Much controversy has been experienced in the past few decades over the expressions used by Dr. John Thomas in Elpis Israel, under the section headed, “The Constitution Of Sin.” It is unfortunate that many holding erroneous views have quoted certain terms and phrases made by Bro. Thomas in an endeavor to substantiate their own teachings.
This has been particularly true in respect to the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ. As all are aware, expressions and sentences can be isolated from almost any writing and interpreted in such a way as to place them in direct contradiction to the author’s intent. It is sad to think that this has been done by many to the writing of Dr. Thomas, a true pioneer in the Truth, in an attempt to make his writings appear to harmonize with theirs.
What follows is the result of a thorough study of Bro. John Thomas’ “Constitution of Sin” as it appears in Elpis Israel. It will be evident to the discerning, that the Doctor actually explains himself both in the context and in other places in Elpis Israel. The page references are those which appear in the Fourteenth Edition — Revised, published in 1958.
Sin in the Flesh
Dr. Thomas defines sin in the flesh as the serpent by the figure of personification. He further states (page 94), “Now they who do the works of the flesh are the children of the Wicked One, or of sin in the flesh.” Man’s accountability to sin in the flesh is brought into focus when he does the works of the flesh: “If he obey the impulses of his flesh, he is like Cain, ‘of the Wicked One’.” In other words, those who succumb to the sinful propensities of their nature are accounted as the seed of the serpent. The Doctor further states on page 127, “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 these set the ‘intellect’ and ‘sentiments’ to work . . 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 ..
It will be noted that one does not become the child of the Wicked One, or sin in the flesh, until he performs the works of the flesh. Only by transgressing God’s law does he become like Cain. ‘All the evil,” not just part of it, is the result of the (sin) principle dwelling in one. Sin is not committed until one yields to the excitement of the propensities, or as James states it, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringing forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (1:14-15).
Dr. Thomas, as you will note from the foregoing, maintains that sin in the flesh, alias the devil, also dwells in the lower animals. However, since animals lack the intellect and moral capability of man, it cannot be styled sin (as in man). As Bro. Thomas commented on the thought process of the serpent (page 88 ) : “When the Lord bestowed the faculty of speech upon the Serpent, He enabled it to give utterance to its’ thoughts. The possession of this power does, not however confer upon it moral accountability. This de-depends on a different constitution of ‘the flesh.’ Where no moral sentiments’ exist as part of ‘the flesh,’ or brain, there is no ability in the creature to render an account for its aberrations from the requirements of moral, or spiritual institutions.” In man, however, being a moral creature, the deeds which result from the sin-principle are styled sin. Since it invariably produces transgression, it can, by the figure of metonomy, the result being put for the cause, appropriately be termed sin. This is precisely what Bro. Thomas says on page 91: “By a figure, sin is put for the serpent, The Effect For The Cause.” He maintained that man left to himself would be like the animals, given over entirely to the fulfillment of the natural propensities. Without the illuminating effect of the Spirit Truth, man would be on the same level as the lower beasts, full of savagery and evil works. “The unilluminated thinking of the flesh gives birth to the ‘works of the flesh; which are, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, distentions, sects, envying’s, murders, drunkeness, revelings and such like’ (page 90).
Constitution of Sin
This term has been sadly misused as a proof that all experiencing the natural birth are actually sinners; -constituted sinners” is the term employed by Bro. Thomas. We are born into this -constitution of the kingdom of sin,” described as such because of the organizations and enterprises of unenlightened men which dominate and rule the world.
The word, “constituted” is defined as “the way in which a thing is set up; structure, organization, make up. The way in which a person is made up; physical or mental make-up; as a man of strong constitution. The system of the fundamental laws and principles of a government, state, society, etc . . ” A careful reading of Bro. Thomas first few paragraphs under “Constitution of Sin” will readily reveal that this is the way he wished this expression to be understood. “It is the constitution of the world; and as the world is sin’s dominion, or kingdom, or the adversary, it is the constitution of the kingdom of sin “(page 126). Many are led astray in understanding the term ‘constituted sinners, because they regard ‘constituted in its adjective form instead of the adverbial. The emphasis is on ‘constituted’ not ‘sinners. It is because of this constitution that sin invariably arises.
To suppose that the doctor meant that we are sinners through no action of our own would make him contradict himself in his other writings. A similar expression is found on page 132: The constitution of righteousness”; i.e.; “constituted righteous… If it can be said that we are sinners through no action of our own, then it can be said, with the same faulty reasoning, that we are righteous through no action of our own. The truth of the matter is that, just as the inherited nature from Adam leads to sin, so, the birth in Christ leads to righteousness. As the doctor candidly remarked on page 129, “children are born sinners or unclean because they are born of sinful flesh; and ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh.; or sin. This is a Misfortune, not a Crime.” If not a crime, we must conclude that there is no sin involved ed. The doctor is speaking on a federal principle basis that all who are born into the constitution of sin will become sinners. A few lines further on he says, “By Adam’s disobedience, the many were Made Sinners, that is, they were endowed with a nature like his, which had become unclean as the result of disobedience; and by the constitution of the economy into which they were introduced by the will of the flesh, they were constituted transgressors before they were able to discern between right and wrong. Upon this principle, he that is horn of flesh is a sinner, as he that is born of English parents is an English child. Such a sinner is an heir to all that is derivable from sin. Hence, new-born babes suffer all the evil of the peculiar department of Satan . . etc.”
That the doctor did not mean that those born “sinners” would have to atone for their physical condition is evident from what he wrote on page 131: “Thus men are sinners in a two fold sense; first by natural birth; and next by transgression. In the former sense, it is manifest They could not help themselves. They Will Not Be Condemned To The Second Death Because They Were Born Sinners; Nor To Any Other Pains And Penalties Than Those Which Are The Common Lot Of Humanity In The Present Life. They are simply under the provision of the constitution of sin which says, ‘Dust Thou Art, And Unto Dust Thou Shalt Return… Common sense leads us to the conclusion that if we all inherit from Adam is not amenable to the “second death,” nor to any other pains and penalties, it does not require a sacrifice to atone for it. The natural death, common to all mankind, is part of the constitution of sin. The “dying, thou shalt die” death is actually all that Mortality of Adamic condemnation can claim from the descendants of Adam. This is the absolute extent of our inheritance from Adam! It is purely physical, and does not incur the wrath of God. It is folly to speak of God being angry with something because of its physical condition. Baptism is for the removal of personal sins only (not Adam’s), as Bro. Thomas wrote on page 134: ” Of Him, Corinthians, are YE in Christ Jesus, Who of God was constituted for us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.’ So that, whosoever is in him, is said to be ‘complete in him’; in whom he is circumcised ‘in putting off The Body Of Sins of the flesh.; that is all past sins ..
Original Sin
The doctor points out further, that we are innocent victims of our circumstances: “The ‘original sin’ was such as I have shown in previous pages. Adam and Eve committed it; and their posterity are Suffering The Consequences Of It. The tribe of Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek many years before Levi was born, The apostle says, ‘Levi, who receiveth thithes, paid thithes in Abraham: Upon the same federal principle, all man-king ate of the forbidden fruit, being in the loins of Adam when he transgressed. This Is The Only Way Men Can By Any Possibility Be Guilty For The Original Sin . . There is much foolishness spoken and written about ‘original sin’. Infants are made the subject of religious ceremony to regenerate them because of original sin; on account of which, according to Geneva philosophy they are liable to the flames of hell forever! If original sin which Is In Fact Sin In The Flesh, were neutralized, then all ‘baptisimally regenerated’ babies ought to live forever, as Adam would have done had he eaten of the Tree of Life after he had sinned. But they die; which is proof that the ‘regeneration’ does not ‘cure their souls.; and is therefore, mere theological quackery.” (pages 128-129).
It must be apparent that if sin in the flesh, or human nature were the subject or moral regeneration (or cleansing) at baptism, then those undergoing the rite ought not to die at all. The truth of the matter is that Adamic condemnation consists of physical properties, such as death, weakness, etc.; not moral principles. That which we inherit from Adam is not the subject of forgiveness, but rather of change, which takes place at the resurrection, when -this mortal puts on immortality” and is endowed with the “crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give . unto all them also that love his appearing.”
The Doctor believed and taught that all which we inherit from Adam is physical; i.e, flesh and blood. In his “Clerical Theology Scriptural,” Bro. Thomas stated (page 25): “Infants are without character, having ability to do neither good or evil, They are simply beings innocent of right or wrong, as were Adam and Eve in the epoch of their creation: but, being descended from them after they became sinners and were sentenced to mortality. Infants Inherit No More Than Pertains To Flesh And Blood.” These words were written many years after Elpis Israel and clearly depict the Doctor’s mind on the subject.
If infants are as innocent as Adam and Eve Before their transgression and Prior to the sentence of death being placed upon them, we must conclude, as Dr. Thomas believed and clearly stated, that we do not inherit any kind of guilt (moral or legal) through birth. ALL that we inherit pertains to flesh and blood, and consists of mortality, a proneness to transgress, and the infirmities and weaknesses common to mortality
Bro. Roberts and others in the past have made comments on Dr. Thomas’ “Constitution of Sin,’ and we quote some of these to illustrate the true meaning behind the Doctor’s words.
Robert Roberts, June 1874
“Only perversity would suppress the word ‘constitutional and alleged that the Christadelphians teach Christ to have been a sinner . .Finally, I do not teach that Christ was a sinner by birth or any other means: this is your misrepresentation. I belies e 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 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 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 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’,”
E. G Jannaway
An effort is then put forth to nuke 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 arc: horn 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 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 for 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 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 had been 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”, ‘conversations in time past., ‘wherein we walked’, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience’, all of which have to do with nature, but which requires action super-added.
Of all sin it may truly be said, it is our nature to do so’. We are truly ‘by nature children of wrath’, but it is wrath against evil doing; any other wrath is inconceivable.”
Robert Roberts, 1874
“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 matter of displeasure, but of misfortune. The displeasure of wrath arises afterwards, when the men so born work unrighteousness. This unrighteousness the 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.”
1873 Christadelphian. page 409 Can All Sin In Adam?
A footnote to Elpis Israel for over half a century has pointed out that this translation cannot be sustained. What does the phrase mean? Hear Robert Roberts: “The words, “in him (Adam) all sinned’ (Rom. 5:12), only amount to ‘as I may say so’, as in the case of Levi, said to have paid tithes (or more properly, to to have been tithed’) in the loins of his father Abraham (Heb. 7: 10). He say s (verse 9), ‘As I may say so, 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 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 A Dams Transgression” (Rom. 5.: ). The point of his argument is that ‘Through the offense of ONE many are dead’, who sinned not after the similitude of that offense being no ‘parties to the transaction’, and not being ‘in at the job, to use phrases whose allusion wilt be understood; but that the glory of God’s grace is to release penitent and reforming offenders from many offenses through the righteousness of ONE.
The new argument destroys this beautiful fact by huddling millions of Adam’s race all into one Edenic offender, and making them all ‘parties to the transaction’ . . Adam’s descendants 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 who was Jesus, who, however, being the begotten of God in the channel of those consequences, could annul them, in bearing of them into a was e that God could open because of his Holiness.”
These remarks by other pioneers in the Truth certainly support our understanding of Bro. Thomas’ writings on the “Constitution of Sin,” The doctor never supported the church doctrine of inherited guilt. Had he foreseen the serious influence which this heretical teaching would make upon the Truth after his decease, he would no doubt have used terms and phrases which could not be misinterpreted. Dr. Thomas was very bold in his presentation of Bible truth, and often employed powerful words and figures to express himself. When studying his works, we must exercise great Care that we do not ignore his broad concept of the subject, and dwell only on the sometimes colorful language which comprises the whole. We use much care in avoiding being dishonest in our understanding and application of God s Word. Should we be any less diligent in the use of the writings of His faithful servants ?
“Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we has e received mercy, we faint not; But has e renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commend-ourselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God.” 2 Cor, 4:1-2.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One