Extract from a paper compiled by the Wilston Ecclesia in their discussions with the Brisbane (Petrie Terrace) Ecclesia over the latter's acceptance of Clean Flesh in fellowship - 1971

“The Teachings of John Bell”

1. Adam was created mortal (i.e. capable of death, though not destined to die)

“ … The condition of Adam before he fell, … He was mortal, and therefore the sentence that was passed upon him did not defile him by making him mortal.” (John Bell, 1904)

“Man in his normal condition is not dying, but he is capable of death.” (John Bell 1904)

2. The transgression and subsequent sentence passed upon Adam did not defile him, nor did it introduce any physical law into his being. As a consequence no physical defilement was transmitted to his posterity.

“The transgression … and sentence … did not defile (Adam’s) body, inasmuch as it did not change his body … Adam’s conscience was defiled by transgression. His body was not changed.” (John Bell, 1904).

“I have said that the mortality that came upon Adam was the result of his transgression and of the sentence; but that did not defile his body, inasmuch as it did not change his body. What then was defiled? Adam’s conscience was defiled by transgression. His body was not changed. The emotion that caused him to hide himself was an internal one. His physique was not changed.” (John Bell, Wednesday August 31st, 1904).

“Unwise words which make Adam a physically defiled man by moral transgression and so passing on to his progeny the imagined uncleanness of his body.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, January 1922).

“The physical phase of the Doctor’s view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, March 1922).

3. There is no sin in the flesh which makes man’s nature unclean. Man only becomes unclean by personal transgression.

“We are quite at one with the purpose to denounce the horrible teaching which has crept insidiously into the theories of our leading magazine … They teach that human nature has sin in the flesh by inheritance from Adam.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, August 1921).

“Seeing that God made Adam ‘very good’, how could sin, which had no existence until it was enacted, enter into Adam’s flesh and make it sinful, for transmission to an unbegotten posterity … The grievous mis-statement made by Dr. Thomas that they were endowed with a nature like his which had become unclean as a result of disobedience.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, March, 1922).

4. Consequently, Christ, having never sinned, was undefiled in nature as well as in character. His flesh was pure and clean, so that he was undefiled in every sense.

“Time and time again it has been pointed out in our columns, that an unclean Jesus could never have been an acceptable sacrifice … All to no purpose, because minds are blinded by a doctrine of physical defilement, which alienates from God.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, February 1914).

“Our contention was, and is, that in his (Jesus’) make-up or constitution God used only clean material, so that he was in structure clean, and that he kept this cleanness undefiled by personal sin till the end, being fitted for a perfect sacrifice. As against this it is held (by others), that an element called ‘sin in the flesh’ was worked into the make-up of Jesus by inheritance from Adam, into whom God implanted it as a punishment, so that he (Jesus) was involuntarily defiled. We say this is not only false in fact, but violates the requirements of reason.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, February 1906).

“We would dearly like to organise a crusade against the fastening of such a slur upon the Bible as to say it teaches or allows for an unclean or defiled Christ. … Rather than accept such a slander upon God we would prefer to join Canon Barnes.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, August 1921).

“Jesus was without any personal taint.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, January 1922).

“No flesh full of sin could have triumphed over trial.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, March 1922).

“This damnable theory of an unclean Christ.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, April 1922).

5. Christ’s death was not for himself, nor did he make an offering for human nature.

“Thus it was that the Christ was so defiled by nature that he had to offer for his own sin, which he in common with all mankind was tainted with by generation although he was perfectly sinless. … It is in protest against this monstrous blasphemy that Bro. Strickler has written,” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, August 1921).

“Jesus never offered any sacrifice for his human nature.” (John Bell, ‘The Shield’, April 1922)

In view of these fully documented teachings held by John Bell from 1904 to his death in 1928, it is interesting to note the language of used in a statement of the “Tenets of the Sydney Ecclesia” (the ecclesia to which John Bell belonged).

“Concerning ADAM, the I.O.O.F. Temple Brethren believe:—

That he was made in the image of God, a natural body, from the dust of the ground and animated by the breath of life, and therefore of a corruptible nature, and mortal in constitution, but not subject to death until after he sinned. (See Gen. 2:7: 3:19; 1 Cor. 15:47. Compare Elpis Israel, page 28; Eureka, vol. 1, page 248; Apostacy Unveiled, page 74; Catechesis, Questions 5 and 9; and Christendom Astray, page 28, large edition).

That his destiny was not determined until he transgressed God’s law, when it was declared by God, on account of his disobedience, that he would return to the dust of the ground from whence he was taken, and that until such would eventuate he would eat bread in the sweat of his brow.

That he was precluded from eating of the tree of life after his disobedience by being driven from the garden of Eden.

That in consequence of Adam’s first transgression death passed upon all men.

They do not believe that the declaration of God to Adam changed his organism, or that he was corporeally defiled thereby, although he was physically affected by his changed conditions as a result of God’s decree.

Concerning JESUS, the I.O.O.F. Temple Brethren believe:—

That he was the seed of Abraham and David, of like nature to them, though miraculously begotten of the Virgin Mary, and was therefore in the days of his flesh, a mortal man, and a sufferer from all the effects that came by Adam’s transgression, including the death that passed upon all men.

That he was tempted in all points like unto us, having all the propensities or impulses to sin common to our nature, and consequently, though sinless, he required to be redeemed from his weak, corruptible, and mortal nature.

That on account of his personal holiness of character, and his perfect obedience to his Father’s will, he was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, and was raised from the dead, immortalised, and exalted to the right hand of God.

They do not believe that there is any warrant whatever for saying that he was “defiled,” “unclean,” “tainted,” or such-like, as no inspired apostle or prophet has applied such language to him.”

It would be difficult to detect error in these statements were it not for the qualifications and denials appended in the final paragraphs, and a knowledge of the beliefs of those who compiled them.

A similar situation exists today. There re those who please acceptance of the B.A.S.F. and clothe their doctrines in acceptable language but actually hold views that are totally contrary to the B.A.S.F. Such evidently ignore Bro. Carter’s 1947 appeal for honesty as the only basis for Ecclesial unity.

“Let it be agreed to invite all ecclesias to subscribe to the Statement of Faith, making it a point of honour that, if they do not endorse it, that they say they do not. Let it be agreed that such endorsement of the Statement of Faith shall be regarded as providing a welcome to fellowship.”

Concerning John Bell’s teachings and the I.O.O.F. Temple ecclesia Bro. C.C. Walker wrote -

“… we are bound to say we have no sympathy with the doctrine that traverses Clause V. of the Statement of Faith, and denies that physical defilement followed Adam’s transgression.” (The Christadelphian, June 1905).

“With reference to the situation in Sydney, we have naturally had considerable correspondence from many who dissent strongly from our remarks in the December issue of the Christadelphian. They think we are misinformed and cannot judge. It is not so. We are well informed concerning the history of the truth in Sydney for the past twenty years; and are not in the least concerned with personalities in the question.” (The Christadelphian, April 1905).

“At the same time, when division has actually taken place, we cannot but choose the side which stands at all costs for the unperverted truth.” (The Christadelphian, December 1904).