Talk:Nazarene fellowship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The term Renunciationists
Edward Turney wrote and published a book called Diabolism in 1872, prior to his leaving Christadelphianism. On page 41 he wrote:
"In the first place, it should be remarked that Jesus was not made in the nature of angels, but in that of 'flesh and blood.' Paul says 'it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." This likeness was of sin's flesh, in which 'dwells no good thing.'—(Rom. viii. 3 ; vii. 18.) In Paul's teaching, sin is identical with human nature. As the Christ was foreordained to be an effectual sin-offering, it was imperative that he should be invested with a sinful body, in order that sin might be condemned in sinful flesh. Had not the flesh of Jesus been the same as that of Adam, the sin contracted by that flesh would not, by the offering-up of Jesus, have been removed therefrom. The victim, to be efficient, must needs be brought under the curse. Bulls and goats were offered for sin, according to the rites of Moses, but still " it was not possible that they could take away sin; " because it was not a bull or a goat that had sinned, but a man. Hence the apostle's statement in 2 Cor. v. 21: 'For he hath made him sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' If it be asked what Paul means by 'made him sin,' he replies 'flesh and blood,' or 'sin's flesh.' It is undeniable, then, that sin was an element of the flesh of the Son of God, unless we, had rather take the apostacy than Paul for our guide in the matter. The doctrine that Jesus was immaculate renders him of no service at all as a sin-offering. The Logos was made flesh of Mary's substance and, like her, obnoxious to the penalty of death. In it was 'no soundness' or enduring principle. It was 'filled with a loathsome disease,' which is sin, and the inevitable end, death. The redeeming power was the divine character resident in the Son of Man."
In 1873 Turney renounced this paragraph and so began a division between Turney, his followers and other Christadelphians. Hence they became known as Renunciationists.
[edit] David Handley's return to Christadelphianism
David Handley while being a leading figure in the break from Christadelphianism later returned to the Christadelphians. The Christadelphian, May 1881, p. 237 reported:
"MALDON. —There is a change here. The Handley family, isolated by Renunciationism since 1874, have seen their way out of that fog and rendered submission to the truth anew. The London brethren have assisted in the transition. The change includes David Handley, the head of the family, who will probably receive immersion at the hands of the London brethren, before this meets the eye of the reader. Particulars next month.
"Since the foregoing was written, the following comes to hand at the last moment from Brother J. J. Andrew, of London :—'In consequence of communications received from this place indicating a change of mind regarding the relationship of Jesus Christ to the law of sin and death, accompanied by expressions desiring a resumption of fellowship, an interview took place in London between several of the brethren there, and David Handley, Charles Handley, and Henry Howell on the 21st March. The result was satisfactory on the points embraced in what is known as renunciationism, but not on the question of Resurrection and Judgment. Subsequently the difficulties on this subject were removed, and on April 4th, Charles Handley and Henry Howell again visited London, and, at their own request, after declaring that at their former immersion they did not rightly understand the taking away of sin, were planted, by the baptism of water, on a sound foundation. On returning home they took a stand separate from the others, and admitted to fellowship one by one such as they found to be sound in the faith.
"On April 21st, David Handley again visited London, and after giving expression to his belief in the scriptural teaching on Resurrection and Judgment, and also on the other elements of the truth, in the presence of about twenty brethren and sisters was, at his own request, in consequence of having until within the last few months held the doctrine of substitution, passed through the baptismal water with a firm conviction that by Jesus Christ's death, sin in the flesh, or the body of sin, was destroyed in regard to himself.'"
