From the time that the Truth was revived by Dr. Thomas (under the guiding hand of God) until now, much controversy has centered about the nature and sacrifice of Christ. The contentions have been so sharp in some cases that division within the body of Christadelphians have resulted.
One of the most sharply contested controversies came about as the result of the attempt by J. J. Andrew to insert into the body certain theories relating to the nature and sacrifice of Christ. This caused a division which still exists. These theories were published in his book, “The Blood of the Covenant.” These theories were ably answered by Robert Roberts in his book “The Resurrection to Condemnation.” These two men were the protagonists in the controversy which raged with intensity. There were those who sided with one, and those who sided with the other.
The design and purpose of introducing these theories was to show that there existed in the sentence passed upon Adam and Eve for their original transgression, a legal barrier which would prevent anyone not justified by the blood of Christ (or the unbaptized) from being resurrected for judgment. These theories relating to the nature and sacrifice of Christ were used to show that an enlightened unbaptized rejector could not legally be raised for accountability at the resurrection.
While most Christadelphians have by now rejected the theories of J. J. Andrew because of their extreme character, there are still a few who cling to them and try to propagate them as truth. We have a recent example of this in a pamphlet entitled, “The Nature and Sacrifice of Christ” which is dated March 1972. In this booklet there is a revival of these theories. The author writes with the full assurance that he can prove these theories to be true, and that they cannot be successfully refuted. It seems necessary therefore to expose once more the fallacy of these theories, showing them to be not only unacceptable, but dangerous.
In this treatise (as the author calls it) the writer seeks to establish the “eternal death– theory of the Adamic Sentence and the transmission of “legal condemnation”to all of the descendants of Adam including Christ. He not only admits but insists that this inherited legal condemnation makes everyone a born sinner including Christ. This last assertion about Christ is enough to make one shudder.
The writer begins by stating, “The nature and sacrifice of Christ is the heart of the Gospel, and therefore a correct understanding is quite necessary to give a full meaning to our understanding of the Scriptures.” To this we can agree.
“The Very Day”
The writer states that when God warned Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, He meant that if Adam disobeyed he would die “the very.” Now if God meant that Adam would die that very day, Adam would have died that very day. But the fact that Adam did not die until 930 years later is proof that God did not mean that he would die on that very day. The warning was, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” What God meant was that in the day that he ate of it death would become a certainty to him. And it did. On that day he was sentenced and there began that irreversible process of physical deterioration which would most surely cause him to eventually return to dust. This process we call mortality.
In the margin of Gen. 2:17 we read the expression, “dying thou shalt die.” This is the best definition of mortality we can think of. Mortality is a “dying thou shalt die” process. What God meant then was that in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit a “dying thou shalt die” process which we know as mortality, would begin to take effect. We know what the sentence passed upon Adam was because we are all suffering the effects of it. “Dying thou shalt die” described perfectly our mortal existence.
The Eternal Death Sentence
The writer declares, “We know from Scripture that the death spoken of is eternal.“ Do we? Where in the warning does the word “eternal” occur? Where in Scripture is the death spoken of as eternal? Before he gets through he is to use the expression “eternal death” no less than twenty times. The theory that the death threatened to Adam was an eternal one is absolutely essential to the writer’s arguments and conclusions which he will try to establish. The eternal death theory becomes like the center pole of a tent. Take away the center pole and the tent will fall. Likewise, take away the eternal death theory and the writer’s arguments will collapse.
He writes, “According to God’s law, Adam would die eternally. He continues, “Adam was under sentence to eternal death. To disregard the eternal sentence would make God a liar.” Now one would logically assume that for an eternal sentence there could be no hope. If Adam were under an eternal sentence of death, wouldn’t that be final? But wait, the writer is going to find a provision for Adam? “Did Adam come out from under this sentence of eternal death? If so, how? Did not Adam come out from under the sentence of eternal death to a probation to prove himself, awaiting the judgment to receive the final sentence whether it be life or death eternal? Was not this removal of the sentence of eternal death effected by the sacrifice of the animal ?” Can a divine sentence of eternal death be lifted? Can there be a provision for the removal of an eternal sentence of death by divine decree?
Further on he continues, ”The sentence of death pronounced upon man in the Garden of Eden was a binding law. It is no different from the sentence that will be given at the judgment to come. One is as binding as the other. We must agree that the sentence to be pronounced at the judgment cannot be changed. It is final and will hold men in the dust, eternally. Why then is it said that the sentence in Eden is not final?” He asserts, “The sentence of eternal death will be reimposed on those who are unfaithful.” Now if the sentence to be given at the judgment is No Different from that given in Eden, as far as its finality is concerned, then how was the sentence in Eden lifted but that at the judgment cannot be? How can a sentence of eternal death be Reimposed? This creates a conflict of words!
But here the author is greatly confused. He thinks that the sentence passed upon Adam was never carried out. He thinks that a provision was made by the coats of skins to lift the sentence thus changing or altering it. In this he is in obvious error. The warning in Gen. 2:17 (“dying thou shalt die”) and the sentence as recorded in Gen. 3:17-19, has been carried out to the letter exactly as God decreed it. It was not changed, or lifted, or altered by the coats of skins. Adam and Eve suffered the penalty exactly as decreed in full. The coats of skins were provided to give Adam and Eve hope of redemption beyond the grave. While the coats of skins represented a covering, or forgiveness for the transgression, they were nevertheless to pay in full the consequences of it. If God had decreed an eternal sentence for them He would have tied His hands, so far as providing redemption for them. Mortality, with its accompanying sorrows and pains was the sentence. When God decrees an eternal sentence it is irremediable.
Why does the author insist on the “eternal death” theory when it is both illogical and unscriptural? Is it because it makes the best argument against the resurrection to judgment of an unbaptized enlightened rejector? If the sentence was eternal death and this is passed on to Adam’s descendants then it can be argued that no one out of Christ, or unbaptized can be resurrected to judgment because the eternal sentence of death will hold him in the grave forever. No scriptural proof is given. Just assertions. The nearest to proof is when the writer refers to some who perish and the death is eternal. He asserts this to be the result of Edenic Law. But the real reason why some will not be resurrected is due to the fact that God has no further use of them, either to reward or punish. The basis of their remaining dead for ever is given in Pros’. 21:16, “The man that wandereth out of the way of Understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.” And again in Psa. 49:20, “Man that is in honour, and Understandeth Not is like the beasts that perish.” In both of these passages it is the lack of understanding of God’s plan and purpose that will keep them in the grave, not because of an eternal death sentence inherited from Adam.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One