Inherited Legal Condemnation
“According to God’s law, Adam would die eternally, and cease to exist, by disobedience. This is the legal condemnation that we wish to consider.” These words are from a booklet entitled “The Nature and Sacrifice of Christ” and in this series of articles we shall attempt to show that this teaching is not in accordance with scripture teaching upon this important Bible subject. We see from this quotation that the inherited legal condemnation theory is the mainstay of the conclusions reached on the responsibility question. Unless the writer can successfully establish this theory, all of his arguments on the responsibility question will collapse. So he goes all out to firmly entrench this theory in the minds of his readers.
What is this inherited condemnation? He has already stated that the eternal death sentence of Adam is the legal condemnation. From this then we understand that the inheritance of the eternal death sentence passed upon Adam is the inherited legal condemnation.
The inheritance of the eternal death sentence of Adam is supposed to produce “legal Defilement.” The word “legal” according to Webster’s Dictionary means ”of, pertaining to, based upon, or governed by law.” To defile is defined to “make filthy; to befoul, to make ceremonially unclean; to pollute; to tarnish; to dishonor… As for condemnation the word is given to mean, “act of judicially condemning, or adjudging guilty. State or fact of being condemned. The ground or reason of condemning.” Legal defilement then would be an uncleanness, pollution, tarnish or dishonor as the result of disobedience to law. Legal condemnation would be the conviction of or state of guilt arising from law breaking or disobedience to law, or sin which is the transgression of law, I John 3:4.
Let us see what he has to say about legal condemnation. He equates it with legal defilement. He also equates it with the eternal death sentence theory which the descendants of Adam are supposed to inherit at birth. He tells us that –therefore” as the result of inheriting legal condemnation, “we are made sinners, and that means from birth, before we have any sin of our own.” He distinguishes between the physical effects of the sentence and the legal condemnation. He writes “We see that it was the sin alone that had defiled the man and the woman. This uncleanliness is condemnation, and is as real as that which followed in his physical being. We read in the previous paragraph that we were in the loins of Adam when he transgressed. Were we not also subjects of the disfavor, also separated from God, a part of the breach, condemned with him? Can it be said that we are born clean?” (By “clean,” does he mean not guilty?) “Isn’t there a legal barrier between us and God at birth? Doesn’t this barrier come from birth into the Adamic race?”
He goes on to ask in the same paragraph, “Are we not all then condemned to the same since Adam was our federal head? Do we not all possess the condemnation to death simple by being part of the race? Is this anything but legal, condemnation?” And, “Then we are in sin. But not our own sin.” (Then it must be Adam’s sin.) “There is no doubt about it, we as Adam’s descendants are alienated” (a term which expresses moral relationship to God) “from God by ancestral sin, and constituted sinners in God’s eyes.” “We have shown how all of Adam’s descendants, inherit his condemnation, that is both legally and physically. We are all born under the sentence of death, the constitution of sin. We are unclean. All of these terms are expressive of the legal condemnation to death eternal. We also die physically from the moment we are born. A sentence is not physical.” Can there be a question of the legal defilement that we inherit from Adam? How then do we pass from this alienated state to become the sons of God?” And further in the same paragraph, “This change of relationship at baptism is the most important part of our contact with the blood of Christ. We are also cleansed of our personal sins, which act as a barrier just as effective as the sin of Adam does toward life.”
As he proceeds he seems to become more emphatic about inherited alienation. He writes, “Doesn’t this mean that we are set apart and labelled as a sinner even before we have any transgression of our own? Is this not legal condemnation? Is this not alienation that is inherited because of the sin of Adam?” Note well that he said here that alienation is inherited because of the sin of Adam. He asserts, “Certainly, we are alienated from God because of our nature, and that from birth.” Now are we “alienated from God by ancestral sin“ as he affirms, or are we alienated from God because of our nature? Is alienation inherited because of the sin of Adam, or are we alienated from God because of our nature? The sin of Adam (legal condemnation) or our nature? Which?
Now in all this it must be evident that the writer believes that at birth one inherits not only the physical effects of the sentence passed upon Adam for his sin but the sin of Adam itself. If what he has declared doesn’t prove this then words couldn’t be framed that would. He is emphatic in his statements that man inherits the sin of Adam and the sin makes sinners of everyone apart from one’s own actions, and that at baptism man needs cleansing from the inherited sin of Adam as well as forgiveness for personal sins. This is so much like the Roman Catholic’s doctrine of Original Sin that it could well be termed this. To show this we will quote from the book “Baltimore Catechism.”
Question No. 70 asks, “What evil befell us on account of the disobedience of our first parents?”
Answer, “On account of the disobedience of our first parents, we all share in their sin and punishment.” Rom. 5:18 is cited as the proof.
Question No. 72, “What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?”
Answer. “The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.”
Question No. 73, “Why is this sin called original sin?”
Answer. “This sin is called original sin because it comes down to us from our first parents and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul. Some heretics deny original sin in man. But the Bible says that we are children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and are conceived in sin (Psa.
Question No. 80, “Is original sin the only kind of sin?”
Answer. “Original sin is not the only kind of sin; there is another kind of sin which we commit ourselves, called actual sin. Original sin is not committed by us but is A Sinful State into which We Were Born. Actual sins are our own sinful acts freely done.”
Question No. 208, “What is baptism?” Answer, “Baptism is a sacrament which Cleanses Us From Original Sin. Baptism, making us spiritually a new man, necessarily destroys in the adult original sin and all other sins and punishments.”
The doctrine of original sin is virtually identical with the theory of inherited legal condemnation. One could almost think of them as the same doctrine. However, the Catholics make Christ the subject of immaculate conception while the writer makes Christ a born sinner. Somewhere between these two extremes must lie the truth concerning Christ!
It will of course be denied that inherited legal condemnation carries guilt with it, but consider what inherited legal condemnation does to a person, according to the writer: it defiles one, it condemns one; it makes one legally unclean: it makes one a born sinner,. it separates One from God; it alienates one from God; it creates a legal barrier between God and man; it makes one a subject of disfavor: is termed ancestral sin; and one must be cleansed of it at baptism. It does all this to one at birth and yet we are told there is no guilt involved! Why, actually guilt of a personal sin couldn’t do more than this!
The writer wonders why so many associate guilt with the doctrine of inherited legal condemnation. In describing the state brought about by inherited legal condemnation, he clearly and unmistakably describes a state of guilt. If not, then what is the difference between a state of guilt and the state that he describes? How can you inherit a sin which places one in a state of sin without in meriting its guilt? When the guilt is taken away from a sin it ceases to be a sin. How can you inherit a sin which makes one a sinner without inheriting the guilt? It is the guilt of a sin which brings about the state he describes. If guilt is associated with the theory it is because it carries with it the implication of guilt. What is legal condemnation if it is not legal guilt?
Of course, we must realize that in dealing with the expression “inherited legal condemnation” we are dealing with a shadowy expression. It is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. It is an invented or fabricated expression designed to describe a certain state or condition that the author wishes us to believe we arc-born into. The writer thinks that Rom. 5:19 proves that one is a sinner at birth as the result of Adam’s sin. It reads, ”By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” But wouldn’t this verse more logically mean that because Adam sinned and was sentenced to mortality-which is a condemned sin-death physical nature with the inevitable proneness toward transgression—man inherits a sin-death nature which inevitably will lead to sin which makes him a sinner? It does NOT say that men were made sinners At Birth! This is only an assertion by the writer.
Why do men sin? Because they possess a physical makeup of sin which we call sin’s flesh or flesh with its impulses of sin. Where did they acquire this? They inherited it. From whom? From Adam because they are his offspring or descendants.
It may be argued that Rom. 5:12 teaches that when Adam sinned all of his descendants sinned with him because they were in his loins at the time; so when Adam sinned they all sinned similarly. But this cannot he because Paul in verse 14 states that “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned After The Similitude of Adam’s transgression.” Now according to the inherited legal condemnation theory ALL men sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression because all sinned in him and with him when he sinned. Not so, according to Paul.
The 18th chapter of Ezekiel denies the Principle of a son bearing the iniquity of a father in the legal sense. It also brands as untrue the proverb used by Israel, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” But the theory under discussion would most certainly imply it.
In writing of Adam after he was clothed with the coat of skin, the writer states, “His sin now having been forgiven he stood clean legally, but needed the physical imperfection corrected which can only be done after his probation is served and judgment is passed.” Notice how he associates forgiveness with being clean legally. Now if it took forgiveness to make Adam clean legally, what about us? Does it take forgiveness to make us clean legally? If so, doesn’t the need for forgiveness to make us clean legally like Adam was, imply guilt? Where forgiveness is required there must be guilt.
If Adam’s sin was forgiven and he stood “Clean Legally” then how could his sin and legal condemnation be inherited? The writer has insisted that because we were in Adam when he sinned therefore we sinned and inherit the legal condemnation passed upon him for his (or should I say our?) sin. But weren’t we equally and just as much in his loins when his sin was forgiven or covered and he stood clean legally? If you can inherit a sin then why not the forgiveness? If Adam became clean legally then how could we inherit legal condemnation from him? If it took forgiveness for Adam to become clean legally then wouldn’t it require the same for us to become legally clean if we inherit the legal condemnation?
But if one does inherit the sin of Adam which must he taken away at baptism, then why do we never read of being baptized for Adam’s sin? The New Testament writers make much of personal sins hut never mention inherited legal condemnation! The writer asserts that one is as condemning as the other. But if men do need a pardon for Adam’s sin then it is true as John Thomas remarked in one of his publications, “How many thousands of times has the sin of Adam been pardoned.” The principle is true if you use some other word instead of “pardon.” And it isn’t over, for every time one is baptized it is pardoned again. Isn’t’ this making too much of a sin that has been covered and its legal condemnation taken way? The truth of the matter is: it is utterly absurd to think that a covered sin can be inherited! And it is equally absurd to think that God would be angry with a thing because of its condition which it cannot help! One inherits the physical imperfection (mortality) but not the legal condemnation. The writer states that the provision was “given before the sentence of actual physical defilement.” But I read of the sentence being pronounced first (Gen. 3:17-19, and the provision of skins later (verse 21).
However, the real objection to the inherited legal condemnation theory becomes evident when we apply it to Christ. The writer states, “Jesus needed to be cleansed.” He means legally cleansed. “When did this cleansing take place? At his baptism, for that is when he came in contact with his own blood. He possessed the exact nature as his brethren, and therefore was under the exact same condemnation that we are. He needed to be cleansed from legal defilement, the constitution of sin, the sentence of eternal death. This all took place at his baptism when all righteousness was fulfilled. He was non clean.” (He means in the legal or moral sense.)
Now we note carefully how the writer insists on making Christ a sinner.’ Incredible? “To view Christ simply as a representative of the human race, is to say that he was not a sinner. It’ Christ was not labelled as a sinner, yet having no sin of his own, then he was not included when Paul wrote, For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” Later on he says of Christ, -He was not at-one (with God, he means) before the atonement. There was something he possessed that was unclean, or he would not have needed to be washed. And since he was washed, the thing that was unclean could not have still been present with him subsequent to the washing. He still possessed the same physical nature after baptism as he did before so what was it that he was cleansed from? It can be nothing else but the same defilement that the tabernacle possessed by being among the people, among sin. It was change from disfavor to favor, a change from in Adam to in Christ. Haring been cleansed– etc. He must mean this in the legal or moral but not the physical sense.
He declares, “If he were not regarded as a sinner, how did he obtain eternal redemption by his own blood? To say that Christ was not a sinner, that is, not born into legal condemnation. is to say that he did not need justification. If he did not need justification then he remained clean from birth.” “Christ was born a sinner, and there fore also needed to be cleansed in a legal manner.” There is One more quotation before we consider these statements. He writes, “We read in our Statement of Faith, Article VIII that Jesus Christ, though wearing the condemned nature of Adam, Abraham and David, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for Himself, and all who should believe and obey him.- He then comments, “Is not this exactly what happened! The law of condemnation, that is, the sentence of eternal death, was abrogated by his obedience.”
So Christ was under the sentence of Eternal Death! Inherited legal condemnation made Him a Born Sinner! He was in a State Of Disfavor with God until He was baptized! He needed to be cleansed legally so He would be Kr-ONE with God! Christ needed to become Reconciled to God! He needed to be cleansed from “‘legal Defilement!” Christ then was Alienated from God if He needed to be reconciled! He needed Justification at baptism! So this is what the theory of inherited legal condemnation does to Christ! And remember he has declared that inherited legal condemnation and personal sins are equally effective as a barrier to life. Any theory that places Christ in this position is a self condemned one.
Alienation is a word which expresses moral relationship. How could Christ who was begotten or conceived of the Holy Spirit be alienated from God at His birth or because of His birth? His begettal was the result of the direct work of the Holy Spirit. Remember that God was His father due to this action. How then could Christ be alienated from God because of His begettal and birth? The angel Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:25, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: Therefore Also That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.- How could a child begotten of the Holy Spirit be alienated at His birth nine months later?
In Col. 1:21 alienation is said to be the result of wicked works, or in Eph. 4:18, the result of ignorance which in verse 19 is said to produce all uncleanness. Jesus grew up in God’s favor according to Luke 2:52, At His baptism God declared “Thou art my beloved son: in thee I am well pleased.” Luke 3:22. God here had reference to the time from His birth until His baptism.
The Mosaic Law was a shadow, or a ritual prophecy of Christ. He is the substance. The animals offered as a sacrifice had to be without blemish. On the occasion of the morning and evening sacrifice the lambs had to be without spol. In Heb. 9:1-4 we read that Christ offered himself without spot to God. Peter speaks of Christ, “as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot.” I Pet. 1:19. Now if Christ inherited legal condemnation which the writer says is legal defilement, and it made Christ what the writer says inherited legal condemnation does, then it would disqualify Christ from being an acceptable offering, because the law demanded an animal that NEVER had a blemish, or spot! The inherited legal condemnation would represent a legal blemish and spot. Thus it would render Him legally unfit to be a sacrifice because the legal condemnation would represent a legal blemish and spot from His birth until baptism.
He claims that Christ was under the sentence of Eternal death until He was baptized. How can a divine sentence of eternal death he abrogated? When we read of eternal redemption we know that it means a never ending redemption, Heb. 9:12. Eternal judgment means a judgment without change, Heb. 6:2. Eternal salvation is a salvation lasting always, Heb. 5:9. When we read of eternal life we know what it means. Eternal damnation we know, Mark 3:29. The same is true with eternal inheritance ( Heb. 9:15), eternal glory ( I Pet. 5:10). How should we then understand a sentence of eternal death ? If Christ was under the sentence of eternal death, how could He redeem Himself or anyone else? It is positively absurd to speak of abrogating a sentence of Eternal death! It wouldn’t he a sentence of eternal death if it could he abrogated.
In the Statement of Faith, the law of condemnation that was abrogated for Himself was mortality. It was the condemned sin-death nature of Adam, Abraham, etc. Mortality, which is a sin-death nature, is the condemnation that is inherited. Since mortality is a physical inheritance it is called in the Statement of Faith the law of condemnation. Robert Roberts did not believe in inherited legal condemnation so he could not have meant what the writer thinks he meant in the Statement of Faith.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One