Christadelphian Teaching Nature & Sacrifice of Christ

1. The atonement itself is simple. Doctrinal errors, and errorists' cunning (Ephesians 4:14) use of language are the only things that have made discussion of the topic complex. God has offered us salvation and it would seem obvious that God wants us to understand how He will save us (John 3:16) -- upon what basis He will save us (Romans 3:26).


2. The present controversy has become hopelessly bogged down in arguments that divert attention away from the fundamental issue. Therefore it would help to lay out the fundamental problem and answer the question: "what is clean-flesh?".

   
   
   1. Simply stated, clean-flesh denies that there is "sin in the flesh". It does not deny that the death principle exists "in the flesh". In fact, clean-flesh teachers talk about 'death' to divert attention away from this:
   
   
   2. What is "sin in the flesh"?
      
      • There are two acceptations or definitions of the word "sin". Sin is first transgressions (eg. Leviticus 6:2; James 4:17) and secondly it is a term applied to our physical nature (2nd Corinthians 5:21; 1st Peter 2:24).
      
      
      • "Sin in the flesh" is that law in its physical constitution that inclines it to self-gratification. It is the evil animal principle which evolves transgression as well as natural corruption. It is that which has "the power of death" and personified in Hebrews 2:14 as "him".
      
      
      • In other words, "sin" is first transgression. Second, "sin" is the evil animal principle of the body which evolves transgression as well as natural physical corruption which ends in death.
   3. How is "sin in the flesh" denied? In different ways:
      
      • By making various arguments such as, "Romans 8:3 does not say sin-in-the-flesh" (notice the added hyphens). The added hyphens indicate sin and flesh are a single thing and therefore the comment suggests that flesh is not 'sin' (2nd definition).
      
      
      • By claiming that the 2nd acceptation is "only" a metonymy. It isn't as Romans 7:23 shows. Because of the 2nd definition of the word 'sin', the flesh and blood body is sometimes spoken of as "sin" which is a metonymy. A metonymy is when you call a thing by a characteristic of the thing. In this case, 'sin' is put for 'flesh and blood'. If use of 'sin' as a metonymy made it 'not real' then something that is not real ought not be spoken of as 'sin in my members' (Romans 7:23). If it isn't real then Paul, and therefore the spirit of God, was mistaken when Paul wrote, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." If it was not real but only a figure of speech, how strange for Paul to say that this sin 'in his members' constitutes his body to be a 'body of death' (Romans 7:24) and for James to say that 'sin when it is finished bringeth forth death' (James 1:15).
      
      
      • By claiming that God condemned "sin, in the flesh" (notice the added comma) -- that is, they claim that Christ condemned sin while he was mortal by not committing transgression -- or by Christ having our transgressions, somehow, symbolically 'transferred' to him -- just as the apostasy teaches. The problem here is that Romans 8:3 says that God did something the Mosaic law could not do... God condemned "sin in the flesh".
      
      
      • By claiming that the 2nd acceptation of sin is "Andrewism". This accusation is made by those who, as brother HP Mansfield wrote, "do not know Andrewism when they see it, though they wax eloquent about the 'blasphemy' of certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" H.P. Mansfield,Logos, July 1971, p. 382. The suggestion that the 2nd acceptation of sin is "Andrewism" stems from the writings of Harry Fry who was disfellowshipped in 1898 for his erroneous teachings on the atonement. But his writings were redistributed in the 1980's by those who subscribe to his teachings.