A phrase much in evidence in Australasia in the first twenty years of the Twentieth Century. It connotes the idea that sin has little or nothing to do with the physical condition of the flesh, which is Apostolically styled "this corruptible". The holders of this "theory" affirm that Adam was created "mortal", and define "mortal" to mean simply "capable of death", and not necessarily "subject to death". They deny that Adam's body was defiled by transgression, affirming that his flesh was "clean". Passing from Adam to Christ, they affirm (or have affirmed) that He was "undefiled in every sense", and therefore in nature, a thesis that really amounts to a denial that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh". "The Clean Flesh Theory" of the Twentieth Century is, in fact, a modified revival of heresies that were introduced into the Body in 1873 under the uncouth definition "Renunciationism", and were in turn only the revival of heresies that troubled the Apostles.

In the Bible the flesh is always considered weak and unclean (Rom. vii. 24; Psa. li. 5; Job xiv. 4).

For a standard Christadelphian comment on Sin and the Flesh, see "Elpis Israel", part 1, ch. iv., section,"The Constitution of Sin".

C. C. Walker

Renunciation

Renunciation (or renouncing) is the act of rejecting something, especially if it is something that the renunciant has previously enjoyed or endorsed.

In religion, renunciation often indicates an abandonment of pursuit of material comforts, in the interests of achieving spiritual enlightenment. It is highly practised in Jainism. In Hinduism, the renounced order of life is sannyāsa; in Buddhism, the Pali word for "renunciation" is nekkhamma, conveying more specifically "giving up the world and leading a holy life" or "freedom from lust, craving and desires". (See Sangha, Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Śramaṇa.)

In some Christian denominations, renunciation of the Devil is a common liturgical rubric. This is most often seen in connection with the sacrament of baptism. In the Roman Catholic church a baptism usually contains the "Prayer of Exorcism". Later in the ceremony, the parents and godparents are asked to publicly renounce the devil.

The Church of England dismissed this rubric in a 2014 renewal of liturgy. According to The Independent, this was done in an attempt to "widen the appeal" of the rite. A prior report for the Church's Liturgical Commission stated that "[f]or the majority of those attending, the existing provision can seem complex and inaccessible."

In the Church of Norway, the public renunciation of the Devil is an obligatory element in the Main Service. It is stated by the congregation before the profession of faith (usually the Apostles' Creed, as the Nicene Creed is largely reserved for special observances). When performed in a service which includes a baptism, it is also considered an extension of the testimony given by the sponsors, as they are required to confess to a denomination which does not rejects the Apostles' or the Nicene Creed, nor rejects infant baptism.

Renunciation of citizenship is the formal process by which a person voluntarily relinquishes the status of citizen of a specific country. A person can also renounce property, as when a person submits a disclaimer of interest in property that has been left to them in a will.

Wikipedia, November 2020

Renunciationism

"Renunciationism'' is the term which describes the error which arose in 1873 when E. Turney, Ellis, and others "renounced" the doctrine that the Lord Jesus "inherited the consequence of Adam's sin, including the sentence of death passed upon the whole race of which he was a member".

They taught that Christ had a "free life", which he offered up as a substitutionary sacrifice or payment in discharge of the sinner's debt, and that he did not need to die for himself. The answer is that if the death of Christ were of this character, He might (and indeed should) have remained in the tomb. His resurrection was not necessary to complete such a transaction.

The fact of Christ's resurrection, and of His own redemption from death, proves that He was the first of those who will be redeemed from sin and death, and in this sense He died for Himself — that is, He partook of the benefit which His obedience has secured for us.

The redemption of others is a gift of God, made for Christ's sake, and as an act of love and mercy.

Renunciation, like Romanism, makes salvation a concession wrung from an angry God whose wrath was appeased by the sufferings of a victim. It destroys the doctrine of forgiveness by the grace of God. It makes God exact a debt and speak of having forgiven it. The fact that the saints are to appear before Christ's Judgment Seat proves that their responsibility after baptism remains, and their lives must be accounted for. Their forgiveness is for Christ's sake, and not on the ground of God having received satisfaction.

Renunciation, therefore, is a denial of the truth that we are justified freely by God's grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and it destroys the ground of man's responsibility.

G. F. Lake

Read "The Slain Lamb", by R. Roberts

No small amount of confusion and misunderstanding have arisen through these four words being hyphened and treated as one; whereas a careful reading of the chapter of Paul's letter (Rom. viii. 3) makes plain that he intended no such thing.

Sin can be condemned by word of mouth, or by letter; but such is not what Paul meant. Sin had to be condemned, and the righteousness of God vindicated, by destroying the nature which was the sinner; and this was accomplished by the crucifixion of a sinless member of the human race (Rom. viii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 24; 1 John iii. 5; Isa. liii. 5).

Adam, before he fell, was very good (Gen. i. 31). When, he fell he became sinful (Gen. iii. 10, 17), and all of Adam born possessed the same nature, or sinful flesh (Rom. vii. 14-21).

Read "Elpis Israel", by Dr. John Thomas.

There is a theory abroad that it is possible for mortal man to attain to absolute sinlessness, and that the attainment of this perfection is one of the conditions of salvation, . . .

Certain ones have been led astray by it. The advocates of the perfection theory do their best to explain away John's words:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8).

But John's words are too plain and too much borne out by other testimony to be misunderstood by any unbiassed truth seeker (Eccles.vii. 20; 1 Kings viii. 46; Prov. xx. 9; James iii. 2). ...

The Scriptures ascribe moral perfection to Christ and to none other. What havoc this theory makes with 1 John i. 9. That the provision in that verse should have been made, is in itself a conclusive argument in regard to man's inability to perfectly keep the commandments. The perfection theory leads to disastrous ends. It means the lowering of the divine standard; or a hopeless, miserable, struggling after the unattainable.

Λ. Τ. Jannaway

“8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1Jo 1:8-9 ASV)

“ For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.” (Jas 3:2 ASV)

The question as to what sin or sins are forgiven at baptism has arisen on account of the contention that, as Gentiles are "without God", and, therefore, not under law to Christ, that therefore the forgiveness of sins at Baptism must be the imputed sins of our first parents. Nonsense!

The imputation of the sins of Adam to his descendants, is as unscriptural as is the idea that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. We suffer the consequences of, but are not held responsible for our parents' sins.

Gentiles need forgiveness for their own wrongdoing, of which all are guilty (Lev. xx. 28). God in the past has overlooked the sins committed by Gentiles in ignorance; but, they need to be forgiven in order to "get right with God". Hence Paul's mission to the Gentiles, "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins" (Acts xxvi. 18).

See also Rom. III. 9, 23, 29; v. 16; Ephes. ii. 1, 2;2 Pet. i. 9.

Read "The Blood of Christ", by R. Roberts.

“ What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;” (Ro 3:9 ASV)

“ for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;” (Ro 3:23 ASV)

“ Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also:” (Ro 3:29 ASV)

“ And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.” (Ro 5:16 ASV)

“1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;” (Eph 2:1-2 ASV)

“ For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins.” (2Pe 1:9 ASV)

There can be but one answer if we take the Scriptures as our authority. It is recorded therein that "God looked down from heaven upon the children of men" (which, of course, included Gentiles as well as Jews), "to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back" (Psalm liii. 2, 3). That this included the times prior to the Mosaic Law is evident from Genesis vi. 5, where we are told that in Noah's day, "The wickedness of man was great upon the earth".

The cases of Sodom and Gomorrah afford further evidence (Ezek. xvi. 49). Of course, the sins of Gentiles do not necessarily make them amenable to a resurrectional judgment, for which it is necessary a man should have a knowledge of the Truth in order to become responsible (James iv.17; John xii. 48).

“ To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (Jas 4:17 ASV)

“ He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (Joh 12:48 ASV)

Whatever question there may be as to how much knowledge of the Truth a person needs in order to be amenable to the Judgment Seat of Christ, there can be none in the minds of those who know what is written as to the fact that enlightened rejectors will have to "give an account" in the Great Day.

It will be Christ's "words" by which they will be judged (John xii. 48; James iv. 17). The basis of responsibility is knowledge (John iii. 19). No faithful ecclesia will fellowship a person who denies this fundamental principle.

“ He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (Joh 12:48 ASV)

“ To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (Jas 4:17 ASV)

“ And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.” (Joh 3:19 ASV)

The ground of condemnation to a resurrection unto judgment is the wilful rejection of divine truth duly attested, and knowing it to be true.

"This is the condemnation", saith the Lord, "that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil" (John iii. 19)

And in another place He said to the Pharisees:

"If ye were blind, ye should have no sin" (John ix. 41);

that is, for which ye should have to account: as appears from another saying concerning them, namely:

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin" (John xv. 22).

Dr. John Thomas

The idea that God punishes any of the descendants of Adam for the sin committed in Eden is not only without Scriptural warrant, but altogether ungodly.

Children suffer the consequences of the acts of their fathers, but that is quite a different thing from saying they are punished for their fathers' acts. Consumptive parents bring forth consumptive children, but no one would dream of asserting that the latter were being punished for their father's sins.

Adam sinned, and as a consequence became a dying man. He could only beget dying children. If they were born free from dying, and then condemned to death for Adam's offence, it could have been said they were punished for Adam's transgression, but not otherwise.

F. G. J.

The fifteenth chapter of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians has been terribly misapplied through reading both righteous and unrighteous into the "all" of verse 22. Nowhere in the chapter is Paul concerned with the unrighteous; the only ones he has in mind are those who will be able to exclaim in the Great Day of Account:

"Ο death, where is thy sting? Ο grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. xv. 55).

They are those who, once "in Adam", are at the Judgment Seat pronounced "in Christ", and shall "put on immortality" (1 Cor. xv. 53).

The unrighteous, although baptised, are not counted as "in Christ" if they "abide not in" him (John xv.6). Only those will be counted by the Judge as "in him" who endure to the end (Luke xiii. 25-27).

F. G. J.

Read "Anastasis", by Dr. J. Thomas

The Predestination revealed in the Bible is a very different doctrine from that associated with the name of Calvin. With the latter it was a case of, no matter what you do, if you are doomed to be damned, you will be damned; and if you are to be saved, you will be saved, no matter how bad you are. That is contrary to Bible teaching.

The predestination taught in the Bible is based on God's foreknowledge, and is inseparably bound up with the doctrine of Election. God never elects, or predestines, a good man for condemnation; and He never predestines a bad man for salvation. There are many references which illustrate these propositions (Jer. i. 5; 1 Pet. i. 20; Rom. viii. 29;ix. 17).

See also James ii. 20-23 and 2 Pet. i. 10.

“ Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer 1:5 ASV)

“ who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,” (1Pe 1:20 ASV)

“ For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:” (Ro 8:29 ASV)

“ For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.” (Ro 9:17 ASV)

“20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.” (Jas 2:20-23 ASV)

“ Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble:” (2Pe 1:10 ASV)

This question, which so disturbed the Brotherhood about the year 1900, will be understood from the following notes written at the time:

"We want more resolution, and less resolutions."

This was a brother's comment on the way in which the brethren are dealing with the Judgment question·

There is just ground in some quarters for the complaint. Month after month, and year after year, this dreadful controversy drags on, to the grief of many, and more or less to the hurt of all. It is time to speak plainly, and without reservation. There is a lie festering in our midst, and firmness and determination are required to stamp it out.
What is the lie?

That the unbaptised, however much they may be enlightened in Gospel truth, are not responsible to the Judgment Seat of Christ. Are we, or are we not, as a body, to nurse this lie?

Are we, or are we not, as a body, to settle down to an everlasting contention among ourselves in regard to it?

There is an element in the brotherhood which says:

"No, we will not".

Brethren have talked long enough; it is now time to act. Unity of mind in relation to revealed truth is enjoined upon us, and this can only be attained by holding aloft the truth, and, without fear or favour, separating from those who oppose it. It is not a question of the wording of a resolution; it is simply a question of whether we will fellowship a heresy — a perfectly understood notion, that only the baptised can and will rise.

See also further remarks, "The Christadelphian",1901, pp. 45-47.

A. T. Jannaway