An Appeal To “Watchman” (2)

Original Sin

When we examine the charges of “Watchman” against us regarding the teaching he brands as original sin, a great deal of unfairness is obvious. To compare Christadelphian teaching with that of Catholicism appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to stigmatise. However the stigma won’t stick. Doctor Rumble in his book “Radio Replies”, being a collection of answers given by radio to questioners of the “Catholic Faith” contradicts quite flatly the Christadelphian position. He teaches that original sin has nothing to do with the physical constitution of man, whereas we believe it has. Questioner No. 763 asks,

“Does not the Catholic Church insist also upon the biologically impossible dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, herself?” Answer. “The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has nothing to do with biology. It does not mean that she was conceived miraculously in the physical sense. She was normally conceived and born of her parents, Joachin and Ann. But in her very conception HER SOUL was preserved immaculate in the sense that she inherited no stain of original sin, derived from her first parents”.

Original sin, according to Catholics, affects the (imaginary) soul; and has nothing to do with the biological conception of the physical being, so that each soul tainted with original sin needs atonement. Every point of this is as foreign to Christadelphian teaching as is atheism from deism.

What we do inherit from Adam in consequence of transgression is a mortal body with no taint or guilt of original sin being transmitted — however it is a mortal body which in turn has been considerably weakened through the repeated abuses and transgressions of all our forebears from Adam downwards. Not one of us appears to have been thus endowed with physical equipment identical with or equal to the other. There could be as many grades of mental equipment and physical power as there are people upon earth. Would the physical bodies we possess have been subject to all the stresses and strains we are prone to if man had continued in his innocent state? It is unthinkable. Sin is reaping what it has sown. There is an ingrained desire, to which all are prone, to serve and please ourselves instead of God. Paul says that the “minding of the flesh is enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7). So the thinking that originates solely from the flesh cannot be subject to God’s law. What an opposite kind of thought pattern from that existing during man’s innocence! How untameable man has become! There is only one hope for fallen man; and that is the forgiveness of sins and the gradual and repeated renewing of our minds day by day in Christ. Even then we continually fall, and await complete deliverance from sin in the age to come through the redemption of our bodies.

Is the present condition of sinful man due in any way to the original transgression? Consider the following Scriptures:— “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). The disobedience of Adam was therefore instrumental to some degree at least in producing subsequent sinners, though they do not inherit the taint or guilt of Adam’s sin as taught by the Apostacy. Original sin is a root cause contributing to the continuance of sin; otherwise God is a liar.

“I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity with the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7:23). We ask, did man have this law of sin in his members before transgression? Was there warfare going on in his mind before he sinned? I can understand the basic human desires operating with which he was created, causing him to relish the taste of the forbidden fruit. I can even understand the natural appeal of participating with his wife in the act of transgression, but I could not apply the inspired statement of Paul to Adam before his transgression. A law of sin waging warfare in his mind would rob Eden of its bliss.

“I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing”. (Rom. 7:18). Could Adam have possibly turned to his creator the day he was made and passed this observation concerning himself? If we do so for him, what a reflection we cast upon the handiwork of God untainted by sin. Surely man brought this upon himself through the act of transgression.

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, etc…. All these evil things come from within and defile the man.” (Mark 7:21-23.) Was there, for example, a desire in Adam to murder his wife before he transgressed by partaking the forbidden fruit? Could such a desire have arisen at all in such perfect conditions? It needed the introduction of sin to produce many of these stronger feelings of evil intent. It is certain man was drawn away by his own desire upon accepting the appealing suggestion of the serpent, but it is also certain that once transgression came, the desire to sin intensified. The first murder committed by Cain is an example. He would not have had the desire to slay his brother unless he had breached God’s law of sacrifice; and then in consequence of rejection, been envious and jealous of his brother. It appears to be a case of natural sequence and the intensification of the desires to do evil. At present the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, but was it before man transgressed? Obviously not.

Fallen human nature is a reality and not a myth, nor a dogma of the apostacy. It is the plain teaching of Scripture. We inherit a proneness to sin that was not manifest in blissful Edenic conditions.

Jesus was born with the same nature with which we are endowed. Nevertheless he was a body specially prepared. (Heb. 10:5-9.) He was made strong for God himself. (Psalm 80:17.) He could strongly say, “I come to do thy will O God.” God ensured this strength of will in his son, and equipped him with a quick, even mind, able to perceive the right from wrong in the intricacies of life. See Isaiah 7:14-15. At least these passages teach us that God did not leave this ability to chance, but supervised the mental development of his miraculously-conceived son. As to how this was achieved we will not venture to dogmatize; but we know that this divine son ship in some way, not altogether scientifically explicable to our limited minds, contributed to his desire, will and ability to overcome that which overcomes us. Yet in all this it did not elevate him to a nature superhuman or demigod. He was a sharer in the flesh and blood that we all alike have in common. (Heb. 2:14.)

Racial Alienation

If Bro. Roberts appeared to believe in racial alienation at all, it was in association with, and dependent upon the fact that all races are comprised of sinners either actual or potential, and they were alienated, not by race, but by transgression. In the quotation from the 1873 “Christadelphian” I omitted the following (signified previously by the succession of dots)

“The case of his brethren was much different. They were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). It was not merely that they were mortal because descended from Adam, but they were alienated and enemies in their minds by wicked works (Col. 1:21, Eph. 2:3, Rom. 1:18). The wrath of God is not revealed toward us because Adam sinned (As the Apostacy and Renunciationism teach) but because we ourselves transgress. The most conspicuous feature of the goodness of God toward us in the Gospel is the forgiveness of these many offences (Rom. 5:16). Our hereditary mortality would have been but a trivial obstacle if we ourselves had been found righteous before God”.

So Bro. Roberts did not believe that we are alienated by means of racial birth, but the race is alienated by its transgressions; and he used racial alienation in this way.

Unclean Or Defiled Flesh

Surely this is an unfortunate Christadelphian brand. But when used rightly, it is only used in a secondary sense. It is a figure of speech called metonymy, where the name of the cause has been substituted by the name of the effect, so that the cause carries the name of the effect it produces. It does not imply that the cause is literally unclean. Another secondary application of the term is found when the physical principle of decay at work in the body is referred to. See Unity Book, pages 80 to 81; and note particularly the statement: “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.”

My personal observation is that it would be far better to use plain language as free from secondary meanings as possible in controversy, when great plainness of thought and clarity of speech are required. I would personally shrink from calling Jesus unclean when the Scriptures only refer to him as “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26.) I do not deny that he shared our very human nature; for he was capable of temptation like his brethren, and suffered, being tempted. Neither do I deny that the physical laws of death were as operative in his body as they are in that of the average man whose life span is three score years and ten. As we have seen, both of these qualities are, broadly speaking, called unclean in a secondary sense. But I consider it better to refer to the Son of God in clear terms, lest one should be guilty of leading someone else into the pitfall of slighting our Lord.

If there are some who cannot sincerely follow by reasoning, but insist that they must emphasise the humanity of Jesus by calling him unclean, I would pray to God for tolerance to enable me to suffer the apparent insult to our Lord, and for grace and enlightenment on behalf of the user. Both of us would need the “more excellent way”, prescribed as a healing balm.

This is not intended to be a complete answer to “Watchman”, but it will serve as an appeal for moderation and as an indication of the more temperate views of Bro. Roberts than Bro. Pryde allows. The views of contemporary brethren who have been slandered from the same pen, are likewise capable of being understood in a more acceptable light than that with which we have seen them presented in “Watchman”. It is with a sense of appeal to our higher nature in Christ by the grace of God, that I make the following suggestion. I suggest that authors of statements that appear extreme be approached for a fuller understanding of them before rushing into print. These brethren clearly realise the diversities of meanings attached to words in minds other than their own. They have given, in some respect, an example of restraint from using traditional phrases whilst ministering in Australia. They have been deliberate in their attempt to avoid them in helping to resolve the situation that exists, helping to consolidate our mutual understanding of each other. This is to me an example of honour which Australian brethren could well emulate. I have personally been unable to detect anything other than a sincere desire for unity and better understanding upon points that upon the surface once appeared so entirely different. This apparent difference I have found to my joy to be for the most part imaginary.

Brethren, let us be reasonable. If we cannot be that, a strong application of 1st Corinthians chapter 13 should help.