Refer to a previous article “A Letter on Sin, Condemnation Etc” The Christadelphian August 1953

The Christadelphian March 1954, John Carter

“Alienation”

In the August 1953 Christadelphian we published a letter by the Editor in reply to one which had appeared in The Christadelphian Advocate (U.S.A.) a short time before. In that letter we set out carefully the teaching which had been espoused by the Advocate some fifty years ago and contrasted it with the teaching which had consistently marked the writings of Dr. Thomas and bro. R. Roberts on the subjects at issue. We pointed out that the issues which led to division fifty years ago caused by the writings of J. J. Andrew in Britain, and of T. Williams in U.S.A., were not simply the question of the resurrectional responsibility of the enlightened, but also concerned ideas upon Adamic condemnation, and of the imputed guilt of Adam’s sin, the removal of which was the primary object of baptism, while personal sins were either only “an incident” or were not in account at all when a person was baptized. We hoped that with passing time the members of the Advocate fellowship, which is practically confined to U.S.A. today, would see where they had been led along a divergent course more clearly now that some of the dust of controversy had settled. That hope has been disappointed.

The January issue of the Advocate devotes 12 ½ of its 24 pages to reprinting an article from an Advocate supplement of 1901, under the caption of Inherited Alienation. The very title bespeaks confused thinking, for alienation has to do with personal relationships, and as between God and men, man is alienated by ignorance and by wicked works (Eph. 4 : 18; Col. 1 : 21). Alienation, therefore, cannot be inherited. Neither the phrase nor anything equivalent to it is found in the Scriptures, and the idea expressed by it belongs to the class of errors from which the Truth has delivered us.

A correspondent of balanced judgment in U.S.A. has written:

“Yesterday I received the Advocate Magazine in which there is a long article on ‘Inherited Alienation’ by bro. James Laird. He goes to great length to show that Dr. Thomas and R. Roberts believed and taught that men were sinners by birth condemned and alienated by their descent from Adam, and that men merely aggravate their alienation by their personal sins. I do think that some of the phrases used by Dr. Thomas and R. Roberts could have been expressed more fully and prevented a lot of controversy among those who came after them. But it illustrates the strange fact that two men can use the same words and mean totally different things. The Advocate writer does not state that Dr. Thomas and R. Roberts vigorously denied the conclusions he places on their words! The whole treatment is mechanical—if a man is in jail (gaol) and we ask why he does not come home, the Advocate brother would answer, ‘The doors are locked and there are iron bars across the windows’.”

The whole treatment is mechanical: it jingles phrases and plays with words as though they were counters to be moved at will as in a game, instead of getting to the ideas words should convey. The writer indeed quoted Dr. Thomas that “sin in the flesh is hereditary” and that Paul’s phrase “the many made sinners” means “they were endowed with a nature like his”, but some things are affirmed that the Doctor would and did repudiate. As an illustration of the mixture of truth and error we may cite the following:

“If our brethren then accept as scriptural Dr. Thomas’ teaching that mankind inherit uncleanness from Adam, that they inherit sin or transgression from Adam, and that they inherit condemnation from Adam, why do they consider it so very unscriptural to teach that mankind also inherit alienation from Adam? It is just as apparent that Adam’s disobedience brought alienation to him as it is that it brought uncleanness to him; and as both were caused by one sin, we are quite unable to separate them. We can see no valid reason why it should be considered scriptural to believe in inherited uncleanness, inherited sin, and inherited condemnation (all of which are most plainly taught by Dr. Thomas) and at the same time reject as unscriptural the idea of inherited alienation.”

We can inherit uncleanness for that can belong to our physical nature: but we fail to see how anyone can inherit transgression, which is an act. And if we assent that we “inherit condemnation” we probably mean one thing while the writer of the article means something quite different. To group together inherited uncleanness, inherited condemnation and inherited alienation, while having a fine show of words, really mixes badly truth and fiction.

In a paragraph with all the emphasis of italics (the Editor’s) it is declared “neither do we for one moment teach that Christ was alienated from the Father through wrong moral actions”—that is, there was alienation associated with the mere possession of our mortal nature. Christ, then, on this ground was alienated. In our August article we drew attention to the efforts to escape from the abhorrence of this idea by a supposed difference between God and His law. Surely any thesis which leads to such a conclusion with regard to Jesus Christ is radically wrong. The conclusion brands it as wrong. Even the suggestion that this “alienation” was not Christ’s fault, does not help at all; neither does the idea, not clearly defined, that the alienation was removed by some “typical and provisional cleansing” under the ritual of the law.

We cannot follow over 12 pages to point out the defects. We reproduce some positive statements which will serve to correct the errors and at the same time reaffirm the truth. While the Advocate view makes Adamic condemnation a sentence against each one individually in addition to mortality, bro. Roberts wrote in The Slain Lamb: “Condemnation in Adam means therefore that we are mortal in Adam; mortal in the physical constitution—the organization”. Again he wrote, “Suffering the Adamic condemnation is a question of physical constitution” (Christadelphian, 1874, page 233). And still again, “This mortality is our condemnation in Adam” (Christadelphian, 1875, page 172).

Concerning alienation, and the phrase “by nature children of wrath”, bro. Roberts wrote: “This unrighteousness they, 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” (Christadelphian, 1874, page 526). And again in the Christadelphian of 1873, page 554: “The wrath of God is not revealed toward us because Adam sinned, but because we ourselves transgress”.

In his characteristic way Dr. Thomas disposed of the idea of any responsibility for Adam’s sin in the following words: “Infants die because they are born of mortal flesh, and not because they have committed sin or are responsible for Adam’s sin” (Clerical Theology).

The following, though not from the pen of bro. Roberts, is quoted by him with approval in the Law of Moses: “It is argued by some that Christ was justified at his baptism from the condemnation resting upon his flesh nature before he could go on probation, but the type emphatically teaches that he was not justified or cleansed from his physical uncleanness until the end of his life, or after the thirty-third day . . . Christ required no justification morally, and the only other justification which the Scriptures teach he did require was justification by spirit from the condemnation of mortality resting upon his flesh-nature, and this could not be effected until he had made reconciliation for iniquity in death and resurrection. If Christ were justified at his baptism then the offering for the cleansing of the mother should have been made on the thirtieth, and not on the thirty-fourth day . . . Christ himself did no wrong, and was never alienated from God, but always did that which pleased Him, both prior to and after his immersion”.

If Advocate readers will cease to be misled by partial and misused quotations from Dr. Thomas and bro. Roberts, and will give careful attention to their plain teaching as they established it by Scripture, then this unhappy schism might pass away. But this article which the Advocate reproduced rather suggests an endorsement in the errors of half a century ago. We deplore its reproduction.