A written response to Jim Phillips from Richard Stone

R. R. Stone
7415 Dinsdale
Downey, CA. 90240
March 5, 1981

Bro. Jim Phillips
450 # B E. Washington
Escondido, CA. 92025

Dear Bro. Phillips

Greetings in the hope of eternal life.

I received your letter of February 2nd, along with the copy of your letter to Julio Scaramastro, and, having thoroughly read them, would like to offer a few comments.

You have make several remarks concerning my beliefs and have alleged that they are not in concert with the teachings of 1) Central, 2) the pioneers, and 3) that they are in error. I shall not attempt to reply to allegations make against Bro. John Hensley, as he will receive a copy of your correspondence, and, if he chooses to do so, will answer you direct.

In your letter, you declare that I am in error in stating the following:

1. The symbolism of the Mosaic constitution converged upon and were repeated in the sacrifice of Christ
2. Sin was not literally in Christ.
3. The sin-nature of Christ represented sin in his sacrificial offering.
4. Christ did not offer for sin nature.

I feel confident that I can defend my position Scripturally, and would be willing to debate anyone holding opposing views to mine. I have yet to find anyone who could Scripturally substantiate the errors which I oppose. When ever I talk to some one holding Berean teachings on these matters, his only defense consists almost entirely of quotations from Bre. Roberts and Thomas.

I think you will agree when me, Jim, that our first and only line of defense in respect to the beliefs we hold as true must lie in the Scriptures themselves. When we dispute with or teach those outside the Truth, we rely wholly on the Word of God, not on the authority of Robert Roberts or John Thomas (which authority would not carry any weight with them in any event). It is a sad thing to have to prove that one's beliefs and teachings are in line with the pioneers instead of the Bible. Your continual inference that my position is not Central teaching and does not agree with the afore-mentioned brethren, forces me to do something for which I have no stomach.

Enclosed, you will find a summary of my beliefs on the NATURE OF MAN - NATURE AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST". I have made several statements (as clearly as I know how) relative to my position on this important subject, some of which have been grouped together, to form 8 separate section. Following my statements you will find quotations from both Roberts Roberts and John Thomas and others, which harmonize with my own teachings. Now, I suggest that you read this document very carefully, and then answer the following questions (not with contradictory quotations - but from your own reasoning):

1. What is wrong with Robert Roberts' statement that "the object of sacrifice was to ritually exhibit death as the wages of sin, and to enable the offerer to make this confession in approach to God"?

2. Point out Bro. Roberts' faulty reasoning when he wrote, "God does not hold us individually responsible for Adam's offense. We inherit the effects, but COULD HAVE BEEN REDEEMED FROM THEM BY OBEDIENCE, if that had been possible..."The most conspicuous feature of the gospel is in the forgiveness of these ėmany offenses' (Rom. 5:16). Our hereditary mortality would have been a trivial obstacle if we ourselves had been found righteous before God. It is our iniquities that separate us from God. Hence, the glory of the gospel is the proclamation of the remission of these in the belief and obedience of the gospel of His Son."

3. Was Bro. Roberts wrong when he said, "Possessing sinful flesh was NO SIN TO HIM who kept it under perfect control, and ėdid always those things that pleased the Father,'"? (If ėno sin', no sacrifice required:)

4. Do you think John Thomas was in error when he wrote the following in the Christadelphian? "Christadelphians mean to say neither more nor less than Paul saith. This unsurpassed teacher of the truth says that God sent His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh, which he declares was the same as our's. Compare Rom. 8:3 with Heb. 2:14-17. And he says, too, in Heb. 7:27, ėhe offered for his own sins and the people's when he offered up himself'...BUT WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS ėHIS OWN SINS?' The sins committed by OTHERS and borne in his own body on the cross, as testified in 1 Pet. 2:24, saying ėwho his own self bare our sins in his own body to the tree', upon which he ėbecame a curse for us.' In the Mosaic and Christian systems, the UNSINNING VICTIM IS REGARDED AS A SINNER, in the sense of being a sin-bearer...He bare our sins in his body, on or to the tree. On what principle? If we knew the nature of sacrifice in type and antitype, we could answer. Under the Mosaic law, on the day of Atonement the High Priest offered for his own sins and then for the people's - to cover up their transgressions. Hence, it was called a day of covering or atonement. There were two goats, one for Jehovah, which was slain, and one for Israel which was called a scape goat. On the head of the latter was laid, or supposed to be laid, a mountain of sins, committed during the previous year. A clean person then led it away into the wilderness. IN THE SAME WAY OUR SINS WERE LAID ON CHRIST, who carried them away by going to the Father in heaven. His body was also an offering for sin, like that of the goat slain...The High Priest in his case was the Eternal Spirit, and OUR TRANSGRESSIONS laid on him constituted the victim...We get to the cross, not literally, but by faith, and so our sins are remitted, being REGARDED as having been bourne by Christ on the cross. The world, whose sins were laid on him, was that world which will ultimately be composed of all the faithful."

5. In reference to sins being acts of transgressions and not being able to be cleansed as a physical thing, perhaps you would like to comment on the following remarks by Robert Roberts: "Christ bearing sins on or to the tree (1 Pet. 2:24) is a figure of speech. Literally, sins ARE ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE and cannot be carried to the death of the cross, that death is figuratively considered as a bearing of them to or on that accursed instrument of torture and execution. In this obvious sense, we can understand God laying on His sins, past, present and future of all his people.

6. Would you content with bro. Thomas on the following statement made by him? "Some may object that Jesus had no sins to be remitted, and had no need of repentance, and was therefore not a fit subject for such a baptism. It is admitted without reservation that he had no sins of his own, having never transgressed the law; nevertheless, as the SIN-BEARER OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, through whom it was confirmed (Rom. 16:8) Jehovah made the iniquity of all ėthe children of the covenant' to meet upon him, that by his bruise they might be healed (Isa. 53: 5,6).

"He was not the sin-bearer of every son of Adam that ever lived, but of the true believers...so that the sins of the whole of that world which shall dwell upon the earth in the post- millennial ages, will have met upon him, and been borne away into eternal oblivion."

7. Perhaps you would like to tell me of the weakness of Robert Roberts' conclusions on the following? "IN NO WAY WAS HE SUBJECT TO A VIOLENT DEATH BEFORE HIS SUSPENSION ON THE CROSS...For himself it was unnecessary he should have been nailed to the tree, EXCEPT AS PART OF THE OBEDIENCE THE FATHER required at his hands...Before he was lifted to his place on the cross, he was not liable to a violent death; but as soon as he suffered himself to be suspended there, he became so by reason of the curse of the law resting upon him...It was ėfor us' he was THUS slain; for this VIOLENT DEATH was the penalty due to the ėmany offenses' that hold us captive, and which God laid upon him. His stripes were FOR OUR HEALING. But let it be observed that this was not on the principle of substitution."

8. In what way was Robert Roberts in error when he wrote the following? "We are forgiven and shall be saved for Christ's sake, he required no forgiveness....Christ was undefiled in mind, absolutely pure, therefore he required no cleansing as pertaining to the conscience at baptism, FOR THERE WAS NEVER A MOMENT IN HIS LIFE WHEN GOD WAS DISPLEASED WITH HIM; he always did and said what pleased the Father. He only required cleansing IN NATURE which was done AFTER RESURRECTION."

9. Do you agree with Bro. Roberts following statement, reported in the Christadelphian "It was not Christ that was condemned, but the sin as REPRESENTED BY THE NATURE THAT HE POSSESSED in common with us...the object of Christ's death was to RITUALLY EXHIBIT DEATH AS THE WAGES OF SIN, and to enable the offerer to make this confession in approaching God."

10. And further (in respect to the ritual aspect of his offering which you so enthusiastically condemn in my teachings) do you agree with Robert Roberts when he wrote the following? "The prominence of the blood of Christ is due to the symbolism of the law which CONVERGED AND TERMINATED IN HIM...The literal shedding of his blood by the nails and spears of Rome was the Spirit's ritual in the one great offering, connecting the offering with the slain beasts of the Mosaic Law, and REPEATING THE SYMBOLISM SET FORTH FROM THE BEGINNING"!!!

On page 12 of your letter you quote me as saying something with which you do not agree: "Brother Stone - ėI'm just saying that this is by metonymy. Human nature can be called sin because it produces sin. And there we are calling the cause by the effect." Note Bro. Roberts' comments: "Now what is this element called ėuncleanness' (Lev. 16:16), ėsin' (Rom. 7:17), ėiniquity' (Psa. 51:5), etc.? THE DIFFICULTY EXPERIENCED BY SOME IN THE SOLUTION OF THIS QUESTION, ARISES FROM A DISREGARD OF THE SECONDARY USE OF TERMS. Knowing that sin is the act of transgression, every time they see the term sin, ignoring the fact that there is a metonymy in the use of all words which apply EVEN TO SIN... A disregard for METONYMY AND ELLIPSES IN SUCH STATEMENTS, HAS LED TO MOST OF THE ERRORS OF THE APOSTACY; and is leading some back who had escaped."

"It was a representative condemnation of sin in the flesh, and a declaration of the righteousness of God, that mercy might be offered without compromise of supremacy...God sent forth His Son in the likeness (or strictly, the identicalness) of human flesh that he might in the body of that flesh through death, CONDEMN SIN IN THE EYES OF ALL THE WORLD ó SIN IN THE ABSTRACT, SIN AS THE WONT AND RULE OF HUMAN NATURE, except in the specially prepared man in whom all the sinful tendencies of the flesh were all held in check by the superior enlightening power with which he was clothed."

You will note Jim, that Bro. Roberts teaches that that which was the object of condemnation was sin MANIFEST in all human kind with the exception of Jesus Christ. If it had been sin- nature which Jesus possessed, then Christ would have been no exception."

I would appreciate your comments. These quotations (all of which are documented on the enclosed material) are quiet free from ambiguity. Robert Roberts is as clear in his expressing his teachings as I am in expressing mine, and on this subject we are in agreement.

I have also included some comments I wrote in reference to the BASF.

If you quote me in any of your letters, writings, etc., please have the courtesy to include the supporting detail from the writings of the pioneers.

Awaiting your reply,

Your brother in Christ,

R. R. Stone

cc: Bre. John Hensely, J. Scaramastro, Roy Styles

PS Kindly make copies of this letter and the accompanying documents and sent them to Bre. Art Jones, Carwyn Smith, Rene Growcott and Jim Roggow - I do not have their addresses.--rrs