Saved By His (FREE) Life, by John Martin

Saved By His Life, by John Martin


The above book is causing chaos in certain parts of the world, just like Saved By His Life, by John Martin, did in the 1980's and 1990's.



Matthew Trowell's exposition contained therein is apostate, but to some extent, is worse than Saved By His Life because it is presented in a way where some of his quotes are from sound books such as Elpis Israel, Eureka etc which makes it look as though his views are the same as the pioneers.



On Sunday night, I received an email from a Central Christadelphian in the US claiming that these false ideas are taking over. I respectfully pointed out to them that Temperance Hall's failure to take decisive action in 1923 against A D Strickler, and their great desire for unity as opposed to purity in the 1940's and 1950's led to compromise statements being written which allowed them to reach a re-union position without any of the errorists changing their minds - a Pseudo agreement therefore (Cooper-Carter Addendum being an example). Error has to be withdrawn from - "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" the apostle tells us, and it has been unfortunately evident that as a result of compromise, and a failure to stand valiantly for the faith "contending earnestly", the truth has been lost in most parts of the world (or so we are told by some in the Central Community).



The brethren and sisters who come to our house every other friday are currently reading "Purifying of the Heavenly" with us. How important to have these principles firmly in our minds.



The key issue with Saved By His Life and Understanding the Atonement is that they fail to grasp that there are two acceptations of sin in the Scriptures (1) constitutional sin (in sin did my mother conceive me, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing, I was shapen in iniquity, made sin who knew no sin etc etc and (2) actual personal transgression of God's law. Matthew Trowell tries to make out that when bro Thomas used the word "principle" in relation to sin and evil in Elpis Israel, that bro Thomas was therefore not talking about anything physical. Bro Thomas could not be clearer than the following on page 127 of Elpis Israel:




Quote:

"Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus
if it had not existed there... the purpose of God was to condemn sin in the
flesh; a thing that could not have been accomplished if there were no sin
there."









Notice that Trowell also fails to grasp metonymy, quoting extensively from John Carter as opposed to bro Thomas and bro Roberts. Bro Growcott has a brilliant section on Metonymy in Purifying of the Heavenly.



Let us remember at all times that Shield in Australia in 1956 could not accept clause 5 in the BASF which refers to the physical defilement of our nature, and to achieve re-union, the Cooper-Carter Addendum was created to 'tweak' the wording of clauses 5 and 12, referring to a defiled conscience as opposed to a physically defiled nature, a tweak which fundamentally changes truth into error.



Upon reviewing Matthew Trowell's book, one soon discovers that he quotes Elpis Israel and Eureka briefly, and John Carter extensively, and that once again his focus is on Christ's life of obedience as opposed to Christ's sacrifice.



Let us stick firmly to the exposition of brethren Thomas, Roberts and Smallwood on this vital subject and be prepared to stand up and voice our disapproval of apostate teaching which leads weaker brethren and sisters away from the Truth.



Bro Steve




STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 07/02/12 #2



From Elpis Israel, bro John Thomas, 1848


Quote:


The remote cause of these "motions" is that physical principle, or quality, of the flesh, styled indwelling sin, which returns the mortal body to the dust; and that which excites the latent disposition is the law of God forbidding to do thus and so; for, "I had not known sin, but by the law".

Now, while a righteous man feels this law involuntarily at work in his members, the law of sin, or of nature within him; he also perceives there a something which condemns "the motions of sins," and suppresses them; so that they shall not impel him to do what he ought not to do.

The best of men -- and I quote Paul as an illustration of the class -- are conscious of the co-existence of these hostile principles within them.

"I find," says he, "a law that, when I would do good, evil is present with me" Yes; the principle of evil and the principle of good are the two laws which abide in the saints of God so long as they continue subject to mortality.

The reader is invited to re-peruse pages eighty-nine and ninety on the subject of these laws, as it will prevent repetition in this place.

The law of sin and death is hereditary, and derived from the federal sinner of the race; but the law of the mind is an intellectual and moral acquisition.

The law of sin pervades every particle of the flesh; but in the thinking flesh it reigns especially in the propensities.

Note that Matthew Trowell tries to make the argument in his book that the references to indwelling sin "sin that dwelleth in me" (Romans 7) relates to the mind, whereas bro Thomas' consistent teaching was that "the law of sin pervaded EVERY particle of the flesh".

The following is a quote from Bro Growcott in Purifying of the Heavenly worthy of consideration:


Quote:


The word 'sin' is used in two principle acceptations in the Scripture. It signifies in the first place 'the transgression of law'; and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust ... Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled 'sinful flesh,' that is, 'flesh full of sin'. . . Sin, I say, is a synonym* for human nature." - Elpis Israel, pages 126-127

[*Synonym: "One of two or more words having the same meaning."]



Illustrating brethren Thomas' and Roberts' robust and uncompromising use and exposition of terms scripturally applied to Christ that moderns, for "unity," shy away from or try to water down and explain away. These excerpts could be multiplied many-fold, and the quotation of a fuller context would make them even more powerful. (We suggest they all be looked up and studied). But surely these given here are sufficient to show without possibility of contradiction their consistent teaching: sound Christadelphian teaching from the beginning. A few by later writers are given to show that, in the early days at least, the same sound teaching was preserved and insisted on. It is deeply saddening that the present outlook is very different. All quotations from the Christadelphian through 1898 are by Brother Roberts personally, except where they are specifically attributed to brother Thomas





"Made Sin"-2 Cor. 5:21



"To be 'made sin' for others (2 Cor. 5:21) is to become flesh and blood."- Eureka 1:247

"Christ was 'made sin' in being born into a sin- constitution of things." Christadelphian, 1898:390

"Was Christ 'made sin'? Brother Roberts' answer: "Yes." - Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, No. 93

"Sin is a synonym for human nature ... God made him to be sin for us ... Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." - Elpis Israel, page 127

"Christ 'made sin,' though sinless, is the doctrine of God." - brother Thomas, Christadelphian, 1873: 362

"It is testified that he was 'made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21). As he was not of sinful character, this could only apply to his physical nature, drawn from the veins of Mary." - Christadelphian, 1869:83

"God sent forth Jesus in the nature of the condemned, that sin might be condemned in him. Hence, he was "made sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). - Christadelphian, 1873:402

"This perishing body is 'sin'...'Sin,' in its application to the body, stands for all its constituents and laws." - Eureka 1:248

"Was he not made sin in being made of a woman who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?" - Christadelphian, 1873:463

"He (Jesus) did no sin, but he was physically 'made sin for us who knew no sin.' He was sent forth 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' that sin might be condemned in him." - Christadelphian, 1898:343





STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 07/07/12 #3




Quote:




Extract from the book "Understanding the Atonement"

So if our understanding of how the word ‘sin’ is used in Scripture is so important, how is it used in Scripture as it relates to the work of God through the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

We must remember that it was sin or disobedience which was the cause of suffering and death coming in to the world. As a consequence of Adam’s sinning, we are now dying creatures — subject to death and prone to sin. Christ first came to deal with the root of the problem which is ‘sin’. When he returns to the Earth he will deal with its symptoms — suffering and death.

Please let the readers of this post note that bro Thomas' consistent exposition on this subject, never included the term "prone to sin" in relation to the physical nature, or the quality of the nature. He referred to it as "sin in the flesh" or "flesh full of sin". "Prone to sin" has only become popular amongst Christadelphians since the 1950's to accommodate error, especially amongst those in the Shield community in Australia. It is the same apostate exposition as that advanced by John Martin, in "Saved by his Life".

Note the words of bro Thomas in Elpis Israel below:


Quote:




This enemy within the human nature is the mind of the flesh, which is enmity against God; it is not subject to His law, neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7). The commandment of God, which is "holy, just and good," being so restrictive of the propensities, which in purely animal men display themselves with uncontrolled violence, makes them appear in their true colors. These turbulent propensities the apostle styles "sin in the flesh," of which it is full; hence, he also terms it "sinful flesh." This is human nature; and the evil in it, made so apparent by the law of God, he personifies as "pre-eminently A SINNER," (Rom. 7:12-13)

Bro Thomas could not be clearer - his understanding was that the flesh was "full of sin".


Quote:

from "Understanding the Atonement..."

It is “our iniquities” or our sins that separate us from God (Isaiah 59:2). In Colossians 1:21 Paul says that we are “alienated and enemies in our minds by wicked works”. Again, in Ephesians 4:18 Paul says that we are “alienated from the life of God through the ignorance.” It is our sinful way of thinking, or “carnal mind which is enmity against God” (Romans 8:7). We possess flesh and blood natures with an inherent tendency towards sinning. Sometimes we find that our flesh and blood natures are referred to as ‘sin’, not because flesh and blood is a ‘form’ of sin or it contains something called ‘sin’, but by the principle of metonymy where “the flesh” and “sin” are related as cause and effect.





Mr Trowell says that it is sometimes called sin, not because flesh and blood is a form of sin or it contains something called sin...". We ask the question, how could sin have been condemned in the body of Jesus if sin had not existed in his flesh?



Quote:

From Understanding the Atonement

There are many occurrences in the New Testament where this principle ofmetonymy is found and where the word ‘sin’ is put for the flesh. Here are some of those examples:



Example Number 1:

The first example is Romans 8:3 where Paul says: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Mg: ‘sin’s flesh), and for (RSV: ‘by a sacrifice for sin), condemned sin in the flesh…”

The margin in the KJV says Christ came in the likeness of ‘sin’s flesh’. In other words, the flesh and blood nature that we have now, with its tendency towards sinning, came about as a result of sin. It is the product of sin. The phrase ‘sinful flesh’ or ‘sin’s flesh’, therefore, is not referring to a literal physical substance within us called sin or the propensities within us (styled ‘sin-in-the-flesh'). It is a figure of metonymy whereby the cause of us disobeying God (our flesh) is related to its effect (our sinning).



In response to Mr Trowell's exposition, we ask the reader to note the following from the pen of Bro Roberts:


Quote:




BY BROTHER ROBERTS "Questions and Questions" Oct., 1873, pages 460-468):


9. Why was Jesus "put to death in the flesh" of Adam? Paul says it was that"through death he might destroy that having the power of death." If "that having the power of death"* was not IN HIS BODY, how could he "through death" destroy it? On the other hand, how could he be a body of the flesh of Adam without also having in himself that which was "the power of death" in it.10. You say that the body of Christ was not sinful flesh, but a "likeness" of it. In what did the likeness flesh consist, if it was not of the same sort? It is testified that he was made in the "likeness of men" (Phil. 2:8). Would you therefore say he was "not a man but a likeness of one"?


If not — if you say he was a man though Paul says he was made in the likeness —why not say he was sinful flesh, though Paul says he was sent in the likeness of it?


11. Paul says that God, sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). How could this have been done IF THERE BE NO SUCH THING AS "SIN IN THE FLESH," and if Christ was not SINFUL FLESH, but a likeness of it?


12. Moses says that Adam begat a son "in his own likeness" (Gen. 5:3). Does this mean that the son so begotten was, in any sense, of a dissimilar nature to his father? If you say No, as you are bound to, why do you contend that a "likeness of sinful flesh" is dissimilar to sinful flesh itself?




STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 07/07/12 #4



Extract from Purifying of the Heavenly, by bro GV Growcott. We whole heartedly agree with him and find his thinking in complete harmony with bro Thomas and bro Roberts.


Quote:


"METONYMY" is not an alternate to reality. It does not mean mere shadow and type. It is simply the extension of one term to include a related aspect of the same entity. To say something is called something "by metonymy" doesn't brush it away as a fact. The dictionary definition of "metonymy" is:

"The use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute, or with which it is associated."

Sin, literally and primarily, is transgression of God's law. That is the root meaning, from which others flow. The term "sin" is scripturally extended by the process called "metonymy" (extending a name to include a related thing) to include the evil, corrupt, death-bringing principle in every cell and particle of human flesh - the diabolos - that causes all diseases and death and disharmony with God: and which normally (unless there is direct Divine interference, as in the unique case of Christ) will inevitably bring forth its fruits of actual transgression.

This evil principle in the flesh is both the result of sin, and the cause of sin, and therefore the Scriptures go to the root of the matter, and give the name "sin" to it (just as they call hate, "murder"; and lust, "adultery") - and they deal with all sin as an inseparable totality.

Actual transgression, and the evil principle that Paul calls "the Law of Sin in the members," (or "Sin in the flesh," or the diabolos) - are inseparable parts of the total sin constitution that Christ came to destroy and abolish. Therefore the Scriptures, which deal with roots and realities, and not mere superficial appearances, gives the same name to all: SIN.

"Metonymy" is not a magic word to change a Yes to a No, or a fact into not a fact. It is simply a description of a process, illustrated in this case by the Scriptures grouping together everything to do with sin under the name Sin.

When you see "metonymy," just remember "another name" - that's what it means - and in this case, a scriptural, God-given name.

To say it is "metonymy," doesn't change the fact that God (the Supreme and All-Wise Authority) gave the name "SIN" to the evil principle in all human flesh.

[metonymy--the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the track for horse racing.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek metōnumia, literally ‘change of name.’]






JonDavies

Registered: 12/08/09
Posts: 48
Posted 08/26/12 #5

Steve, I would recommend contacting brother Matt directly with your comments, I'm sure he'd appreciate discussing these things in the spirit of Prov 24:9.
__________________
"that the excellency may be of God and not of us"


STEVEPHS

Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 405
Posted 09/04/12 #6

Hi Jon

I did send an email to a contact listed on the main site of where his book is advertised but I never got a reply.

I would recommend that everyone in the Christadelphian brotherhood re-reads Eureka, Elpis Israel, Law of Moses, Sin and Sacrifice by William Smallwood [booklet against the A D Strickler error of the 1910's and 1920's] and Purifying of the Heavenly by bro Growcott.

How many in Central today believe anti-clean flesh and anti-partial atonement views? According to several people who have written to us from Central or we know from Central are saying to us that partial atonement is now the mainstream view - do you think that is true?

When brethren publish books 'publicly' their error needs to be renounced publicly. I do intend posting more in this section in the months ahead pointing out where Matthew Trowell has gone astray. The point which angered me the most reading the first part of his book is how he misconstrues bro Thomas' writings on this vital subject leading readers to believe he is pro-pioneer in his approach and exposition, whereas his writings couldn't be further away from them.

Jon, this is Yahweh's truth we are dealing with. The apostle says that a ittle leaven leaventh the whole lump - it is so sad to see how this heresy has spread in the last 20-30 years especially. If brethren stuck fast to the writings of the Pioneers they wouldn't go astray!

Bro Steve