Last Updated on : |
|||
|
|||
CONTENTS | Nazarite's Guiltless "Sin" And Sacrificial Cleansing |
|||
The Purifying of The Heavenly |
|||
|
|||
Brother ANDREW: "Is it not clear that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power, and that he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection?" Brother ROBERTS: "CERTAINLY. I have never called that in question in the least." THE Berean fellowship is charged with "Andrewism" because we point out the truths concerning the Sacrifice of Christ which brethren Thomas and Roberts taught. What is "Andrewism?" Where does the Truth end, and "Andrewism" begin? Wherein did brethren Andrew and Roberts agree on this subject, and wherein did they disagree? Some are quoting brother Andrew where he and brother Roberts agreed, and are calling it "Andrewism." We do not deny there is such a thing as "Andrewism," and that it is an error, a dangerous, harmful, Truth- destructive error, a current, active error, like Stricklerism. We would not for a moment want to belittle or undermine the necessary effort to warn brethren against it, and against the whole Resurrectional Responsibility error. We are glad some are still concerned about fellowship, and that they realize the necessity, and appreciate the value, of brother Roberts' strong fellowship stand in 1898 against this error. The last thing we want to do is to weaken hands that are striving for sound fellowship, and are resisting blandishments to return to the confused condition from which the sound 1898 action delivered them. Andrewism had to do with Resurrectional Responsibility. The debate between brethren Andrew and Roberts was the "Resurrectional Responsibility Debate." The book brother Roberts wrote to defend the Truth against Andrewism was "The Resurrection to Condemnation." The matters of the relation of the Law of Sin and Death to baptism, and of Christ's offering for himself are side issues, because of a theory brother Andrew developed to support his theory that the unbaptized will not be raised to judgment. The theory went like this: The sentence on Adam ("Adamic Condemnation") was eternal, uninterruptible death. Once the grave doors snapped shut, no one - not even God - could open them to bring out anyone who had died under Adamic Condemnation. Brother Andrew did not deny God's intrinsic power to do anything He chose. But he argued that, within the fixed framework of the laws of life and death that God's wisdom and justice had set up regarding the human race, God Himself could not raise any not freed before death from Adamic Condemnation. And he argued that in the present dispensation, it is baptism that frees a man from the inexorable Adamic Condemnation of uninterruptible death. That's why baptism and the Law of Sin and Death come into the debate. Brother Roberts did not deny that baptism had a relation to the Law of Sin and Death. But he did deny that it had the relation that brother Andrew asserted. Brother Roberts recognized that baptism "potentially and eventually" frees from the Law of Sin and Death, and that there can be no freedom from that law without baptism (in the present dispensation). Summing up the debate, he says afterwards, in the preface:
Brother Roberts agreed with brother Andrew to this point, but he goes on to say he did not agree with the arguments brother Andrew built on these truths. We note brother Roberts herein explains his previous use of the term "legal mortality." Brother Andrew used the term for his conception of release from the penalty of eternal death that he said baptism brings, making it possible for a man to be raised from the dead. Brother Roberts subsequently avoids this term because of brother Andrew's application of it to a false theory. Brother Roberts taught that we are freed "potentially" at baptism from the Law of Sin and Death, and by this he explains that he meant that if the process begun at baptism is faithfully carried through to the end, then at the resurrection and judgment we shall be changed from mortal to immortal, and thus and then be actually freed from the Law of Sin and Death - as a final result of our baptism, and which could only come by baptism. In this sense, baptism frees us from that Law. But to brother Andrew, the freedom from the Law of Sin and Death at baptism is a "legal" release from the Adamic sentence of eternal, uninterruptible death, enabling resurrection to occur. Brother Roberts taught that, as a FINAL result of baptism, and dependent upon baptism, we are "justified" from Adamic Condemnation (that is, our nature is cleansed) at the resurrection by change of body. But brother Andrew taught that, by baptism, we are "justified" from Adamic Condemnation immediately, making resurrection possible. Brother Roberts taught that "justification from Adamic Condemnation" is, in its fulness, a physical change (though he recognized it had a present bearing as to relationship to life or death - "cancelled potentially at baptism"). It is not Andrewism to say that baptism (potentially and eventually) frees us from Adamic Condemnation - if we are saying it with the meaning brother Roberts attached to it (though it's wise to try to avoid any possibility of giving a wrong impression - especially when controversy has made some expressions potentially provocative). We would urge a careful reading of the preface to the debate, where brother Roberts explains why he gave certain answers to some of brother Andrew's questions - because he and the audience knew the false meanings brother Andrew attached to some of the words in the questions, and the wrong inferences brother Andrew drew from certain truths. As to the matter of Christ needing, and being cleansed and saved by, his own sacrifice, brethren Andrew and Roberts were agreed. But brother Andrew, to support his theories, repeatedly pressed brother Roberts to say that Christ needed a cleansing sacrifice apart from the race. This brother Roberts steadfastly refused. Christ apart from the race is not Christ at all. Because of this refusal, by quoting some questions and answers only, it can be made to look as if Brother Roberts resisted admitting that Christ needed a cleansing, bloodshedding sacrifice; but reading it all, we find brother Roberts several times said he did. The Resurrectional Responsibility Debate has been quoted to disprove the Berean position. Let us see what it really does say. Throughout the following, brother Andrew is always questioning brother Roberts, and begins each paragraph. "R:" means brother Roberts' reply, and what follows this in each paragraph is by brother Roberts. (Remarks in THIS type are our comments). The numbers are question numbers in the published debate -
685. Have you never taught that Adamic condemnation is legally taken away at baptism?
686. Do you recognize this: "Legally a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the Truth and receives the remission of sins, but actually its physical effects remain until this mortal (that is, this Adamic condemned nature) is swallowed up in the life that Christ will bestow upon his brethren at his coming." -Christadelphian, 1878, page 225
690. Do you adhere to this statement that he is legally freed from Adamic condemnation?
691. What is wiped out?
692. Then there's a passing out of Adam in Christ at baptism?
693. When a man passes into Christ, what has he in Adam that he loses when he passes into Christ?
694. Does he not realize, in a legal sense, a justification from the condemnation which is derived from Adam?
695. Is not a believer, at baptism, made to endorse and morally participate in the condemnation of sin in the flesh which Jesus underwent when he was crucified?
704. What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place, in regard to Christ?
706. In relation to himself, personally, apart from his position as a sinbearer for others?
710. But if, as a descendant of Adam, he had been the only one to whom God granted the offer of salvation, would he not have had to die before he could obtain that salvation?
711. Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up himself for the purging of his own sin nature?
712. First from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal life HIMSELF, he might be able to save others?
713. Then he died for himself apart from being a sin- bearer for others?
715. How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature - "made in the likeness of sinful flesh" - if he had not died FOR HIMSELF as well as for us?
716. Then he offered for himself as well as for us?
717. Is it not clear then from this that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power?
718. That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh?
719. And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection? R: CERTAINLY, I HAVE NEVER CALLED THAT IN QUESTION IN THE LEAST. 720. Did you not say Tuesday night that he did NOT need to shed his blood for himself?
723. Apart from us, but still a descendant of Adam?
724. Then as a descendant of Adam, it WAS necessary for him to shed his blood in order to obtain eternal life?
It will be noted from the above that on the relationship of baptism to Adamic Condemnation and the Law of Sin and death, brother Roberts fully agreed with brother Andrew that -
The condemnation pertaining to a man as a result of his being descended from Adam COMMENCES to be taken away at baptism. [That is, he enters at baptism a relationship which will eventuate in its being taken away if he is faithful to the end] (683). "Legally" a man is freed from Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys the Truth. [Brother Roberts wrote this in 1878, before the Andrew controversy. He endorsed it in the debate, but said later that in view of brother Andrew's "legal" theories and phraseology, he would not choose that expression again] (686). At baptism, anything that stands against us in any way, whether from Adam or ourselves, is wiped out (691). We pass out of Adam into Christ at baptism. [Another expression brother Roberts subsequently refrained from using, because of brother Andrew's misuse of it] (692). A man, passing into Christ, loses his relationship to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced. There is preliminary deliverance at baptism; actual at resurrection (693). And on the matter of Christ needing and being saved by a sacrificial blood-shedding, brother Roberts agreed with brother Andrew that - Christ fulfilled the Aaronic type of offering FOR HIMSELF, and then for the sins of the people (290). Christ could not enter immortality without shedding his blood. The shed blood cleansed him individually from corruption which was an impediment to his obtaining eternal life (392). He shed his blood FOR HIMSELF, because he was mortal, inheriting death from Adam (399). The antitype of MAKING AN ATONEMENT for the Holy Place in regard to Christ is the cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly (704). Christ, as a son of Adam, Abraham and David, must OFFER FOR HIMSELF for the PURGING of his own sin nature (711). Having BY HIS OWN BLOOD obtained eternal life HIMSELF, he is able to save others (712). Christ offered FOR HIMSELF, as well as for us (716). He as the first one had to undergo PURIFICATION THROUGH HIS SHED BLOOD (719). Brother Roberts said that it is ONLY on the "impossible supposition" that he was a "new Adam altogether" that we could say he did not need to shed his blood for himself (720). It will readily be seen that by just quoting selected answers out of context, a very incorrect impression could be given of what brother Roberts said and believed. The answers which have been quoted to "prove" that, according to brother Roberts, Christ did not need a cleansing, bloodshedding are those where brother Andrew is trying to get him to consent to "imputed guilt" and/or Christ considered separate from his brethren. When brother Roberts says (406), "Bloodshedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin," he is simply saying, as he says many times, that we cannot consider Christ as separate from the work for which he was specifically created and prepared. He is certainly not contradicting himself in connection with what he says so many times elsewhere about Christ needing a bloodshed sacrifice for the cleansing of his nature. A debate is a time and pressure situation. There is no opportunity for full and balanced exposition. Brother Roberts had to constantly cope with brother Andrew's obsessive efforts to separate Christ from his mission, for the sake of his theory. A brother must be allowed to explain what he said and why he said it, and we must accept such an explanation, rather than set his words in one part of the debate against his words in other parts, and against his general teaching elsewhere.
|
|||
|
All Books/Booklets, Editorials, and Articles are FREE and can be downloaded without permission. |
|