John Martin, following the death of H. P. Mansfield, changed his position

Question: Is the physical principle of sin or "sin in the flesh" "separate but equal" to transgression? Can they be classed in one category?

Answer:

1. Brother Thomas addresses this when he wrote “This sinful nature we inherit. It is our misfortune, not our crime, that we possess it. We are only blameworthy when, being supplied with the power of subduing it, we permit it to reign over us. This power resides in 'the testimony of God'... " (Elpis Israel, p.77). Clean flesh needs to explain how they agree with this statement because they claim that sin as metonymy is only a figure of speech. Brother Thomas says that the second acceptation of 'sin', our sinful nature is something "we possess", something we must "subdue" and something that can "reign over us". Does this sound like the work of mere metonymy? I don't see the "misfortune" if the only misfortune is to have a figure of speech applied to the body. Brother Thomas goes on to say that "We are only blameworthy when, being supplied with the power of subduing it..." — So are we supposed to subdue a figure of speech (?) or are we called to subdue desire excited by that physical principle of indwelling sin (Romans 7:23)? Is there a clean-flesh teacher has the courage to answer this question?
2. These two things, nature and transgression, are not separate in the sense that they are related as cause (flesh) and effect (transgression). But they are not synonymous and therefore "cannot be classed in one category” ("Unity Book", p. 63). The former (our nature) is our misfortune, the latter (transgression) is our crime.
3. There is an irony here in that this charge of making them "separate but equal" is a mantra of clean-flesh teachers against the genuine Christadelphian position. They claim that by applying the word "atonement" to both the body as well as moral issues that this creates some similiarity between them. Genuine Christadelphian teaching has never held such a confused and false position. Take for example these quotes:
• “the double cleansing process all believers must be the subjects of before they can attain to eternal life, but both the moral and physical purification is in virtue of the one sacrifice.” (Roberts/ Harvey, The Law of Moses, 4th ed., p. 249-250)
• “The forgiveness of personal offences is the prominent feature of the apostolic proclamation, because personal offences are the greater barrier. Nevertheless, men are mortal because of sin, quite independently of their own transgressions. Their redemption from this position is a work of mercy and forgiveness, yet a work to be effected in harmony with the righteousness of God, that He might be just while justifying those believing in the Redeemer. It is so declared (Rom. 3:26). It was not to be done by setting aside the law of sin and death, but by righteously nullifying it in one who should be authorized to offer to other men a partnership in his right, subject to required conditions (of their conformity to which, he should be appointed sole judge). (R. Roberts, The Law of Moses, The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons, 4th ed., p. 170-172)
• “The 'uncleanness' of the Lord, therefore, was physical and not moral; but ours is both… Some have aligned uncleanness only with actual transgression. Therefore, they would reason that whereas we are ‘unclean’ because of personal failure, the Lord was not. But if so, they overlook the fact that the altar, which typified Christ, had to be ‘cleansed.’” (HP Mansfield, The Atonement, The Power of the Altar, p. 186)
4. The irony is this: by making "sin in the flesh" merely a figure of the collective transgressions, which the Lord symbolically wore, or had "placed upon him" in his crucifixion (as clean flesh teaches), the clean-flesh position makes transgressions and "sin in the flesh" terms of equality and terms which can be placed in the same category: one being the thing itself (our literal sins) and the other being a mere figure of speech (for those same sins). So clean-flesh teachers really ought to be held to the standard they claim to uphold. But...
5. John Martin, following the death of H. P. Mansfield, changed his position on this point saying, "So he (the Lord) has one sort of sin and you've got two. I won't wear that" (John Martin, Yagoona A.B. meeting with Enfield/Cumberland AB February 5th 2000). Let's think about this claim and apply simple logic:

   The Lord "Had" How Many Kinds of Sin	The Lord Was Related to Sin	Logical State & Conclusion
   2 acceptations	The Lord had two kinds of sin (physical nature and transgression)	False -- no one believes this
   1 acceptation	The Lord had one sort of sin (physical) and you've got two (physical and transgression)	False -- According to John Martin but True according to John Thomas, Robert Roberts, H. P. Mansfield, Henry Sulley, W.H. Boulton and many many others.
   0 acceptations	The Lord was not personally related to sin in any way (though it is claimed that OUR transgressions were literally or symbolically imputed to him)	Ergo: John Martin is left with no other position than that the Lord didn't "have" any sort of sin and therefore his position is a claim of clean-flesh and substitutionary sacrifice. Ergo: John Martin and his supporters are in violation of 2 John 7.

• "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
6. The clean-flesh argument is that because x (transgression) <> y (sin in the flesh) that y must be only a figure of speech and therefore a non-reality; ergo x(1) + y(1) must equal 1 (forgiveness only) whereas we know that x=1 (sin, crime) and y=1 (nature, misfortune) and 1+1 = 2 acceptations of the word 'sin' and man must be cleansed morally and physically to inherit the kingdom of God and both these are by virtue of the One Offering made by Christ.