In the Truth's history, from the apostles' days, errors in the direction of Stricklerism (that Christ did not offer for himself, and that there is no such thing as the "law of sin in the members") have been far more prevalent, dangerous and appealing, than errors in the direction of Andrewism. This is where the immaculate, substitutionary, trinitarian Christ came from. Andrewism was but a sad little error that few ever fell for it (though it supported the much more serious error on Resurrectional Responsibility). But Stricklerism is a dangerous heresy with a 2000-year history, that attacks the very vitals of the Truth. Where it conquers, the Truth is gone.

But truly we must carefully avoid slipping into either error in our zeal to combat the other. We tend to easily get carried away with the excitement of the battle, and to go too far in one direction or the other. Extremism is rarely Truth. Truly, extremism upward is greater and greater Truth, and we can never go too far in that direction. But Andrewism and Stricklerism are extremes to the right and left of Truth. We must avoid the deadly Strickler error that -

Christ did not need a purifying sacrifice for his own redemption.

There is no such actual, physical thing as "Sin in the flesh, the diabolos, the law of SIN in the members, SIN'S flesh, SIN that dwelleth in me," etc.; that these are just abstract figures of speech applying only to actual sinners - not to a universal characteristic of the flesh of all the race.

The flesh is not "defiled" except by actual transgression.

All that baptism has any connection with is our actual sins; not our physical bondage to sin.

We must, on the other hand, avoid the rather subtle Andrew error that:

Our physical diabolos as such "alienates" us from God, and makes us "children of wrath," and in some mysterious, ritual way we are "justified" from it at baptism.

Some, in the commendable zeal of combatting Stricklerism, have gone too far and have taken on various shades of this view, weakening their case against Stricklerism in an effort to dramatize that case, exposing themselves to counterattack. Some retain a lingering flavor of Andrewism, though not necessarily with the theory it was created to be a stepping-stone unto: the doctrine that none can come out of the grave for judgment who are not thus "justified" from the sin nature.

Brother Roberts always tried to pull the picture back into practical reality from brother Andrews' technical legalisms, and to emphasize that our diabolos, like our mortality to which it is inseparably related, is strictly of itself a physical condition. It is an uncleanness, not a guilt. It does not require forgiveness, but cleansing. It motivates God's pity, not His wrath.

Christ had it in common with all the race, but it did not "alienate" him from God, or make him a "child of wrath" for the 30 years prior to his baptism. That is, in any reasonable, scriptural meaning of "alienate" and "wrath" - of course it is possible, by "black=white" definitions, to make anything say anything. Brother Roberts strenuously fought the application of these terms to Christ as the foundation of brother Andrew's theories of Resurrectional Responsibility. What does "alienate" us from God and make us "children of wrath" is service to the diabolos sin-motions that pervade our flesh. And this everyone is guilty of, and worthy of a cutting-off death - a putting to death - for, except Christ.

Brother Roberts insisted that "justification" (cleansing) from the diabolos, sin-nature is not a legal fiction that occurs at baptism to all, but an actual change of nature that occurs at last-day acceptance only to the righteous. But he did recognize that this could only come through baptism, and that baptism is effective only through the Sacrifice of Christ. In this way we achieve physical cleansing by baptism.

What baptism does for us, as far as our sin-in- the-flesh diabolos is concerned, is this: Baptism is our official* transfer from the service of the diabolos sin-nature to the service of God (Rom. 6). It is in this sense a release from the bondage of the diabolos (which bondage, unescaped from, inevitably means eternal death at the last). If we continue faithful and acceptable to the end - through the cleansing power of Christ's shed blood - then our baptism will prove to have been the beginning of a course that at last brings us to complete freedom from the diabolos both morally and physically.

[*We use the term "official" in this sense: Certainly, by the time we reach the point of baptism we have for some time rejected the service of the diabolos; but baptism is the "official" God-appointed gateway and specific dividing-line from the service of Sin to the service of God. Until we in obedience and submission pass through that gateway, we are - in God's sight - not "brought nigh," whatever our intentions or moral state may be.]

It is all real and practical, not ritual and mysterious: real and practical like Christ's own self-cleansing sacrifice was. His sacrifice did not ritually cleanse him: it was a divinely-required process that actually, physically cleansed him.

Errors, though harmful and distressing, do serve the useful purpose of bringing out the beauty of the Truth more sharply; and (hopefully) of stirring up interest in and appreciation of the deeper aspects of the Truth. We see the Truth, and its beauty, and its importance, and the importance of keeping it clear, and defending it, much more clearly in contrast with the error.