The Teachings of Clean-Flesh a.k.a. Renuciationism

The physical nature of man — the diablos of Hebrews 2:14 — began to be openly disputed in Christadelphia in the 1870's. Clean flesh teachers like David Handley (who later repented) and Edward Turney, John Bell and Allen D. Strickler promoted the error that our physical nature was without (clean from) sin. They taught sin was simply a moral problem. They redefined "sin in the flesh" to mean "transgression". Thus this teaching was called "clean flesh" by Christadelphians. "The word ‘sin’ is used in two principal 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." (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 129) "The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture" (John Bell, The Shield, Feb. 1922, p. 42). "'Sin', I say, is a synonym for human nature hence the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean." (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., page 130) John Bell responded “Yes, by Dr. Thomas, but not by God, in the Bible.” (John Bell, Feb. 1922, The Shield, p. 23). "But to return. Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom. 8:3), came to John as the 'Ram of Consecration,' that his inwards and his body might be washed according to the law.—(Ex. 29:17, 22.) But these representations of the law and the prophets could not have found their antitype in Jesus, if in the days of his flesh he had possessed a holier or purer nature than those for whom he was bruised in the heel. His character was spotless; but as being the seed of the woman, of whom no clean flesh can be born (Job 25:4), and seed of Abraham, which is not immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite, his nature was flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), which Paul styles 'sinful flesh,' or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called 'sin' because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression. 'God made Jesus sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'—(2 Cor. 5:21.)"(The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 501)   "XII. That for delivering this message, he was put to death by the Jesus and Romans, who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done, viz., the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, as a basis for the remission of sins. All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam's disobedient race, are forgiven. Therefore, by a figure, his blood cleanseth from sin." (Birmingham Statement of Faith)   Doctrines to Be Rejected: ... 27. That there is no sin in the flesh. ... Does anyone deny transgressions occur in the flesh? No. What then does this "doctrine to be rejected" mean if it does not refer to indwelling sin (Romans 7), that is to say the physical nature of all mortals?   The denial of what "sin in the flesh" actually is was originally called "Renunciationism" because the leading advocate of clean flesh, Edward Turney, renounced what he originally wrote about the physical nature of Christ: (Edward Turney, Diabolism, p. 41) What Edward Turney Renounced Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical Physical The Redeeming Power — Moral In contrast, "Andrewism" was the invention of a legal condemnation which, it was argued, "locked" men in the grave. J. J. Andrew claimed (1892) that mankind was born under a legal condemnation of Adam's sin that must be removed by baptism. Thomas Williams (of The Advocate magazine) also taught this, and research suggests may have been the original source of this teaching. "Consequently they cannot be delivered from the dust without being cleansed from the sin inherited from Adam." (J.J. Andrew, The Sanctuary Keeper , September 1897, p. 41). "Adam's sin must be removed, remitted, pardoned, or whatever term is thought most expressive, before reconciliation to God can be accomplished" (Thomas Williams, The Advocate, vol. 9, p. 10). "Baptism removes original sin." "Baptism justifies from racial sin." "I believe that federally and racially we are held guilty of original sin" (Thomas Williams, from Sin and Sacrifice by W.M. Smallwood, p. 84). J. J. Andrew claimed baptism took away this "inherited" legal condemnation of Adam's sin, thus unlocking the grave to resurrection for judgment. As J. J. Andrew's health declined he became increasingly confused in his teachings, often confusing legal, moral and physical matters, and by 1898 he equated "Adamic condemnation", or his legal condemnation of 1892 with "sin tendencies" (which arise from our physical nature and may become a moral problem through sin). By 1904 J. J. Andrew was teaching that we have a "spirit-body" following baptism. His 1904 writings are so unscriptural that some Unamended refuse to believe Andrew wrote the things he did. Careful readers will note that his latter writings frequently used legal, moral and physical issues interchangeably. This is obviously a serious mistake in logic and easily leads to doctrinal error. Later generations of clean flesh teachers, who do not really understand this history, and who simply repeat the disinformation they've been told, portray the teaching about our physical "sin nature" as "Andrewism". The charge of "Andrewism" is regularly used by clean flesh teachers as a way to intimidate brethren into believing the error of clean flesh. Instead of doing the hard work of research, proper presentation of the history and doctrinal issues, or having to face their own doctrinal error, the charge of "Andrewism" serves as a convenient substitute for those who deny the Biblical teaching of what the "devil" of Hebrews 2:14 is — what "sin in the flesh" is. Bro. H.P. Mansfield noted the clean flesh confusion about what "Andrewism" actually is: H.P. Mansfield, Logos, July 1971, p. 382 Would clean-flesh teachers (who claim they are not clean-flesh teachers) please tell us which "certain statements that are in accordance with the Truth" brother H.P. Mansfield was referring to? The answer, or lack thereof, would be most revealing... For brother Robert Roberts 1882 judgment of J. J. Andrew's understanding of the atonement, ten years prior to brother Andrew's doctrinal departure, 1892, click here. Jim Luke: Don't quote HP Mansfield or Robert Roberts: "men write all sorts of things..." (from the Yagoona/Enfield/Cumberland meeting) If someone is going to accept clean flesh arguments from modern teachers, they should know where they come from: ("Out of Darkness" by clean flesh teacher A.D.Strickler, page 74) "perverted are those who suppose that because God manifest in the flesh went through all these things 'for us,' therefore he was not himself included in the entire operation"Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian,  1873, p 553

---

1. 1989 Petrie Terrace (Shield/Clean Flesh) "Education Campaign" (Images: Page 1 Page 2)
   • Letter from June 29th, 1989. This letter was sent following a meeting which occurred shortly after the death of brother HP Mansfield. The meeting involved brethren from Australia, and England. They met with Petrie Terrace (Shield) to restore fellowship. Note that "very prominent brethren in Australia and England" had given assurances that "atonement for nature" was not only "unscriptural" but "unacceptable". Furthermore, certain Central brethren gave Petrie Terrace assurances that an "education campaign" would commence in Central. Notice that  on page 1 the correspondent represents brother Roberts as teaching that Christ's sacrifice was PURELY OBEDIENCE. The arguments the Shield (clean-flesh) correspondent makes are the very arguments current clean-flesh teachers are making.
    
2. Why Was A Man Who Committed No Sin Raised Up on A Stake? by bro. Keith Poole
    
3. Transgressions and Sin – (PDF format¹) by Stephen Genusa
    
4. The Australian Unity Basis "Not Sufficient" — H.P. Mansfield, 1972
    
5. "The Likeness of Sinful Flesh"
    
6. Dispelling Confusion by John Ullman 1986
    
7. Physical Cleansing
    
8. What is the Cause of Mortality?
    
9. The Tidings 1994
    
10. The Testimony Magazine 1988
     
11. "two aspects" "sin... used in a secondary sense" "two principal acceptations" "two forms" "two classes" "a term of double import" "two principal ways" "two manifestations" "two ways" "two kinds" (HTML format) (PDF format)  
    
12. Ceremonial Condemnation of Sin or "Ceremonial Condemnation of Sin"? Same Words. Totally Different Meanings. What is the "devil" in Clean-Flesh Teaching? (HTML format)  
    
13. The Death/Mortality Only Clean-Flesh Doctrine (HTML format)
    
14. H.P. Mansfield's "What Is Sin", Logos, September 1970 (PDF format)  
    
15. The Truth Affirmed – (PDF format¹)  (HTML format²) by brethren Daniel Carroll and Stephen Genusa 
    • A 96 page book examining the errors of JJ Andrew on the doctrine of the Atonement. A thorough consideration of doctrinal errors including Resurrectional Responsibility, 'alienation' etc. Has been highly recommended to various brethren by John Martin in years past.
    • "This is an excellent exposition of the doctrinal differences between Central and the Unamended and we thank you for it" -- H.D. Bartholemew (B.C.).
    • "Your booklet is the clearest defense of the truth that we have seen in our generation... We need to read and reread Eureka and Elpis Israel year in and year out" -- Roy Styles (Detroit).
       
     
16. The Yagoona/Enfield/Cumberland Audio Tapes (MP3 format).
    • Tape 1
    • Tape 2
    • Tape 3
    • Tape 4
    • Tape 5
    • Tape 6
    • Tape 7
     
    
17. The Clean Flesh Doctrine in the Christadelphian Community (Macromedia Flash format)
    • The doctrinal basis of clean flesh, and how clean flesh teachings have been modified. From David Handley and Edward Turney through modern day teachers. Discusses the foundation of E Turney's teaching and shows how H. Fry modified Turney's teaching while keeping Turney's foundation. Shows H. Fry defending J. Bell and A.D. Strickler. Fry's form of clean flesh has prevailed over Edward Turney's, A. D. Strickler's and John Bell's. Fry's clean flesh teachings have been adopted and promoted by John Hensley, Richard Stone, John Martin, John Knowles, Carl Parry, David Evans, Brian Luke, Jim Luke, Des Manser, James Mansfield, Ray Edgecombe, Peter Weller, Michael Edgecombe, and others.
      
    • Historical chart presented at the classes outlines the history of clean-flesh/partial atonement.
     
18. The Evolving Nature of the Clean Flesh Error (PDF format)
    • "Error changes its form from age to age, but the dutiful attitude remains the same—the duty of individual repudiation and non-toleration in fellowship." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 66)
    • A chart demonstrating how clean flesh has transformed itself from the time of David Handley and Edward Turney (1873) to the modern form of clean flesh.
    • How words have been twisted in the attempt to appear to teach sound doctrine. Clerical error defrocked.
    
    
19. Illustrative History Concerning David Handley et al. (HTML format)
    • David Handley, the person who led Edward Turney to clean flesh, renounced clean flesh himself in 1881. He and others who were with him were reimmersed.
    • Questions and Questions by Robert Roberts (HTML format).
    
    
20. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks: Central Christadelphian Teaching on the Atonement from 1906-1943 from the pages of The Christadelphian Magazine (PDF Format)
    
21. John Knowles comments on a G. V. Growcott article (PDF format)
    
22. A Letter Concerning the August 2005 Combined AB Meeting of Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield and Tea Tree Gully (HTML format)
    
23. A Primer on Clean Flesh (HTML format). Also, Questions and Answers on the Atonement (HTML format).
    
24. The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community (PDF format)
    • Here are just a few examples of the doctrinal corruption occuring in the Christadelphian community. This other document partly explains why and provides a few more examples.
    
    
25. "A Time to Heal": Historical Central Teaching on Christ Offering For Himself  (PDF Format)
    
26. The Tidings Magazine On Christ Offering For Himself (HTML format)
    
27. Harry Fry, Dick Stone, John Bell, John Martin, AD Strickler (HTML format)
    
28. A Brief Comparison of Atonement Positions (PDF format)
    
29. One or Two Definitions of the Word Sin? (PDF format)
    
30. Simple Questions Expose the Error of Clean Flesh (PDF format¹)
31. On the Nature of Man and The Sacrifice of Christ (PDF format¹)
    • Twelve point statement by brethren R. Roberts and HP. Mansfield.
32. Letter from Graham Hill to John Martin, November 1989(PDF format¹)
    • Brother Graham Hill points out a number of serious problems with John Martin's book that have never been answered.
     
33. A Very Good letter from Rene (GV) Growcott to bro. Roy Styles on Why the Phrase "Offering for Sin Nature" Should NOT be Used (PDF format¹)
    
    
34. The Language of clean-flesh teachers (PDF format¹) (HTML format²) (updated August 1^st 2001)
    
    • How wordsmithing is being used to mislead brethren. A short "dictionary" which shows how clean-flesh teachers can use the right words or phrases and yet teach the clean-flesh doctrine (while denying that they teach clean-flesh).
     
35. John Martin's 1970 Lecture at Cumberland, "Echoes of Past Controversy" (PDF format¹) (HTML format²)
    • John Martin gives an overview of the history of the clean flesh movements. John Martin endorses the Los Angeles ecclesia's 10 point  unity statement as endorsed by brother John Carter in 'A Time To Heal' articles printed in the 1939 and 1940 Christadelphian magazine.
    • "fifteen men representing the Central fellowship and fifteen men representing the Suffolk Street fellowship met together and found perfect agreement upon these doctrinal principles and they adopted the four negative points which the 'Time to Heal' article set out - that they would deny the doctrine of 'clean flesh' - and they adopted the six positive points which spoke of the clarity of the truth. And on the basis of rejection of error and wholehearted acceptance of truth by 1953 unity had been virtually achieved in Melbourne."
     
36. The 10 Point Unity Statement Endorsed by John Carter  and John Martin (PDF format¹) (HTML format²)
    • This is the 10 point unity statement endorsed by brethren John Carter in 1939-1940 and John Martin in 1971 spoken of in the previous item. 
     
37. John Martin's 1971 Lecture at Brisbane, Queensland, "The Relationship of Jesus to His Own Sacrifice" (PDF format transcript¹) (HTML format transcript²) (MP3 Audio format)
    • "We’ve come here however to call a spade a spade and not a ‘digging instrument’. It’s one of the nerve centers of the controversy and it’s either got to be solved or there’s going to be problems. Now this is what I’ve been saying this afternoon, I’m going to continue to say this evening that we’ve got to come head onto the problem and we’ve got to handle this problem, and front up to it or else we are going to have a disaster. Anybody who feels that we can bury the points of controversy and cloud them over in nebulous language and have unity is a fool. Because you will never get unity on that basis. You will get union of a sorts which has got nothing to do with Divine unity and it will be that which will be destroyed at coming of our Lord Jesus Christ if it’s not destroyed by itself before his coming. Divine unity brethren and sisters is on the basis of Divine truth understood, believed, and acted upon. And upon no other basis. We have therefore to spell out in clear unmistakable terms what we believe to be the Christadelphian position. Not my opinion. The Christadelphian position on this very vital question of the Relationship of Jesus to His Own Sacrifice, and I use that term deliberately."
    • "And consequently there’s no need for him to be involved in his own sacrifice and lay down his life for us… ‘he died for us’ [said in a reverential tone]. And you’ve got the substitutionary theory and you could put it in neon lights Jesus saves and join the salvation army because they believe that. And all of Paul’s epistles Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians and the majestic lofty writings of the apostle Paul and there’s no need, no need for them. Because all those lengthy explanations and expositions of lofty principles which Paul speaks about are useless.  ‘He died for us’ is all we need to know."
    • "The false theory says that if Jesus died for himself, here’s another twist to it, 'he died the natural death of mankind', which of course, just abrogated the law of mortality in the fact that he died. 'But in fact the physical death was only for you and I'. Now you listen to this! ‘Know ye not that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?’ We’re not just talking your own baptism as sometimes we imagine, we go down into the waters of baptism we say our old man died as if we died unto our own death. We’re not dying unto our own death at all! We’re baptized into his death. And if he wasn’t involved in that death, then you’d never be involved in his baptism. That’s Paul’s argument and what was his death? A sacrificial death and that’s what saved him and it only saves you because it first saved him, and so the apostle goes on to say, ‘therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life’."
     
38. The source of modern clean-flesh teachers' teaching located. 
    • Fry's teachings made a matter of fellowship. Ecclesial Intelligence from May 1898 Christadelphian. 
    • The person disfellowshipped was H. Fry who later in 1923 would publish a book called Echoes of Past Controversies. This booklet is the tutorial for modern day clean-flesh teachers. The language and arguments are exactly those of the modern clean-flesh teachers.
    •  Another case of division over this issue appears in The Christadelphian July 1876 Ecclesial Intelligence where the PA teachers were also removed from fellowship.
       
39. Christ Our Passover or True Christadelphian Teaching Concerning the One Great Offering (Booklet) (PDF format¹) by Frank G. Jannaway
    • "As opposed to the 
      1. 'clean flesh,' 
      2. 'free life', and 
      3. 'substitution' heresies now rife in Australia, United States and Canada"
    
    

    "The difficulty, if such it may be termed, is only apparent. Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures; it has a physical as well as a moral application." (W. H. Boulton, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 181) For more quotes click here "Now look a little more closely at the manner in which the altar of Exodus 29:36 had to be cleansed. It was not by washing which might fittingly foreshadow baptism as you suggest, but by the shedding of blood, and that of a sin offering!... The altar was thus cleansed through the shedding of blood. Whose blood was shed to cleanse the Jesus-altar? None other than his own in spite of what the clean-flesh theorists might say." Bro. H.P. Mansfield, The Atonement,"The Christ Altar", Logos Publications, p. 188

     
40. Letter from the 1970's HA Twine Controversy – (HTML format²)
    • Letter written in the 70's signed by Brighton, Cumberland, Enfield, Tea Tree Gully and Woodville ecclesias defending the position on the atonement as advocated in Transgressions and Sin,Theory of Partial Atonement and Conquest of Sin.
     
41. From "Catechism of the Catholic Church", p. 175. (HTML format)
     
42. Brother Henry Sulley on The Atonement (PDF format¹)
     
43. The Constitution of Sin from Elpis Israel (HTML format²)
    • This is the section of Elpis Israel that clean-fleshers cannot fully endorse, or as in the case of others, they reinterpret it to suit their doctrinal error.
     
44. Sacrificial Offering for Human Nature (PDF format¹)  (HTML format²)
    • The Tidings Magazine March 1994, Reprinted Logos August 1994. The phrase "offering for human nature" is best avoided but here's Don Styles' own words not that many years ago. This is only another proof of what historical Central teaching is, "who changed" and who the modern-Babel Universal Church builders are.
     
    
45. The Tidings Magazine, February 2000 Editorial (HTML format²)
    • Admits and encourages the fact that a change in our understanding of the atonement is occurring:
      •  "Interestingly, it is our re-thinking of the atonement, by discussion in Bible schools large and small throughout the brotherhood, that has transformed the Christadelphians into (at last) an unstoppable international evangelical force. That re-thinking has involved no radical change of traditional doctrine. It is the personal theology of the doctrine of the atonement that is so exciting... It is our profound conviction that, overall, the Brotherhood is moving in a positive direction. It has never been healthier since the apostolic age. At last we are discerning the theological consequences of our doctrinal faith, and at last we are learning to love the brother and sisters in our ecclesia – the estranged, the wayward, the lost sheep, smokers, refugees, addicts, the heartbroken… those deemed to be guilty of some sexual sin, such as fornication or divorce… May the revolution continue until our Lord shall come.” (The Tidings, February 2000)
     
46. Comments on the Enfield/Cumberland Statement on the Atonement (PDF format¹)
    • Enfield and Cumberland issued a Statement on the Atonement in an attempt to remove doubt about where they stood. They did the best they could to use the "right language" but read their full statement as contrasted with traditional Central teaching. They assert they do not believe in the "Clean Flesh" and "Substitutionary"  theories but assertions and facts are not always synonymous. Test their statement using simple logic: If atonement is only for personal transgressions, as they plainly assert in #6, then for what did Christ offer? Certainly not for himself except in "obedience" "for us". This is what the Apostasy teaches -- ask your local clergyman.
     
47. Transcripts of 3 class/discussions led by Richard Stone with John Hensley participating. H. Fry's teachings are found once again.
    • Class 1 (PDF format¹)
    • Class 2 (PDF format¹)
    • Class 3 (PDF format¹)

"The word ‘sin’ is used in two principal 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." (J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, Logos ed., p. 129) Hebrews 7:27-28 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We do not deal in the low personalities that some regard as essential to their cause. Many whom we regard as the enemies of the truth and the advocates of error are unknown to us personally. As individuals we can have no quarrel against them. The fact that they advocate error is not proof that they do something else they should not do. On the contrary, we know some of them to be well-meaning and, apart from this agitation, well-doing men.

"Why some people are so anxious to jump into the cock-pit of personalities, as soon as their methods or opinions are questioned, is not always clear. The Scriptures are plain as to what our position in such matters should be, and we ought to be governed by them. It is a poor cause that has to be supported by attacks on the character of the opposition; and the history of such cases in connection with the Truth, proves that support of that kind is very frail and in the end deceptive." (The Truth's Warfare, May 1900, p. 6)

If the atonement controversy is only a "difference in how we express" the issues, why is it that those who do not know Andrewism from Turneyism accuse others of being "Andrewites", "Bereans," "Old Paths" &c -- that is to say they accuse their critics of holding error when it suits their argument and yet, when it suits their argument, they claim that everyone is saying the same thing using different words? You cannot have it both ways...

Did you ever notice that the people that want to dismiss quotations from Christadelphian expositors -- including John Thomas, Robert Roberts, John Carter, W.H. Boulton, H.P. Mansfield, Ron Abel or even old quotations from John Martin, Don Styles and John Hensley -- are always those who cannot reconcile the fundamental message of these quotations with their personal beliefs? They complain about a "war of quotations" which is really nothing more than an intellectually cheap way to dismiss the burden of historical evidence.

---

"Error changes its form from age to age, but the dutiful attitude remains the same—the duty of individual repudiation and non-toleration in fellowship. We may not in the 19th century have those particular questions to trouble us that agitated the first; but we have the same duty to perform towards the errors that may belong to our time. It is a distasteful duty and in every way an inconvenient one. For this reason, many with whom the apprehension of divine obligations may be weak, or susceptibility to human considerations may be strong, are liable to swerve and sacrifice truth and duty to friendship. Their amiability may lead us to sympathise with them in a sentimental sense: but their attitude is none the less of practical unfaithfulness, and to be sorrowfully refused (on their account), by true friends of Christ." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 66)

Last Update: November 27, 2010