Some time ago an article entitled Is Legal Condemnation Inherited ? appeared in this magazine It was written as an answer to the booklet The Nature and Sacrifice of Christ. The latter is supposed to represent the views of the Unamended (or Advocate) fellowship while the other represents, generally, the views of the Amended (or Central) fellowship Both of these articles are now printed as a booklet showing the major issues which keep the two fellowships divided One can read the contrasting views of the two groups between the covers of one book
It will be remembered that there was a sharp difference between the two writers on the meaning of the warning, Thou shalt surely die. The first writer contended and we quote that God meant the very day, and We know from Scripture that the death spoken of is eternal. And It is plain that the warning meant eternal death Let us then confine our remarks to this issue
If the warning given to Adam and Eve meant that they were to die the very day they ate of the forbidden fruit, then this should have occurred on the very day’ Adam did not die on that day, but lived for 930 years If an eternal death was meant, then Adam should remain dead forever But Adam is to be re deemed from death If it be contended that the death that Adam was meant to die was averted because of the covering of the slain animal skin worn by him, then why did Adam die at all ? If it is said that Christ was to die the death that Adam was supposed to die but didn’t, then we have violent blood shedding death meant for Adam which kind of death Adam did not die Adam died a natural dying thou shalt die death
Summing it up, if the death meant for Adam was a violent blood shedding eternal death on the very day of his transgression, then this should have happened But contrariwise none of this happened If it be argued that Christ was to die for Adam the violent blood shedding eternal death that Adam was meant to die but didn’t, thus averting the death that Adam was supposed to die but which was changed to a natural death 930 years later, then Christ should have died an eternal death which He didn’t If the sentence, or punishment, that was meant to be passed upon Adam was delayed and never carried out, but rested on Christ instead, then wouldn’t this be substitution?
If it be replied that Christ was in the loins of Adam when he sinned and thus sinned in him and thus justly inherited the violent blood-shedding death which He was obliged to die, then why doesn’t every one else inherit the same violent blood-shedding death from being in the loins of Adam when he sinned? If they do, then why do many people die a natural dying thou shalt die death? ‘ If it be said that Christ by dying a violent blood-shedding death kept Adam from having to die that kind of death, then why wouldn’t the violent blood-shedding death of Christ avert this kind of death for His baptized believers? Why would not the blood of Christ do as much for baptized believers in Christ as it was supposed to do for Adam, seeing that baptized believers in Christ are in the same position as Adam while wearing the coat of skin, and are similarly related to Christ?
That the warning did not entail an immediate death is proved by the words of the sentence All the DAYS (plural) of thy life, and till thou return unto the ground, which was to be 930 years later He died a dying thou shalt die death and that is what is inherited by his descendants, a natural death This is what Christ inherited But He submitted to a violent blood shedding death in obedience to His Father because God required this kind of death as a basis for the forgiveness of our sins By His perfect obedience He saved himself and will save us
Listen to Brother Roberts in The Slain Lamb, page 9 Has it never occurred to these Renunciationists that if eternal death, so called, was the debt to be paid, as they say, and Jesus paid that debt, that the resurrection of Jesus was impossible ? I will show before I have done that our inheritance in Adam is not eternal death’ that that which stands in the way of our resurrection by nature, is not our hereditary mortality in Adam, but our personal offences And further, Condemnation in Adam ‘ means, therefore, that we are Mortal in Adam, mortal in the physical constitution—the organization 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 in him when we didn’t 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 see Adam s organization It is in the organization that the law of mortality resides It is in the Physical Substance that the principle of death is at work
Also Brother John Thomas in “Clerical Theology Unscriptural,” pages 25 and 26, says Infants are without character, having ability to do neither good nor evil They are simply physical beings innocent of right or wrong, as were Adam and Eve at the epoch of their creation, but being descended from them after they became sinners arid were sentenced to mortality. Infants Inherit no more than pertains to flesh and blood.” This excludes the inheritance of legal or moral condemnation.
And finally in June 1874, Brother Roberts wrote, “I do not teach that Christ was a sinner By birth or any other means.” The word “sinner” should never be applied to Christ because the definition of this word is “one who sins.” Of Christ it is recorded, “Who did no sin.” 1 Peter 2:22. A sinner is what Christ was not. No argument should be built on the word ”sinner” as applied to Christ. As Brother Roberts remarked concerning the alienation of Christ, -God pardon the expression,” we say the same about being a “born sinner.”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One