Clean Flesh and Evolution
Berea-Portal whatever that means is a pseudo-Christadelphian website. I do not think that the admins are even Christadelphians, as they do not agree with the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. They are teachers of the Clean Flesh doctrine and clearly they do not want to talk about what they believe
So what is clean flesh
Edward Turney reintroduced to Christadelphians the idea that sin can only be moral. He agreed that man had sinful flesh, but he saw this as a moral transgression, just like the churches doctrine of original sin. He reasoned that if Christ had been born with this original sin, or sinful flesh, he would be condemned by it, and therefore not be in position to free us from sin.
Many sound men rose up to show Edward Turney that his new ideas were unsound: that it was he who had returned to the doctrine of Catholicism (the Catholic doctrine of an immaculate Christ) not Christadelphians. Among these was a very polished man named J. J. Andrew of London, England.
As we mentioned, fundamental to Turney's teaching was the argument that "sin" was a moral relationship, only. He argued that sin could have no physical existence. Christadelphians taught that sin was both moral and physical. We are guilty of the things we do (the moral aspect of sin) but we suffer the consequences of the sin bodies we physically and literally bare, (sorrow, weakness, and death). The moral aspect of sin is a crime. The physical aspect is a misfortune, not a crime, but it is areality none the less. Jesus came into the world bearing the physical sin in his body that through his sacrifice he might destroy sin at its very root, removing all sin, physical and moral, that the world might be purified from sin.
Of course, if a person allows evolution to guide his thinking and classifies the Scripture record of creation as “unhistorical,” it means that he does not believe that Adam broke God’s law, as reported in Genesis chapter 3. Nor does he believe that mankind is born in sin because of the transgression of Adam. It is not only outright atheists who say they do not believe in these Bible teachings. Says Newsweek of August 22, 1966: “Canadian Jesuit Biblicist Father David Stanley points out, . . . ‘If you accept evolution, Adam . . . was only a primate. The myth of a fall doesn’t fit at all.”’ Also, the book Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin, published in 1968 with the imprimatur of the archbishop of Newark, takes the same view. It first states the fundamental Bible belief that “every human being begins his life in a sinful state because of the sin of Adam,” but then adds: “Those who take the scientific doctrine of evolution seriously can no longer accept this traditional presentation.” And the book shows that its author definitely does take that “doctrine of evolution” seriously. So seriously does he take it that he is willing to mold his viewpoint of the entire Bible to conform to it.
If you want to know the real christadelphian understanding of the atonement you have to go to this website http://www.genusa.com/Truth/Clean-Flesh.html and you can see The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community and how Christadelphian books are astray from christadelphianism
So what is clean flesh
- John Thomas died in 1871. By 1872, this principle, which he had so simply and thoroughly explained, came directly under attack by some of his former friends. In 1872 Edward Turney issued a booklet called "The Sacrifice of Christ." In it was the following statement:
- "...(Another man has said) that for 15 years he has not been able to understand what Dr. Thomas meant by 'sin in the flesh.' That is the fixation of sin in the flesh which he speaks of in 'Elpis Israel' pg. 126, ...and I confess to you without reserve, neither have I been able to understand it. But still I have many a time taught it. I have taken the 15th article of the book of common prayer and pulled it to pieces, and said that Christ came in flesh full of sin; for said I to the people, what can 'sinful flesh' mean, but flesh full of sin? Well now, since my mind has been more especially directed to the study of this subject, I have arrived at this conviction that there is no such thing as flesh full of sin, and never was, nor can be." "Sacrifice of Christ," pg. 16.
Edward Turney reintroduced to Christadelphians the idea that sin can only be moral. He agreed that man had sinful flesh, but he saw this as a moral transgression, just like the churches doctrine of original sin. He reasoned that if Christ had been born with this original sin, or sinful flesh, he would be condemned by it, and therefore not be in position to free us from sin.
- Edward Turney was very clear that he was renouncing Christadelphian teaching. Therefore, his group came to be called the Renunciationists. He stated in his book:
- "I have renounced the Papal myth of "sin in the flesh" by which Mr. Roberts [then editor of the Christadelphian Magazine] is yet bewitched..." "Sacrifice of Christ," by Edward Turney pg. 34
Many sound men rose up to show Edward Turney that his new ideas were unsound: that it was he who had returned to the doctrine of Catholicism (the Catholic doctrine of an immaculate Christ) not Christadelphians. Among these was a very polished man named J. J. Andrew of London, England.
As we mentioned, fundamental to Turney's teaching was the argument that "sin" was a moral relationship, only. He argued that sin could have no physical existence. Christadelphians taught that sin was both moral and physical. We are guilty of the things we do (the moral aspect of sin) but we suffer the consequences of the sin bodies we physically and literally bare, (sorrow, weakness, and death). The moral aspect of sin is a crime. The physical aspect is a misfortune, not a crime, but it is areality none the less. Jesus came into the world bearing the physical sin in his body that through his sacrifice he might destroy sin at its very root, removing all sin, physical and moral, that the world might be purified from sin.
The physical sin body is the root of all moral transgression. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (James. 1:14) By destroying sin in his body, Christ destroyed all sin at its very root and source.
Now this clean flesh teaching is getting support again among the admins of Berea-Portal. Berea-Portal teachings Evolution the admins do not believe in Adamic Condemnation, they have it that Adam and Eve were just a special creation about 6,000 years ago and only represent the human race, which already existed. So, in their attempted escape from the "Adamic Condemnation" and "sinful flesh" doctrine they fail to explain why or how Jesus represents the humans that already existed for 100,000 years before Adam & Eve.I have seen on forums and on facebook for years now the clean flesh teaching coming from Richard Morgan, Ken G, J. Burke and others do not believe in Adamic Condemnation because he believes in evolution Adamic Condemnation or original sin that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing. Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh; and "that which is born of the flesh is flesh", or sin. This is a misfortune, not a crime.
Of course, if a person allows evolution to guide his thinking and classifies the Scripture record of creation as “unhistorical,” it means that he does not believe that Adam broke God’s law, as reported in Genesis chapter 3. Nor does he believe that mankind is born in sin because of the transgression of Adam. It is not only outright atheists who say they do not believe in these Bible teachings. Says Newsweek of August 22, 1966: “Canadian Jesuit Biblicist Father David Stanley points out, . . . ‘If you accept evolution, Adam . . . was only a primate. The myth of a fall doesn’t fit at all.”’ Also, the book Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin, published in 1968 with the imprimatur of the archbishop of Newark, takes the same view. It first states the fundamental Bible belief that “every human being begins his life in a sinful state because of the sin of Adam,” but then adds: “Those who take the scientific doctrine of evolution seriously can no longer accept this traditional presentation.” And the book shows that its author definitely does take that “doctrine of evolution” seriously. So seriously does he take it that he is willing to mold his viewpoint of the entire Bible to conform to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment