|
“It is the person, the individual, the nature
that is condemned, because it was the person, Adam, that was the sinner.
Condemnation in Adam means, therefore, that we are mortal in Adam; mortal in the
physical constitution—the organisation. Look at any of us when we are
just newly born. Why are we mortal at that moment? We have not sinned. Oh,
but we sinned in Adam says the same theory. Did we sin in the individual sense
in him? How could we sin individually when we did not exist? Paul says No! He
says death reigned over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression. “Why is it we are mortal, then? In what sense is the sentence of Adam upon us when we are born? Well, we are Adam’s organisation. It is in the organisation that the law of mortality resides. It is in the physical substance that the principle of death is at work. Hence the phrase ‘this corruptible’. If the substance were not corruptible ‘life’ would be ours for ever.” |
|
“Suffering the Adamic condemnation is a question of
physical constitution.” (1874, page 233), also again in the same year,
“This mortality is our condemnation in Adam.” |
|
“But when they adopted the Serpent’s reasonings as
their own, these being at variance with the truth, caused an enmity against it
in their thinkings, which is equivalent to ‘enmity against God’.
When their sin was perfected, the propensities, or lusts, having been inflamed,
became ‘a law in their members’; and because it was implanted in
their flesh by transgression, it is styled ‘the law of sin’; and
death being the wages of sin, it is also termed, ‘the law of sin and
death’; but by philosophy, ‘the law of
nature’.” |
|
“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in
the scriptures: It signifies in the first place ‘the transgression of
law’; and in the next it represents that physical principle of the
animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution
into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of
death’; and it is called sin because the development, or fixation, of
this evil in the flesh was the result of transgression. “Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh’, that is, flesh full of sin; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh ‘dwelleth no good thing’; and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him. Operating upon the brain, it excites the ‘propensities’ and sets the ‘intellect’ and ‘sentiments’ to work. The propensities are blind, and so are the intellect and sentiments in a purely natural state; when, therefore, the latter operate under the sole impulse of the propensities, ‘the understanding is darkened through ignorance, because of the blindness of the heart’. The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as a result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing.” (Elpis Israel.) |
|
“Only perversity would suppress the word
‘constitutional’, and allege that the Christadelphians teach Christ
to have been a sinner,” and he added, “Finally, I do not teach that
Christ was a sinner by birth or any other means: this is your misrepresentation.
I believe he inherited in his flesh the result of Adam’s sin, as we do;
not that he was a sinner himself... And here I add, for the sake of a few who
are wondering what the phrase ‘constitutional sinner’ means, as once
or twice employed by Dr. Thomas in reference to Christ; it means that he stood
related to a sin-constitution of things—a state of things arising out of
sin; without being himself a committer of sin. Sorrow arises out of sin; and he
was a man of sorrow. Pain (among men) arises out of sin, and he suffered pain.
Weakness arises from sin, and he was ‘crucified through weakness’.
Mortality (among men) is the result of sin, and he was mortal, requiring to be
saved from death (Heb. 5:7), and bringing life by his obedience (Rom.
5). “Into this state of things he was introduced as we are introduced, in being born of a sinful woman. This is the sense of the phrase ‘a constitutional sinner’.” |
|
“An effort is then put forth to make Dr. Thomas endorse
‘the idea of imputing the sin of Adam to helpless babes’, by
quoting the following remarks from THE REVEALED MYSTERY: ‘All mankind are
born of corruptible parents into a state of sin. By this natural birth
they become members of this sinful and evil state, and heirs of its
disabilities. By virtue of this birth they are constituted
sinners’. “It would have been well if it had been noticed that Dr. Thomas uses this word constituted as Bro. Roberts uses it, as a verb, and not as an adjective. The doctor reveals his mind in further explaining the term thus—’that is, they were endowed with a nature like his (Adam’s), which had become unclean as the result of disobedience’, and he distinctly states, ‘not because they were responsible transgressors’. “Yet some are now contending that we require forgiving for that for which we are not responsible. The word of God teaches that we need forgiving our own sins and redeeming from our vile bodies (both of which are traceable to Adam’s offence, but which is a different thing from our being held guilty of that offence). “Then some speak ‘of “inherited wrath of God”, from which “we are at baptism delivered”.’ This has been correctly described as jargon. Speak as the oracles of God. Bible deliverance from Adamic inheritance is future. Thus Paul exclaimed, ‘Who shall deliver me?’ when speaking of the state into which he was born. “‘By nature children of wrath.’ True! But what does Paul mean? Does he mean that- God is angry with us as soon as we are born? The very text in which the phrase occurs excludes such an unreasonable doctrine (Eph. 2:3). He speaks of ‘lusts of the flesh’, ‘desires of the flesh’, ‘desires of the mind’, ‘conversation in times past’, ‘wherein we walked’, ‘the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience’, all of which have to do with nature, but which require action superadded. “Of all sin it may truly be said, ‘it is our nature so to do’. We are truly ‘by nature children of wrath’, but it is wrath against evil-doing; any other wrath is inconceivable.” |
|
“Was Jesus born under condemnation? Answer: In the
scriptural sense of hereditary condemnation, the answer is, yes; but this
requires to be fenced against the misunderstanding natural to the terms
employed. Condemnation, in its individual application, implies displeasure,
which cannot be affirmed of Jesus, who was the beloved of the Father. But no one
is born under condemnation in its individual application. That is, no one is
condemned as an individual till his actions as an individual call for
it. “But hereditary condemnation is not a matter of displeasure, but of misfortune. The displeasure of wrath arises afterwards, when the men so born work unrighteousness. This unrighteousness they doubtless work ‘by nature’, and are, therefore, by nature, children of wrath—that is, by nature, they are such as evoke wrath by unrighteousness. “It was here that Jesus differed from all men. Though born under the hereditary law of mortality, as his mission required, his relation to the Father, as the Son of God, exempted him from the uncontrolled subjection to unrighteousness.” |
|
“We are forgiven and shall be saved for Christ’s
sake, he required no forgiveness... Christ was undefiled in mind, absolutely
pure, therefore he required no cleansing as pertaining to the conscience at
baptism, for there never was a moment in his life when God was displeased
with him; he always did and said what pleased the Father. He only required
cleansing in nature which was done after resurrection.” |
|
“He was a sufferer from the hereditary effects of sin;
for these effects are physical effects. Death is a physical law in our members
implanted there through sin ages ago, and handed down from generation to
generation. Consequently, partaking our physical nature, he partook of this, and
his own deliverance (as ‘Christ the first fruits’) was as necessary
as that of his brethren. In fact, if Christ had not first been saved from death
(Heb. 5:7), if he had not first obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12), there
would have been no hope for us, for we obtain salvation only through what he has
accomplished in himself, of which we become heirs by union with him. He
overcomes and we share his victory, by uniting with him, if he at the judgment
seat permit.” |
|
“The words ‘in him (Adam) all sinned’ (Rom.
5:12), only amount to ‘as I may so say’, as in the case of Levi said
to have paid tithes (or more properly, ‘to have been tithed’) in the
loins of his father Abraham (Heb. 7:10). He says (verse 9) ‘As I may so
say, Levi did so and so’. That is, in an indirect sense, not to be
practically pressed. Our sinning in Adam can be made to mean nothing more than
that from him we were destined to be generated, and that his act affected our
state when we should appear. But this is not the meaning of ‘sin’,
when we come to discuss ‘sin’ as affecting individual
destiny. “Using the term in its correct sense, Paul expressly isolates Adam’s descendants from Adam’s sin. He says: ‘Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM’S TRANSGRESSION’ (Rom. 5:14). The point of his argument is that ‘through the offence of ONE many are dead’, who sinned not after the similitude of that offence being no ‘parties to the transaction’, and not being ‘in at the job’, to use phrases whose allusion will be understood; but that the glory of God’s grace is to release penitent and reforming offenders from many offences through the righteousness of ONE. “The new argument destroys this beautiful fact by huddling the millions of Adam’s race all into one Edenic offender, and making them all ‘parties to the transaction’... Adam’s descendents have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression; but are his companions only in the sense of being heirs of the consequences of his act; among whom was Jesus, who, however, being the begotten of God in the channel of those consequences, could annul them, in the bearing of them into a grave that God could open because of his holiness.” |
|
“Answer: Job speaking of ‘man that is born of
woman’, says ‘Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?’
and David, by the Spirit, says, in Psalm 51:5: ‘Behold I was shapen in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ Furthermore, the annual
atonement under the law (Lev. 16) was appointed ‘even for the holy
place’, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, besides
their ‘transgressions in all their sins’ (verse 16). ‘Sin in
the flesh,’ which is Paul’s phrase, refers to the same thing. It is
also what Paul calls ‘Sin that dwelleth in me’ (Rom. 7:17), adding,
‘I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good
thing’. “Now, what is this element called ‘uncleanness’, ‘sin’, ‘iniquity’, etc.? The difficulty experienced by some in the solution of this question, arises from a disregard of the secondary use of terms. Knowing that sin is the act of transgression, they read ‘act of transgression’ every time they see the term sin, ignoring the fact that there is a metonymy in the use of all words which apply even to sin. “Suppose a similar treatment of the word DEATH. Primarily, death means the state to which a living man is reduced— when his life ceases. Now we read of one of the sons of the prophets saying, ‘there is death in the pot’. Does this mean there was a corpse in the pot? No, but that which makes a corpse of any living man. ‘Death’ literally meant ‘that which : would lead to death’. Again ‘death hath passed upon all men’, means the condition that leads to death. So, ‘let the dead bury their dead’, means, ‘Let those who are destined to be numbered with the dead, bury those who are actually dead’. ‘Past from death unto life’, means ‘Passed from that relation that ends in death, to that which leads to life’. “A disregard for metonymy and ellipsis in such statements, has led to most of the errors of the apostacy; and is leading some back to them who had escaped. “There is a principle, element, or peculiarity in our constitution (it matters not how you word it) which leads to the decay of the strongest or the healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin; and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things.” In 1873 (page 447) he has also written: “Adam was driven out of Eden because of disobedience; He was therefore thrown back upon himself, so to speak, and he soon found in himself and his progeny how weak and evil a thing the flesh is, for his first son was a murderer. And because disobedience or sin, was the cause of his expulsion, and that sin was the result of the desires of the flesh, and because all the desires that are natural to the flesh organisation are because of native ignorance, in directions forbidden, there is no exaggeration, no high figure in talking of sin in the flesh. “It is Paul’s figure. He speaks of ‘sin that dwelleth in me’, and as he defines me to be ‘my flesh’, sin that dwelleth in me is ‘sin in the flesh’ — a metonym for those impulses which are native to the flesh, while knowledge of God and of duty is not native to the flesh.” |
|
“He was a sufferer from the effects of sin in all the
items of weakness, labour, pain, sorrow, death; and in this sense (as a partaker
with us of the effects of sin) has been described as a constitutional sinner, or
one subject to a sin-constitution of things. But as this phrase gives
occasion to disingenuous cavil, it is well to discard the phrase and look at the
meaning, which has been stated. “As a sufferer from the effects of sin, he had himself to be delivered from those effects; and as the mode of deliverance was by death on the cross, that death was for himself first, not for sins of his own committing, but for deliverance from the (effect of the) sin of Adam from which he suffered in common with his brethren, and from the sins of his brethren which were laid upon him.” |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |