Letter from Jim Phillips to Julio Scaramastro

Now, concerning the solution that the brethren came up with as regards the teachings of bro. Stone; I reiterate my question to you. Q. Does bro. Stone, or the article admit to the Bible truth that Jesus offered first for his own sin nature and then for the people? Q. Do they admit to the truth that Christ was purged from the law of sin and death by (by the effects of, the efficacious workings of) his own sacrifice? And I would add a third, more personal question to those two. Q. Do you personally believe that it is a elementary first principle that it was necessary that Jesus should offer a blood shedding, atoning sacrifice for his own personal redemption from sin?

Now Julio, it is not important was to what words are used. That doesn't matter at all. Any group of words that clearly express that concept will be perfectly acceptable. But where does he say anything to that effect ever , let alone in what you quoted to me.

You say that I did not read the article very critically and objectively. I believe that to be the problem. I did read it critically and objectively, and also with a full understanding of how similar language has been used by bro. Stone to teach the doctrine that Christadelphians have historically called "clean flesh."

We could write a lot of letters back and forth, both of us claiming to be critical and objective, so rather than just state it, lets prove it, point by point from the section which you have quoted from in your letter.

Let us keep the issue clearly before us. The issue is not "did Christ have our same nature." Its not, "did Christ have to die to put away the nature before he could be immortalized." The issue is, "did Christ need to offer himself as a sacrifice to redeem himself from the sin which he literally bore in his body?" Or by dying, did Christ abrogate the law of condemnation for himself?

The section from which you quote from the committee's article starts out, "This sinlessness was the first and marvellous step in the redemptive process by which we can be brought unto God."

You know, Julio, the truth is not a word or a letter of a word. It is a total concept. Perhaps the Greek word Logos would be a good term to use, as it frequently is, to describe the truth, for it carries the thought of a complete idea, or the whole embodiment of an idea. An error in one part of this complete idea inevitably leads to other errors in the idea. Such is the result of bro. Stone's teaching, and that is apparent in this first statement.

For you see, the first and most marvelous step in the redemptive process was God's intervention to bring about Christ! Bro. Roberts brings this out in the "Slain Lamb." Bro. Roberts teaches:

"...the first idea which I seek, in those words of the Spirit, to impress upon your minds is, that the Source, Origin, and Mover in this whole matter of the appearance, life, and sacrifice of Christ is to be found in that which is represented by the central figure at the top of the diagram..." (Which was a sun, which represented God.)

I have often felt that bre. Stone and Hensley misapplied the relationship of God and Christ in the sacrifice. This next quote is word for word from bro. Hensley at a study day on the nature and sacrifice of Christ."

"How was it possible for anyone to be tempted like we are with the impulses of sin, and yet never, never, disobey God or ever make a mistake, or ever do anything wrong. How was it possible? I don't know. I can only say that the conception of Christ was physical miracle. The law of nature could not have produced Christ and his life was a moral miracle. How de did it, I don't know, but he did it. He did it."

Now, compare that with what bro. Roberts has to say on the same subject in the "Slain Lamb."

"How, then, some say, was he, with sinful flesh, to be sinless? That--(placing the end of the pointer on the sun on the top of the char)-- is my explanation brothers--that is my explanation. The weak flesh could not do it. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, that the glory might be to God."

You might feel that this difference is small and insignificant. A little reflection would, I'm sure, prove otherwise, but regardless of how you feel about it, it is proof that the doctrine which bro. Stone has been teaching on the West Coast (which you acknowledge to have been error) is still being taught in the Committee's article. And whether you agree with the Committee and bro. Stone, or bro. Roberts and me, you must agree that this first sentence says nothing about Christ offering a blood shedding sacrifice for his own redemption from sin.

Next, the Committee's article reads, "The Lord Jesus Christ did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, despite the flesh he bore in which by nature dwelt no good thing." This is a true statement, but here again, there is no talk of any sacrifice for himself.

The final sentence of that first paragraph reads, "sin was conquered in its own stronghold and all unrighteousness was condemned in the sanctuary of his body." This sentence is why, (I would guess) you and I see this article produced by the committee and bro. Stone differently.

It should be considered sound reasoning to conclude that sin could not have been conquered IN his body if it had not existed there! Bro. Thomas makes a similar statement concerning Romans 8:3 saying: "sin could not have been condemned in the flesh of Jesus had it not existed there." Taken on the surface, that is not difficult to understand, but bro. Stone has never been content with a simple explanation of this verse. That is, he has always understood the verse in an abstract or figurative light. That is, he has always taught that sin wasn't literally IN Jesus's flesh, but rather, that the flesh represented (symbolized) sin, and God dealt with his flesh as he would have dealt with sin. To bro. Stone, it is all just a repeat of the symbolism of the Law of Moses.

With bro. Thomas' explanation, we can see sin actually destroyed. According to bro. Stone, it was only figuratively destroyed. It was just another ritual, like so many of those rituals under the law of Moses. (Which incidently, Paul says could not take away sin.) Now, since bro. Stone has never been at a loss to put a figurative meaning on Romans 8:3; and in the absence of a clear declaration from him, and in light of all his other teachings to date' (never to my knowledge taking back any of it) I am forced to conclude that he understands this sentence from the Committee's article in the same manner in which he understands Romans 8:3. If he clarifies himself somewhere else, please be sure to show me.

Lets examine how bro. "Stone has explained Romans 8:3 to see exactly what those words "conquered sin in his body" mean to him. Bro. Stone says, in introducing a discussion on both Hebrews 2:14 and Romans 8:3

"You can't destroy sin literally, because sin literally has no existence. Sin is a transgression of God's law, its an act. But you destroy it ritually....You see, there are many figures of speech and language used in relation to the death of Christ which we must recognize are figures of speech. So that we can properly understand and appreciate the principles that are exhibited in his death. What we are going to show is that the ritual of the sin offering was continued and converged upon the Lord Jesus Christ and repeated in his death on the cross." Dick Stone's First Lecture

That paragraph sets the stage for his explanation of Romans 8:3. Observe that he is talking about something figurative. He says sin cannot be destroyed literally. He says it is destroyed ritually. Now a ritual can be figurative or literal, but fro. Stone removes all doubt as to how he understands it.

Now we go on with bro. Stone's explanation of Romans 8:3.

"Now God condemned sin in the offering of his son. Go back to Romans now and chapter 8:3...Now this is one of Paul's characteristic compound sentences in which you have to delve through it to find out exactly what he is saying. But he's telling us that there is something that the law could not do, and God did. And that which the law could not do was to condemn sin."

We might note here that bro. Roberts says that the law condemned sin so thoroughly that Paul calls it the ministration of condemnation. But bro. Stone continues:

And where was sin condemned? In the flesh. And if we ask in the flesh of whom, the answer is in the flesh of Christ. And how did God do this? He did it initially by sending Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh or sin's flesh which is a much better way of expressing it. It means identicalness of human nature as Heb. 2:14 illustrates to us. He partook of the same flesh and blood. He came under the same condemnation that all of us do, the condemnation of mortality, a proneness to transgression. So God initiated the condemnation of sin by providing Christ. Here was a body prepared. One who had come to do the will of God. So God sent his son in the likeness of sin's flesh and then, for sin and here in the original and other translations will put for a sacrifice for sin because that's what it means, peri hamartia: and it means for a sacrifice for sin, he condemned sin. God condemned sin in the ritual of the sin offering of his son. Now this illustrates again that the sin, the ritual aspect of the law was carried over and converged upon Christ. It was repeated in the experience of Christ on the cross.

Now Julio, this is what bro. Stone has clearly been teaching as the way Christ bore sin IN his body. It was only figuratively there. His flesh represented sin, not that his flesh was sin. The Committee's article never clarifies this issue. To my knowledge, bro. Stone has never clarified this point to be different than that which he has been teaching. So if I'm going to be critical and objective about the whole issue, I must conclude (the only conclusion available to the honest truth seeker) that his understanding of the statement that sin was conquered in Jesus's flesh is figurative. That he still hold to his original position that sin cannot literally exist in flesh, its an act.

But don't get me wrong. I will reconsider this whole issue based on that statement if it is clarified. Get bro. Stone to agree with a statement that something scripturally styled sin literally existed in the flesh of Jesus which was annulled or canceled or covered or any word which you choose as a result of his blood shedding sacrifice and it would certainly prove that you are correct.

But of course, it if literally existed, it would require a literal sacrifice for its removal, which would mean that Christ shed his blood as an atonement for the sin which he bore literally in his body. And if bro. Stone agreed to that, the Committee's article would have plainly stated it, rather than to merely fog the issue with page after page of skirting around the problem.

Personally, I have never found bro. Stone a difficult man to understand. Here is what he has to say on the issue which the article labors so hard to ignore. I don't know how he could be any clearer.

"We must be careful in searching for something which somebody has a theory on, to misapply Scriptures. Now, surely if Christ offered for sin nature, it would say that wouldn't it? But I can find no place in Scriptures where it says he offered for sin nature."

You see, Julio, no matter how simple it would make things to pretend that we all agree, but are just choosing our words differently, this is not at all the case. Its not words, it whole verses, in fact, every verse pertaining to Christ's offering being to himself such as Rom. 3:25; 8:3; Heb. 2:14; 5:3; 8:3; 9:12; 2 Cor. 5:21; etc... all of them are defined differently by bro. Stone than the way they are believed by me and explained by bro. Roberts. He sees things figurative which I understand to be literal. He sees applications to things as moral which I see as physical. There is no common ground of agreement between us at all, except on the truth that Christ's sacrifice was also for us. At every other point we are at odds. Do you really feel justified in suggesting that we are just choosing our words differently?

Now, I have proven to you that this third sentence of this paragraph falls easily within the framework of all his previous teaching (which you agree to have been false teaching). The obligation now falls on you to prove that in fact he does not believe as I have suggested, that he does not believe that ritual of the sin offering in Jesus's death was a figurative thing; and that bro. Stone now believes that sin literally existed in the flesh of Jesus and was literally condemned in Christ's death. If you cannot do this, I take you at your word to "start a movement of opposition again."

The next paragraph starts out, "But this was not enough. Not only was sin to be destroyed by righteousness, its very roots were to be destroyed by repudiation of the actual flesh in which it had hitherto been victorious." Again, please note that this sentence does not say that Christ offered for his own redemption from the sin which he bore.

But there is an important distinction made here in the article which again goes to confirm that the same things which have been being taught here in Southern California, are being agreed to in this article drawn up by the Committee.

Note that, in very typical bro. Stone fashion, sin is carefully dissected and isolated from the root principle which causes the sin. The sentence says that "sin was destroyed by righteousness" which I understand to mean his life of righteousness (correct me if I'm wrong) and the roots of sin (but it doesn't say sin itself) was to be destroyed...etc."

Here again is conclusive evidence that the root principles which allow for the error in Southern California, exist in the Committee's article. It is proof that bro. Stone's earlier teachings are not in any way altered by this article.

Sin cannot be separated from the nature that produces the sin. They are inseparably one and the same. If human nature is not a synonym for sin (as taught by bro. Thomas in Elpis Israel) how then can we see sin condemned on the cross. Only figuratively, which is just how bro. Stone sees it. As bro. Thomas correctly observed, sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." Or as Paul says, "God made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

But by this careful isolation of sin and the nature that produces the sin, bro. Stone can say that sin was condemned by his life, and that the nature was condemned in his death; without ever saying that there was anything in Christ styled sin which was condemned in himself in his blood shedding, sacrificial death.

And finally, please note again that this sentence does not say that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for his own redemption from sin (or any such working you choose.)

The next sentence is a very curious sentence, not so much for what it says, but for what it does not say. You write, Julio that; "sometimes it is hard to say things to everybody all the time;" thus indicating that you think that bro. Stone is really in harmony with bro. Roberts and bro. Thomas, but just choosing different ways of expressing the same basic concepts."

If that was a true evaluation of the current situation, here, in this sentence was his chance to make the issue perfectly clear. Here is where the concept of sacrifice is introduced. Here is where the concept of a cleansing (though that word is not used) is discussed. So why is the fact that Christ's sacrifice was also to secure himself from the sin which he bore not introduced, if it is believed? Surely, that cannot be too much to ask! After all, this is the central theme behind the controversy. So, since this is the main issue--the issue that has caused some to leave Central fellowship in Southern California--shouldn't it be addressed? That is of course, unless Central is now prepared to remove this vital principle as a first principle. Word it any way you want. Just preserve the principle. But to no surprise to those of us who are familiar with bro. Stones' teaching, that principle cannot be found in this article anywhere; not even here where the subject of sacrifice is introduced.

The sentence reads: "He whom God set forth as a mercy seat was also to be bloodsprinkled to demonstrate the righteousness of God in a sinless life and to show forth openly the condemnation of sin by crucifying the flesh which gives rise to sin."

Perhaps part of the reason that you quote from this particular portion of the Committee's article is to make reference to the fact that the (Christ) mercy seat is referred to as bloodsprinkled. While from a logical position, a person SHOULD see the mercy seat atoned for in Leviticus 16:15; and then see Christ referred to as the mercy seat (propitiation) in Romans 3:25 and see that the mercy seat was purged with blood (Heb. 9:23) and come to the logical conclusion that Christ himself was to be purged by blood. This is what should happen. But what does bro. Stone see in this? It is not possible to tell from the Committee's article. But a reflection on his past statement show how he has explained away this difficulty in the past; and in the absence of any clarification, why do we assume he has changed?

Concerning the Law of Moses generally bro. Stone has said:

"So the physical perfection of the animal prefigured the moral perfection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we shall find that things physical under the law depicted things moral under Christ."

There is bro. Stone's explanation for any number of physical elements under the law, which required atonement. A plain and simple rule devised by him, not found in Scripture, to show that there was no atonement required for any physical defilement under Christ, and further to deny that the Law of Moses taught that atonement would be required for physical defilement under the law of Christ!

That statement and the following one were made nearly a month apart, but notice how the two statements are in perfect harmony. This is a comment about words such as purge, and purify.

"Now it is also attested that the following words are descriptive of the physical change that takes place at the resurrection of the faithful. And it is true that this body will undergo a physical cleansing when this mortal puts on immortality and this corruptible puts on incorruption. We must exercise care in the use of Scriptural terms, in an unscriptural manner. Of course, we should always be careful of this. In using phrases that occur in the Scriptures, out of context."

"Look at the word purge. You know this term is used some times, even by the doctor. Will purge our bodies, you know. It means to cleanse up, to make a cleansing. And the New Testament usage of this word is limited to a moral cleansing, never to a physical purging or cleansing at the resurrection. We know 1 Cor. 5:7, Christ our passover, a sacrifice for us, purge out the old leaven, and so forth. He's talking about a moral cleansing. But look at Heb. 1:3, this is a good example of the manner in which this word is used. Purge is always used in a moral sense. Heb. 1:3. He purged our sins. And this is the way that this term is used throughout the New Testament. Never used in relation to the body undergoing immortality or being changed."

In his notes that bro. Stone passed out for that class we find this written:

"1. PURGE
This term means to cleanse out, to make a cleansing. The New Testament usage of this word is limited to a moral cleansing--never to a physical purging or cleansing at the resurrection.
1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 1:3; 9:14; 22; 2 Pet. 1:9."

I underlined Heb. 9:22 for here it is that Paul was making reference to the purging of the vessels of the ministry which would ave included the mercy seat. Bro. Stone includes this verse in his list of New Testament usages where the word purge refers to things moral.

Now since the only point of the atonement upon which all are agreed is that Christ required no moral cleansing, obviously the fact that the mercy seat had to be blood sprinkled does not mean to bro. Stone that there was any physical purging of Christ represented by the blood sprinkled mercy seat. This purging was only for moral things under Christ (according to him).

So again, Julio, I am forced to conclude in the absence of any clearer statements from bro. Stone, that in the reference in the Committee's article to the bloodsprinkled mercy seat, bro. Stone is limiting this to some moral cleansing which of course could not apply to Christ.

Here again, if you have clearer statements, we would only be too glad to examine them.

And also, in this sentence which we are examining, we have that careful separation of sin, and the nature which produces the sin. Notice that he says God condemned sin by crucifying the flesh which gives rise to sin. Again we see that typical refusal to associate the flesh with sin, as the apostle Paul and bro. Thomas plainly did. It is the isolation of the flesh from sin which we have spoken of earlier in this letter that forces bro. Stone into a figurative condemnation of sin from the true actual condemnation of sin taught by bre. Thomas and Roberts.

This sentence taken on the surface appears to represent a backwards step in the position of bro. Stone, for the sentence obviously has its roots in Rom. 3:25. Previously, bro. Stone has understood God's righteousness to have been declared in Jesus' death. Yet here he seems to be saying that it was declared in his sinless life which of course, would be more in harmony with the clean flesh teachers that went before him. God's righteousness was declared in Jesus' life, but that is only half of the story. And Paul, through the Spirit is obviously referring to the other half in Romans 3:25, that is, that God's righteousness was declared (exhibited) in his death. But that is just an impression we get from reading that sentence, and I would not suggest that that is a correct impression without a clearer statement from bro.Stone, as is the case with the rest of the article which is vague.

In any case, even more isolated than sin and the nature that causes the sin in bro. Stone's teaching is Christ's sacrifice and his own cleansing from the nature that he bore. It cannot be found in this sentence, or anywhere else in the article.

The section from which you quote now begins to close: "So Christ entered into death itself in order that he might abolish it in himself. For he too needed redemption from death and was saved in that he feared God." The Committee article can now come to a close, admitting that Christ needed to be saved from death, that he needed to be saved from corruption (which to the best of my knowledge bro. Stone has never denied) without saying that he bore sin in his flesh, or that he required redemption by a blood shedding sacrifice from the sin which he bore.

This wording is nothing new to those of us familiar with bro. Stone's teaching. He has never denied that Christ had to put off his corruptible body. But he has always denied that the corruptible body had in it sin from which he required redemption by blood shedding sacrifice. This sentence says that Jesus was redeemed from death, but not from sin. Again, we make the point that the article never says he was redeemed from sin.

The last sentence you quote is a very typical and dangerous teaching from the perspective of preserving the BASF. It reads, "The weakness of our flesh will be removed in the day when mortality is swallowed up of life." This sounds all well and good on the surface and is generally correct. But we are not reading generally. Critically and objectively, it is again contrary to the truth.

The weakness of the flesh is in us because Adam sinned and was cursed and passed this curse on to us. All that this curse can do is to kill us. Adam's curse does not have the power to keep us permanently It can only kill us. After that, it ceases to be a cause of death and suffering. Those of the resurrection who are judged unworthy will again die because of their own sins, not because of Adam's. Everything that we have, which is related to Adam, must necessarily be canceled at death, not when the saints are glorified as taught by bro. Stone and echoed in the Committee's article.

Bro. Stone has made the comment that we come froth from the grave with the same sinful flesh body that we went into the grave with. Compare that with bro. Thomas in Anastasis: "Thus, from these premises, it may be perceived that the raising of the righteous is the exaltation of them from a lower to a higher nature. The lower nature is that exhibited in Adam ON THE DAY OF HIS FORMATION. It was very good of its kind, but not equal to the nature of the Elohim."

Bro. Thomas did not believe that we come forth with the same sinful flesh body. But bro. Stone must view the sacrifice in this manner, or he would have to see something abrogated in Christ's death. As bro. Stone emphasized, the law of condemnation was abrogated when he was immortalized, not by dying.

The statement of the BASF which bro. Stone and evidently the Committee nullifies with this last sentence is clause # 8. "That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who through wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and BY DYING, ABROGATE THE LAW OF CONDEMNATION FOR HIMSELF and all who should believe and obey him.

Now note that the BASF says that the law of condemnation was abrogated or canceled in Christ by his dying. (Bro. Roberts has written extensively on what is meant by the term "by dying." It means coming in sin's flesh. Living a life of perfect obedience. Dying a SACRIFICIAL death. And being resurrected to perfect life. Should you need references, I will happily supply them.) But bro. Stone and the Committee seem to limit this abrogation to only the saints glorification, or when mortality is swallowed up of life.

At a class that bro. Stone gave, clause 8 was brought to his attention. Now note how both bro. Hensley and bro. Stone dealt with the problem. They completely ignore it, and then state a rewording of the clause which harmonizes with their views, but which if accepted, would nullify the clause and make a mystery of the verses which the BASF uses to support itself, such as Hebrews 5:3 and 7:27.

The following quote is lengthy, but there is no way to shorten it. It proves beyond doubt that the same error that bro. Stone has been teaching which is out of harmony with the BASF is supported by this article drawn up by the Committee.

(Ellis Higham) And by dying abrogated the law of condemnation for himself and all those who believe and obey him. I think that's very clear. M

(John Hensley) I agree with that.

(Richard Stone) Why certainly. I agree with that.

(John Hensley) I agree with that. There was a law of mortality and so he was mortal. Now the law of condemnation that he inherited was not a legal condemnation, it was a physical one. He inherited death, he inherited...if you go ahead and read the whole thing it says in there that he inherited the death that passed upon all men.

(Question) In wearing their condemned nature?

(John Hensley) All right, that's difficult. That's difficult. I agree with that completely, and now he inherited mortality, all right. How was mortality...

(Ellis Higham) Only? we already talked last week you remember, about clause 5 which we agreed that the physical law in his being was more than mortality. We agree to that last week.

(John Hensley) More than mortality? Why, he didn't inherit anything legal or moral surely? Well, if he didn't inherit a legal or moral condemnation, all that's left is mortality, with the impulses to sin in his members. They called it, the physical attribute, his flesh. I don't know what...

(Many voices talking over each other)

(John Hensley) May I say one thing here that might just clear everything up. You know, we talk a lot about the penalty of sin nature. You know the penalty of sin nature is built right into our physical beings. Dying, thou shalt die. When Adam transgressed, he was sentenced to mortality when he invoked the physical attribute of the flesh. He had put on what we call sin nature and with that sin nature, death, the wages of sin are death, which is where we inherit it from.

Now, we inherit sin nature, and we inherit the penalty for it, goes right along with it. If we ask, what is the penalty for it, go to a funeral. There is the person, there is the penalty. Or go to a hospital. A person is in pain...or a person just got into an accident. All those things of life, that's the penalty. Its built in physically in the body. And there is a difference between the penalty of sin nature, which we inherit and when we commit transgressions which we might have deserved, you know... Even criminals when they commit certain crimes receive the death penalty by law.

There is a difference between the penalty of sin nature, the sin nature we inherit, the penalty we inherit and that which we become guilty of in relation to transgression. There's a difference. Now we commit transgression. We inherit the penalty of sin, sin nature, in that we grow old and die.

Now everyone then right on down the line from Adam and Eve, right on down to Christ lives a little while and dies...Abraham and all.

The law of condemnation called sin or sin nature put them all right in the grave. There they go. Christ broke this law of condemnation when he was resurrected. Thats where he is. He's up in heaven. The law of condemnation couldn't have been anything moral. It would have ruined Christ. It had to be physical. What you inherit is mortality, is mortality with the impulses to sin.

(Aud 2) Nobody...we believe that when he conquered death he conquered sin nature, but what your saying, he conquered the reward of sin nature?

(John Hensley) Well the law of condemnation then would be mortality with the impulses to sin.

(Richard Stone) He abrogated this when he was raised from the dead, of course.

So you see, Julio, like so many others in Central fellowship, they claim to be in perfect harmony with the BASF, all the while denying what the BASF clearly states.

BASF--"By dying he abrogated the law of condemnation for himself."

"Bro. Stone--He abrogated this when he was raised from the dead."

"Bro. Hensley--Christ broke this law of condemnation when he was raised."

This should not be too difficult to see. You write Julio, in commenting on this section from which you quote: "The article clearly says that he flesh needed to be cleansed." There are two points to this statement that I'd like to address.

1. We have never denied that bro. Stone believed that the flesh of Jesus required to be changed. He believed that his flesh was mortal and needed to be put off before he could be made immortal. Therefore your comment is completely beside the point.

2. Bro. Stone does not say that his flesh needed to be cleansed. He says it needed to be changed, which is different than saying that he needed to be cleansed. To say that it needed to be cleansed would be to indicate that it had something in it from which it was dirty or defiled. Listen to bro. Stone on the word cleansed which you say the Committee's article includes.

"If we ask, when was Christ cleansed, well that word's never used of Christ as far as I know. What Christ does speak of is the fact that he was perfected, and he's quickened, and God gave him glory."

He goes on to say:

"So God dealt, if you want to call it cleansing of sin nature; He did it after He raised Christ from the dead. And that's when we will be cleansed from sin nature, when God raises us from the dead. Because, when we rise from the dead, we are going to have this VERY SAME NATURE THAT WE HAD WHEN WE WENT INTO THE GRAVE."

Dick objects to using the words like cleanse along with other words like purge and purify in relation to Christ. He does not deny that such words have been used in the past, but qualifies this by saying that when we use these words in such a manner, we must realize that we are using Scriptural terms in an unscriptural manner.

Even the BASF is attacked this way by him. The following is from a discussion about some of these words, the word defiled.

And defiled. Here is a word we often hear, and its even in our Statement of Faith. But we must understand that when we use this term, we are using it out of context."

Did you know, Julio, that the BASF uses words that are out of context with Bible definitions, to describe the nature of man? I totally reject that idea. Central can say that they meet on the BASF, but you have to be very gullible to believe it.

I hope by now, Julio, you have a better perception of why we contend that the article by the Committee, signed by bro. Stone, does not in anyway alter what bro. Stone has been teaching all along. The Committee's article in fact includes many of the dangerous roots from which bro. Stone draws his wrong conclusions.

Page after page of rhetoric are not needed to prove that bro. Stone has changed his views on this central theme of the subject. Just get him to agree to the simple statement of bro. Roberts and agree that the proposition is proved by the verses that bro. Roberts uses to prove his statement. Bro. Roberts wrote:

"That as anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that he shoudl offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented."

Bro. Roberts then used the following verses to prove that point. Hebrews 5:3 (which bro. Stone says "he's not talking about Christ, he's talking about the Aaronic Priesthood"): Hebrews 7:27 (about which bro. Stone says "Lets look at Hebrews 7:26-27. I know these verses are quoted sometimes by brethren who suppose they lend countenance to the idea that Christ offered for his own nature and so forth...What did Christ do? He made one sacrifice that atoned for the High Priest and atoned for the people too. If we interpret this to mean this, meaning he offered for his own sins first, and then for the people, then you have Christ offering for sins, s-i-n-s, of which he had none. It would strain that to make it sin nature.") : Hebrews 8:3 and Hebrews 9:23 (which bro. Stone makes his argument that purify refers to a moral cleansing under Christ).

All these verses which bro. Roberts says apply to Christ offering for himself, bro. Stone explains away saying that they do not apply to Christ offering for himself.

Do you think that this is being too critical and objective? I'm just showing you that all the statements from the Committee's article fall well within the framework of bro. Stone's teaching on the subject which you have agreed to be error. You say that the article clears bro. Stone of your objections. I say that the article does not, by itself, alter any precept that had been heretofor taught by bro. Stone. You may have additional information which does prove that he has changed on this vital subject. Please sent it to me if you do.

The following are some of the quotes bro. Stone has made in the past concerning the issue which the Committee's article does not address.

"Christ died to effect the forgiveness of our sins. Now you notice that almost a whole page is taken up with verses that illustrate that he died for us. And I know not of a single scripture that says he died for himself. Now I'd be willing to look at this Scripture if there is one. Christ benefitted by his death on the cross. And his death was expedient to his own salvation, but I know of no place that says that he died for himself."

(Richard Stone) I'm just saying that this is by metonymy, sin can be called, human nature can be called sin because it produces sin. And there we are calling the cause by the effect.

(Ellis Higham) And God could treat them the same.

(Richard Stone) He doesn't treat them the same. I would challenge you to show anywhere were it says that God requires a blood shedding sacrifice to redeem or to cleanse sin nature, or to forgive human nature or whichever what you want to put it."

"And here is the cleansing of the sanctuary, or the heavenly things. And that was effected when God raised Christ from the dead and endowed him with immortality. But I can't see where it was done by sacrifice on the cross, because it doesn't say that."

(John Hensley) O.K. But I don't know how much farther we could go with that. He had to do exactly as he did. And he did have to have his sin nature changed and sin nature dies have to be changed. There's no possibility of God immortalizing sin nature, after a natural life. What further more emphatic statement could we make?

(Ellis Higham) That we could go to the extent that I believe historically Christadelphians have gone and state that sin nature requires atoning sacrifice. That's how much further you could go.

(Richard Stone) But that would be unscriptural.

Those kinds of statements could be enlarged to include another 12 pages or so. Again I emphasize, I have never heard or read anywhere, including the Committee's article, where bro. Stone has ever altered from this position which he has taken. Again, please show me differently, if you can.

Perhaps you feel that this close scrutiny of bro. Stone's teaching is "heresy-hunting". I feel that it is just dealing with the issues which have been effectively skirted by Central's Committee.

But anyway, hear what bro. Roberts has to say:

"All heresy-hunting is of diabolos," says the Flesh. "TRY THE SPIRITS whether they are of God," writes the Spirit; and the reason given is (1 John 4:1)- "because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

The "false prophets" were teachers of heresy, but professed to teach that which is true. There was a difficulty in identifying them, and therefore all teachers of divine things were to be tried to ascertain whose teaching was genuine and whose adulterated. The object of the test was that the heresy teachers might be repudiated.

It is on this principle that ecclesial action has been taken on the Inspiration Question. It was reported that false teaching existed in spiritual Israel concerning the authorship of divine writings, and on enquiring, making search, and asking diligently, many have found the thing "certain." Some, it will be said, have enquired without finding its existence; but it is necessary to remember that there are different ways of enquiring, and that none are so blind as those who do not wish to see. The evidence of its existence is undisputable, and there are no excuses to justify its being ignored.

The repudiation of responsibility for the false teaching of those at a distance shows a defective appreciation of the unity which should exist between all members of the One Body- "The members should have the same care one for another, and whether one member suffer, ALL THE MEMBERS suffer with it" (1 Cor. 12:25-26).

The evidence that bro. Stone has not altered on his teaching (which you agree to have been wrong) is equally as plain as the inspiration question in bro. Roberts' day. We have never read that bro. Stone has changed. No one has told us that he has changed. Our meeting has four brethren in it where bro. Stone's teaching was the initial cause of their separation from Central, and yet no one has ever come to tell them that bro. Stone has changed. Doesn't that strike you as strange, if in fat, bro. Stone has changed?

We have read articles published in Central publications which rather support bro. Stone in his teaching, and also articles like the one of this Committee which simply does not address the central issue. As bro. Roberts points out, there are different ways of asking questions.

Copies of this portion of this letter will be sent to:
bro. Art Jones
bro. Carwyn Smith
bro. Richard Stone
bro. Roy Styles
bro. Rene Growcott

[Note: Acknowledgment of receipt was received from all except bro. Roy Styles.]