by the blood of Christ, 430) include justification from the Adamic condemnation they inherited?

R: I have no issue with you as to the righteous.

437. Does not a baby require justification? R: You cannot justify a baby.

456. Is it not the unclean nature spoken of here, when the apostle says, "The blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh"?

R: Impossible, for the Law never did cleanse sin nature.

457. Never did cleanse sin nature?

R: The cleansing of sin nature is reserved for the resurrection.

458. Is not this statement made in reference to the Law?

R: Yes.

459. Then what was the nature or effect of the purifying of the flesh which is spoken of here?

R: Those who were purified were recognized as legally clean. It was a shadow cleanness - all types and shadows.

460. All types and shadows: but there was a legal cleanness?

R: In the sense in question it was real - a really recognized legal cleanness.

468. Then if the flesh under the Law was unclean, and required a shadowy purification, where was the shadow - or where was the prophecy, if you so like it - in regard to Christ, if our nature does not require cleansing through bloodshedding?

R: Our nature DOES require cleansing. It WILL be cleansed at the resurrection, and that win be because of Christ's obedience unto death.

[Brother Roberts never limits the benefits of baptism solely to forgiveness of personal sins. It is the only way to (eventually, if worthy) be cleansed from the sin nature through his blood. But he vehemently opposed the Andrew theory that baptism justified us from the imputed guilt of Adam's sin, and thereby made it possible for our death to be broken for resurrection to judgment. We must discern what he is opposing, and what he is agreeing with].

682. Is a man, when baptized, legally freed from Adamic condemnation?

R: What do you mean by "legally freed"?

683. I mean that the wrath of God or condemnation pertaining to him as the result of his being descended from Adam is taken away.

R: It is commenced to be taken away, but nothing more. It all depends; it is a process.

[Brother Roberts did not like the term "wrath of God" in this connection, but he did agree that Adamic condemnation is COMMENCED to be taken away at baptism. That is, that baptism is related to the (eventual) removal of Adamic condemnation].

685. Have you never taught that Adamic condemnation is legally taken away at baptism?

R: I am not aware that I have.

686. Do you recognize this: "Legally a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the Truth and receives the remission of sins, but actually its physical effects remain until this mortal (that is, this Adamic condemned nature) is swallowed up in the life that Christ will bestow upon his brethren at his coming." -Christadelphian, 1878, page 225

R: I FULLY ENDORSE THAT.

690. Do you adhere to this statement that he is legally freed from Adamic condemnation?

R: I understand God gives the obedient believer a clean slate.

691. What is wiped out?

R: Everything that stands against us in any way, whether from Adam or ourselves.

692. Then there's a passing out of Adam in Christ at baptism?

R: CERTAINLY.

693. When a man passes into Christ, what has he in Adam that he loses when he passes into Christ?

R: His relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced. There is a preliminary deliverance at baptism, but it is not actual till the resurrection.

694. Does he not realize, in a legal sense, a justification from the condemnation which is derived from Adam?

R: The apostolic proclamation of the Gospel has almost nothing to say about that, brother Andrew, but about forgiveness of our sins. If I have expressed an opinion there that favors your present contention, it must have been in reference to some special question put with that phraseology in it, which you introduced.

695. Is not a believer, at baptism, made to endorse and morally participate in the condemnation of sin in the flesh which Jesus underwent when he was crucified?

R: CERTAINLY. He is baptized into the death of Christ in the sense of morally endorsing all that that involves.

704. What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place, in regard to Christ?

R: Cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly.

706. In relation to himself, personally, apart from his position as a sinbearer for others?

R: You cannot take him apart from that position ... 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 . . . 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.

[Here brother Andrew is trying again to get brother Roberts to consider Christ apart from the race.]

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?

R: 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 himself for the purging of his own sin nature?

R: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, 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?

R: CERTAINLY.

713. Then he died for himself apart from being a sin- bearer for others?

R: I do not admit that: I cannot separate him from his work.

[Brother Andrew's peculiar theory required this separation: brother Roberts resisted it to the end].

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?

R: HE COULD NOT.

716. Then he offered for himself as well as for us?

R: 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?

R: CERTAINLY.

718. That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh?

R: No doubt of it.

719. And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection?

R: CERTAINLY, I HAVE NEVER CALLED THAT IN QUESTION IN THE LEAST.

720. Did you not say Tuesday night that he did NOT need to shed his blood for himself?

R: That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a new Adam altogether ... You asked me to consider him apart from us.

723. Apart from us, but still a descendant of Adam?

R: 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 him to shed his blood in order to obtain eternal life?

R: I have already answered that several times.

 

It will be noted from the above that on the relationship of baptism to Adamic Condemnation and the Law of Sin and death, brother Roberts fully agreed with brother Andrew that -

Racial condemnation is cancelled (potentially: Brother Roberts) at baptism (Preface).

In the sense of "legal mortality" (as brother Roberts defines), we pass from death to life at baptism (Preface).

"Sin in the flesh" is ultimately the subject of justification through the blood of Christ (111).

The righteous are eventually "justified" (that is, cleansed) from Adamic Condemnation by the blood of Christ (432).

Our nature does require cleansing. It will be cleansed at the resurrection. And it will be because of Christ's obedience unto death. [And it will be because we, through baptism have entered into him] (468).

The condemnation pertaining to a man as a result of his being descended from Adam COMMENCES to be taken away at baptism. [That is, he enters at baptism a relationship which will eventuate in its being taken away if he is faithful to the end] (683).

"Legally" a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the Truth. [Brother Roberts wrote this in 1878, before the Andrew controversy. He endorsed it in the debate, but said later that in view of brother Andrew's "legal" theories and phraseology, he would not choose that expression again] (686).

At baptism, anything that stands against us in any way, whether from Adam or ourselves, is wiped out (691).

We pass out of Adam into Christ at baptism. [Another expression brother Roberts subsequently refrained from using, because of brother Andrew's misuse of it] (692).

A man, passing into Christ, loses his relationship to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced. There is preliminary deliverance at baptism; actual at resurrection (693). And on the matter of Christ needing and being saved by a sacrificial blood-shedding, brother Roberts agreed with brother Andrew that -

Christ fulfilled the Aaronic type of offering FOR HIMSELF, and then for the sins of the people (290).

Christ could not enter immortality without shedding his blood. The shed blood cleansed him individually from corruption which was an impediment to his obtaining eternal life (392).

He shed his blood FOR HIMSELF, because he was mortal, inheriting death from Adam (399).

The antitype of MAKING AN ATONEMENT for the Holy Place in regard to Christ is the cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly (704).

Christ, as a son of Adam, Abraham and David, must OFFER FOR HIMSELF for the PURGING of his own sin nature (711).

Having BY HIS OWN BLOOD obtained eternal life HIMSELF, he is able to save others (712).

Christ offered FOR HIMSELF, as well as for us (716).

He as the first one had to undergo PURIFICATION THROUGH HIS SHED BLOOD (719).

Brother Roberts said that it is ONLY on the "impossible supposition" that he was a "new Adam altogether" that we could say he did not need to shed his blood for himself (720).

It will readily be seen that by just quoting selected answers out of context, a very incorrect impression could be given of what brother Roberts said and believed. The answers which have been quoted to "prove" that, according to brother Roberts, Christ did not need a cleansing, bloodshedding are those where brother Andrew is trying to get him to consent to "imputed guilt" and/or Christ considered separate from his brethren.

When brother Roberts says (406), "Bloodshedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin," he is simply saying, as he says many times, that we cannot consider Christ as separate from the work for which he was specifically created and prepared. He is certainly not contradicting himself in connection with what he says so many times elsewhere about Christ needing a bloodshed sacrifice for the cleansing of his nature.

A debate is a time and pressure situation. There is no opportunity for full and balanced exposition. Brother Roberts had to constantly cope with brother Andrew's obsessive efforts to separate Christ from his mission, for the sake of his theory. A brother must be allowed to explain what he said and why he said it, and we must accept such an explanation, rather than set his words in one part of the debate against his words in other parts, and against his general teaching elsewhere.

 


spacer