Here bro. Stone clearly, and without mixing words, plainly calls the doctrine that Christ offered an atoning sacrifice for the redemption of his nature to be "unscriptural". Some brethren try to confuse this point. They try to say that we simply do not understand what bro. Stone is saying. They introduce the Andrew teaching, and say that the moral relationship that bro. Andrew believed Jesus was "guilty" of is what bro. Stone is fighting. But bro. Stone never argues this way, only those who would apologize for him do so. Bro. Stone is very clear. To teach that Christ offered a sacrifice for the atonement of sin nature is unscriptural.

While bro. Stone clearly teaches that the idea that atonement was necessary for human nature is unscriptural, the apostle Paul is equally clear that it is Scriptural: ROM 8:22-23 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." What does the body need to be redeemed from? Bro. Stone says the body only needs to be changed. Paul taught it needed to be redeemed. "Redemption" is from the greek word "apolutrosis", and it means the act of ransoming. It is from the root "apo", meaning "off, in relation to time and place"; and "lutron", meaning "something to loosen with", "the ransom price, or figuratively, an atonement."

Our body, according to Paul, needs to be redeemed, ransomed, or atoned. So to say that it is unscriptural to affirm this, is to go against clear apostolic precept.