As I pointed out in the
introductory post, fifty years ago, the then-arranging brothers of the Watford
Ecclesia excommunicated bro. Ralph Lovelock for his views on how to reconcile
the evidence of pre-Adamic human fossils with Christadelphian theology. However,
it is a mistake to read this as a binding, ex-cathedra statement proscribing
evolutionary creationism for all time. Even if it was, the Watford statement
reminded us to acknowledge that such scientific problems exist, and need to be
confronted honestly, with a view to look after 'those of tender years'
Unfortunately, it is common for anti-evolutionists in our community to appeal to the Watford decision and claim that this means our community rejected evolutionary creationism
fifty years ago - ecclesial autonomy alone would ensure that local decisions
remain local, so Watford's decision is anything but binding on the entire
ecclesial world. Furthermore, the use of emotional language such
as calling it "inimical to our faith" and a "threat" not
only is a poor substitute for rational, informed commentary, but is hard to reconcile with the Watford statement's call to discuss things in a calm manner.
What is particularly
disappointing to see in special creationist attacks on evolutionary creationism
is a misrepresentation of what evolutionary creationists in our community actually think about the historical Adam. While evolutionary creationists recognise that the
fossil and genetic evidence rule out the possibility of the entire human race
descending exclusively from two people living a few thousand years ago, they
regard Adam and Eve as historical individuals who are also archetypes. Any special
creationist attack on evolutionary creationism, which asserts that they do not
believe in a literal Adam, is false.
Furthermore, evolutionary creationists do not believe that Adam and Eve were two humans selected from the existing population of humans, but were specially created. This view is consistent with a reading of Genesis 2 as a ‘sequel’ to Genesis 1 which in its reference to the creation of ‘male and female’ human beings implies the creation of many humans, thus precluding any attempt to harmonise Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, as well as Genesis 4, which neatly alludes to the reality of a population of humans outside the Garden of Eden, who both supplied Cain with a wife, and those whom Cain feared would kill him. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser reminds us:
- Genesis 1 describes the creation of human beings. (The process is put in pre-scientific or supernatural terms, and so doesn’t give us a scientific perspective on how this happened).
- The human beings of Genesis 1 are God’s imagers (again, which I take to mean God’s representatives) on earth.
- The human beings of Genesis 1 are not in a garden in Eden (there is no garden of Eden in Genesis 1; the command to “subdue the earth” would speak of the whole earth, wherever humans are, not Eden, which is nowhere in view).
- Genesis 2 describes a distinct and separate creation of two humans. (Again, the process is put in pre-scientific or supernatural terms, and so doesn’t give us a scientific perspective on how this happened).
- The two humans of Genesis 2 are in a garden in a place called Eden (which is clearly not synonymous with the earth since it has specific geography on the earth).
- Since the two humans created in Genesis 2 are not the humans created in Genesis 1, the two humans in Genesis 2 cannot be seen as the progenitors of the humans of Genesis 1. The humanity of Genesis 1 was to image God in all the earth, not Eden, and so the Genesis 1 creation speaks of a divine origin (by whatever means) of human life on the planet. The humans of Genesis 2 are parallel to and consistent with those goals, but their story is more specific. They have a more particular purpose, which is revealed in Genesis 3.
- The humans of Genesis 1 and 2 are qualitatively the same. That is, the two humans in Genesis 2 are no more human than those of Genesis 1. There is nothing in either chapter that differentiates the humans in either chapter. The only thing that distinguishes them are the sequence of creation (two separate acts in an order) and where they live. All the humans in view are (!) human.[1]
This view is consistent with what
evolutionary creationists believe, and stands independent of the mechanism
employed by God to create the humans in Genesis 1.
This of course raises the
question of why special creationists in our community are desperate to preserve monogenism.
Certainly, the Reformed doctrine of Original Sin teaches that the guilt and
consequences of Adam’s sin were genetically transmitted to the entire human
race, a view which of course is falsified if monogenism is false. This is
arguably why Evangelical Christianity, which tends to inherit the Reformed view
of Original sin, and is one of the main engines driving the modern creationist
movement is bitterly opposed to evolution, as it completely undermines the
basis for Original Sin. Given that our community rejects Original Sin,[2] there
would certainly appear to be no theological imperative to defend monogenism.
The problem appears to lie in the mistaken belief that Adam pre-sin was not
capable of dying, and therefore needed to be genetically altered to make him
physically capable of dying.
In clearing up confusion that
exists on this subject, it is critical that we differentiate between death (Gk:
thanatos) and mortality (thnētos). In Romans 5:12, 5:21, 6:16, 6:21, 6:23 and 1
Cor 15:21, Paul refers to death, not mortality. As the early Christadelphians
recognised, physical death and corruption was part of creation, not a penalty
of sin. Romans 6:23 alone is enough to make this point clear:
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
What the verse does not say is “the wages of sin is mortality’. I die because I
am an organic creature with a finite lifespan. If I sin and knowingly spurn the
offer of salvation, then I will be judged and sentenced to eternal death. The
parallelism in Rom 6:23 makes this clear:
Wages of sin: -->
Eternal Death
Gift of God: -->
Eternal Life
John Thomas is worth quoting on
this point as he is careful to differentiate between mortality and death as a
punishment for sin.
The wages of sin is death. Wages are paid
only to those who labour: those who in their toil sow to the flesh, will be
paid for the labour they perform; and the pay for this kind of labour is
corruption, or death unto death ending in corruption, as the apostle saith,
shall of the flesh reap corruption, and of such he says, in another place,
whose end is destruction; so that death, corruption, and destruction are the wages
of sin, which everyone is fairly entitled to who loves darkness rather than
light, and refuses to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.[3]
True; no wicked man can claim to be made
alive in Christ that he may live for ever; but he will certainly be made alive
that he may be judged and consigned to the dire severities of the Second Death,
which is the wages of sin, the first death being the common lot of all, both
saints and sinners.[4]
Roberts also made this point, that the wages of sin is eternal death – not mortality – and stands in contrast with eternal life:
Death as the wages of sin is a definition
used by Paul in contrast with everlasting life as the gift of God. Therefore it
means death, under the divine anger, inflicted for the extinction of the sinner.[5]
In his the article ‘The
Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, he unambiguously
states that both Adam and Eve would have eventually died in time:
‘Adam's nature was animal. Very good of its
kind, as was the nature of all the other creatures. These did not sin, yet
they returned to dust whence they came. So probably would Adam, if he
had been left to the ordinary course of things as they were. But he would
not have returned to dust if he had continued obedient.
He would doubtless have been “changed in the
twinkling of an eye" on eating of the Tree of Life. But, being
disobedient, his sin determined his fate, and that of the creatures. It doomed
them all to death according to law, and "nature" unchanged was
permitted to take its course.’[6]
In his article Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall Thomas,
in response to a correspondent who argued that death and corruption entered the
entire world after Adam's sin forcefully rebutted this argument:
‘OUR friend says, that his notion is that
all creation became corrupt at the fall, even to the elements. This is the
general idea. Moses tells us very plainly, that when the terrestrial system was
completed on the Sixth Day, that God reviewed all that He had made, and
pronounced it "very good."
'But, in what sense was it very good? In an
animal and physical sense; for it was a natural and animal system, not a
spiritual one. Such a system is essentially one of waste, and reproduction;
and was organized with reference to what God knew would come to pass.’[7]
Thomas argued that seasonal
variation would have provided Adam and Eve with enough evidence of natural
decay and death to impress on them the reality of death as a natural part of
creation:
‘This is implied in the placing of the earth
in such a position with respect to the sun, moon, and stars, that there
should be a diversity of seasons, &.c. Thus, fall and winter, seasons of
decay and death, were institutions existing before the Fall; and presented
to Adam and Eve phenomena illustrative of the existence in the physical
system of a principle of corruption, the extent of which, however, they
might not have been fully apprized of.’[8]
Thomas explicitly argued that far
from being elements introduced into creation as a consequence of Adam's sin,
death and decay were a fundamental part of creation from the beginning.
Significantly, he did not exclude Adam and Eve from this:
‘Death and corruption, then, with
reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer, is the fundamental
law of the physical system of the Six Days. Adam and Eve, and all the other
animals born of the earth with themselves, would have died and gone to
corruption, if there had been no transgression, provided that there had
been no further interference with the physical system than Moses records
in his history of the Six Day.’[9]
Given this, his explanation of
the Pauline statement that death entered the world through sin was a
recognition that the consequence of Adam's sin was for the innate process of
death and decay to be allowed to take its natural course:
‘True; the death principle was an essential
property of their nature; but as they did not die till after their
transgression, death did not enter in till after that event. But, the inquirer
means, “If they would have died anyhow under the proviso, how can death be
said to be the consequence of sin?"
Death is not the consequence of sin, sin
being the original physical cause—but the physical consequence of a moral
act. If thou doest thus and so, dying thou shalt die; "but just reverse
this saying, and let it read, “if thou doest thus and so, "dying thou
shalt NOT die." Here are moral acts with diverse physical results.’[10]
The genius of this explanation
was in his recognition that death entered the world of Adam and Eve following
their sin not by the introduction of decay and death, but by the denial of an
opportunity for eternal life. Thomas again:
‘Now, if these two results are ordained upon
two essentially dying creatures, because animal creatures, what is
implied? Why, that in the one case the dying process shall not be
interrupted, and therefore death would follow: while in the other, the
process should be interrupted, and therefore life should be established.
'In the former case, all that would be
necessary would be to let things take their natural course; but in the
latter, this would not do; and therefore it would be necessary to bring into
play a transforming force which should change the very good animal nature
into a very good spiritual , or incorruptible nature, which latter formed
no part of the system of the Six Days.’[11]
In fact, Thomas was explicit in
asserting that the pre-fall nature of Adam was mortal, capable of corruption
and decay:
‘It is certain, therefore, that the animal
nature they possessed was essentially a mortal nature, and required to be
physically operated upon by the power transmissible through contact with
the tree of lives to change it into a nature constitutionally capable of
enduring forever; which the animal nature is not.’[12]
As far as Thomas was concerned
the consequences of the fall were moral, rather than physical, and he expressed
himself unambiguously:
‘From these premises it will be seen, that
we dissent from our correspondent's “notion" that all creation became
corrupt (by which we understand him to mean, constitutionally impregnated
with corruptibility) at the Fall. We believe that the change consequent
upon that calamity was moral, not physical. The natural system was the
same the day before the Fall as the day after.”[13]
The first point is that death,
not mortality is the consequence of Adam’s sin. I do not die because I sin. I
die because I am made of corruptible material. I remain dead as a punishment
for sin if I choose to reject the offer of
salvation, and that is the point Paul is making here – death as a punishment
for sin was introduced into the world when the first sin was committed. Prior
to Adam’s sin, humans lived and died as the ‘beasts that perish’ but as God’s
law was unknown, sin as a concept did not exist and therefore death as a
punishment for sin simply did not apply.
Differentiating between death as
the inevitable end-point of organic, corruptible creatures, and eternal death
as a punishment for sin is crucial in pointing out why the special creationist
insistence on universal human descent to inherit a physically changed nature
altered to make it capable of dying is wrong. Death as a punishment for sin is
not something that one inherits. Irrespective of whether we all descended
exclusively from Adam, or have common ancestry with apes, we will remain dead
forever if we sin, and do not seek repentance. John Thomas puts it well:
“The wages of sin is death. Wages are paid
only to those who labour: those who in their toil sow to the flesh, will be
paid for the labour they perform; and the pay for this kind of labour is
corruption, or death unto death ending in corruption, as the apostle saith,
shall of the flesh reap corruption, and of such he says, in another place,
whose end is destruction; so that death, corruption, and destruction are the
wages of sin, which everyone is fairly entitled to who loves darkness rather
than light, and refuses to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[14]
This differentiation between
death as punishment for sin, and corruptibility is also made by Robert Roberts:
“True; no wicked man can claim to be made
alive in Christ that he may live for ever; but he will certainly be made alive
that he may be judged and consigned to the dire severities of the Second Death,
which is the wages of sin, the first death being the common lot of all, both
saints and sinners.”[15]
“By a simpler set of terms, it is said, they
shall die (Rom. 8:13); the end of these things is DEATH (Rom. 6:21); the wages
of sin is death. (Ibid. 6:23.) The wicked rise, are confronted by the Judge,
condemned, and put to shame (Dan 12:2; 1 Jno. 2:28); they receive in body
according to their deeds (1 Cor. 5:10); having sown to the flesh, they reap
corruption (Gal. 6:8).”[16]
“Therefore, there is a death not realised by
the wicked in their lifetime, and how can there be any argument from present
experience to a result not yet experienced? Is this death (which is the wages
of sin) destruction or torment? Dr. Angus says it cannot be destruction.”[17]
“Death as the wages of sin is a definition
used by Paul in contrast with everlasting life as the gift of God. Therefore it
means death, under the divine anger, inflicted for the extinction of the
sinner.”[18]
“Our friend imagines there was a change in
the nature of Adam when he became disobedient. There is no evidence of this
whatever, and the presumption and evidence are entirely the contrary way.
“There was a change in Adam’s relation to
his maker, but not in the nature of his organization. What are the facts? He
was formed from the dust a “living soul,” or natural body. His mental
constitution gave him moral relation to God.”[19]
“Death and corruption, then, with
reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer, is the fundamental law
of the physical system of the Six Days. Adam and Eve, and all the other animals
born of the earth with themselves, would have died and gone to corruption, if
there had been no transgression, provided that there had been no further
interference with the physical system than Moses records in his history of the
Sixth Day…
“It is certain, therefore, that the animal
nature they possessed was essentially a mortal nature, and required to be
physically operated upon by the power transmissible through contact with the
tree of lives to change it into a nature constitutionally capable of enduring
forever; which the animal nature is not.
“From these premises it will be seen, that
we dissent from our correspondent's “notion" that all creation became
corrupt (by which we understand him to mean, constitutionally impregnated with
corruptibility) at the Fall. We believe that the change consequent upon that
calamity was moral, not physical. The natural system was the same the day
before the Fall as the day after.”[20]
In citing Roberts I am not
attempting to appeal to him as authoritative, if only because he changed his
mind on the subject, as one can see by looking at works such as The Blood of Christ that post-date these
references.[21]
Rather, I am pointing out that any perception that early Christadelphians were
unanimous in their belief in a physically changed nature after Adam’s sin is
incorrect. (I am also citing these passages because I believe they are correct on this point, but I believe them to be correct because the points are logical and based on sound evidence.)
Ultimately, the question is
answered not by appeal to authority, but appeal to the scriptural evidence, and
here it is clear that Romans 5:12, one of the key passages cited as proof that
humans genetically inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin does not say what opponents
of evolution allege it does. Unfortunately, Romans 5:12, one of the more
difficult passages to interpret, not only has suffered more than its share of
flawed exegesis, but carries the legacy of Augustine’s deeply flawed reading.
Romans 5v12 has traditionally been read as proof that all humanity sinned in
Adam, and therefore genetically inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin. This
cannot be sustained as this reading stems from the Old Latin text, which is
regarded as inferior. A comparison of a representative modern version with the
Douay-Rheims, which follows the Vulgate, makes this clear:
NRSV: Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin,
and so death spread to all because all have sinned.
Douay-Rheims:
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so
death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
The flawed nature of the Old
Latin rendering of Romans 5v12 was recognised around half a millennium ago by
the Dutch Biblical scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) who acknowledged that
the Greek was better translated “because all have sinned.” The Council of
Trent, the official Catholic response to the Reformation was aware of this, but
still used the Latin!
Tellingly, contemporary Catholic
theologians acknowledge Erasmus’ point. Jack Mahoney, in a recent book on
Original Sin notes:
“The formal teaching of the Council of
Trent, then, is that Adam’s original sin is inherited by everyone through procreation
and that its guilt is forgiven by the conferring of baptism, yet something of
its results remains even in the baptized, experienced as concupiscence or
sinful desires, fomenting or fueling sin in each of us. On this several
comments can be offered, the first crucially relating to where it all starts,
namely, to what Paul meant in Romans 5:12 when he used the Greek phrase eph’ hō
relating to Adam’s action. Augustine and others, including the council fathers
at Trent, relying on the Old Latin translation, took this to mean in Latin in
quo, or “in whom,” with the clear implication that everyone had sinned in Adam.
Most exegetes today understand this phrase as using the common Greek
preposition epi to imply succession rather than inclusion, thus giving the
meaning “since when” all have sinned rather than “in whom” all have sinned. We
must conclude that if this is the original Pauline meaning, it removes from
divine revelation any reference to Adam’s descendants being incorporated in
solidarity “in him” (in quo), and as a result it dispenses with the conclusion
that the whole of succeeding humanity has been condemned en masse as a sort of
“condemned mass in Adam,” as Augustine and others explained. J. N. D. Kelly
delivers his considered verdict in explaining how the Old Latin version of the
New Testament (which had influence only in the West) gave “an exegesis of Rom
5:12 which, though mistaken and based on a false reading, was to become the
pivot of the doctrine of original sin.”
“As a consequence of this reflection, it
follows that there is now no need for theology to find a method by which to
explain how all Adam’s offspring inherit his original sin. Trent’s insistence
that Adam’s original sin was transmitted among all subsequent human beings by
propagation, or by generation, rather than simply by imitation (which Pelagius
was considered to have maintained) was clearly due more to the theological
polemic of Saint Augustine against Pelagius and his supporters than to Paul’s
writing centuries earlier.”[22]
Support for the view that
physical death not only was unknown prior to Adam’s sin, but was genetically
transmitted to his descendants as a punishment for sin is alien to the Bible:
1 Cor 15:21-22: “For since death came
through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a
human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
Note that it is death, and not
mortality that comes through human sin. Failure to properly differentiate
between these terms results in a confused understanding of the verses. It is
nonsensical to read 1 Cor 15 as saying that mortality came through human
action. Humans were created mortal – as bro. Thomas said earlier, ““Death and
corruption, then, with reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer,
is the fundamental law of the physical system of the Six Days.” What came
though human action was the introduction of eternal death as a punishment for
sin, which is effected by letting people die, and not raising them from the
dead. Needless to say, this answers perfectly with the second part of the verse
– resurrection from death comes through human action.
The
reference in verse 22 to dying ‘in Adam’ needs to be read in parallel to being
made alive ‘in Christ’. Being ‘in Adam’ has nothing to do with being physically
descended from Adam, and remember, the genomic data rules out universal human
descent from Adam, so this interpretation is impossible. Rather, being in Adam
refers to following his example of disobedience. The way in which we are made
alive in Christ gives us the context to properly interpret the reference to
being in Adam. Put simply, we are dealing with two different paths to follow.
One leads to eternal death. The other leads to eternal life. Confusing death as
a punishment for sin with mortality, which as bro Thomas noted was part of the
original ‘very good’ creation results in confused exegesis, and sets us up for
a pointless conflict between religion and science.
The implication of this is that there was no physical change in Adam after his sin, and therefore no altered nature that had to be genetically transmitted to the entire human race. This, as I've said elsewhere is the fundamental reason behind opposition to evolution as it rules out monogenism, the belief that the entire human race descended exclusively from Adam. On this point, it is worth noting that L.G. Sargent, writing in 1941 pointed out that:
The implication of this is that there was no physical change in Adam after his sin, and therefore no altered nature that had to be genetically transmitted to the entire human race. This, as I've said elsewhere is the fundamental reason behind opposition to evolution as it rules out monogenism, the belief that the entire human race descended exclusively from Adam. On this point, it is worth noting that L.G. Sargent, writing in 1941 pointed out that:
The
difficulty arises not from any lack of essential clarity in Dr. Thomas’s
thought, but from an ambiguity in the term “mortal”. The word “immortal” is
taken to mean “incapable of death”; and “mortal” might be expected to mean its
simple opposite, “capable of death”: whereas in fact it is used in the sense of
“subject to death, destined to die”—a more restricted meaning which has the
support of dictionaries.
It was owing to this ambiguity
that Dr. Thomas could write: “But, if they were not mortal in their novitiate,
it is also true that they were not immortal. To say that immortals were
expelled from the garden of Eden, that they might not live for ever by eating
of the tree, is absurd”. It is indeed. He then continues cogently: “The truth
is in few words, man was created with a nature endued with certain
susceptibilities. He was capable of death; and capable of endless life; but,
whether he should merge into mortality; or, by a physical change be clothed
with immortality, was predicated on his choosing to do good or evil. Capacity
must not be confounded with impletion”.
The bare terms, stripped of
the qualifying and amplifying phrases with which Dr. Thomas defines his
meaning, have sometimes been thrown into the bald proposition that “Adam before
the fall was neither mortal nor immortal”; which (to quote Euclid and Dr.
Thomas) is absurd. A thing is either X or not-X: there can be no “neutral”
position between.
A man cannot be neither
mortal nor not-mortal; and he cannot be neither not-mortal nor not-not-mortal.
A thing is either black or not black, white or not white; it is either in the
class of objects which have in common the quality of blackness, or it is in the
class “not-black” which includes every other kind of colour, shade or tone. But
it must come in one class or the other: there can be no neutral position
between those two classes.
If,
then, we take “immortal” to mean “incapable of dying” (as Dr. Thomas does in
the passage quoted), we must say that Adam in his novitiate was not incapable
of dying, therefore capable of dying, and therefore “mortal” as a simple
antithesis to immortal, and using the widest sense of an ambiguous term.
There is a
class, “incapable of dying”; all not included in it must be included in the
class “capable of dying”; but the latter class may be divided into two
sections: (A) those in whom death is only a capacity—a latent capacity, as we might
say; and (B) those in whom it is an active condition. Both are included in one
wide classification, “not-immortal”: but it is the sub-class in whom death is
an active principle who are, on a stricter definition of terms, called
“mortal”, because they are “subject to death, destined to die”.
Adam was
always within the class, “capable of death”, but on the sentence of God he
passed from the sub-class in whom it is a latent capacity to the sub-class who
are actively subject to corruption as a law of their being; and in that class
all his posterity have remained—all save One, who has been “made perfect” [23] (Emphasis mine)
L.G. Sargent was hardly writing
to defend evolutionary creationism, but his dismissal of any 'half-way' state
that was neither mortal nor immortal (the 'very good' state constantly
hypothesised by those who believe in a physical change in Adam's nature
inherited by all) not only is logical, but reminds us that if there was no
physical change in Adam, there was no changed nature for us to inherit, and
therefore the theological imperative for every physical human to descend from
Adam (something that has been falsified comprehensively by the scientific
evidence) vanishes. This is why evolution has no impact on our theology.
[1]
Heiser M.S. “Taking
Genesis 1-3 at Face Value: Is it Compatible with Recent Genome Research?” The Naked Bible July 26 2012
[2]
The theological equivalent of Original Sin does exist both in micro-fellowships
and members of the main Central fellowship who believe that Adam’s nature was
made ‘prone to sin’ after the Fall and subsequently inherited by all humans,
and advance the heretical notion of
‘atonement for nature.’
[3]
Thomas J, 'Immortality, Heaven, and
Hell the Unscriptural Character and Heathen Origin of Popular Dogmas
Demonstrated; and the Truth Concerning These Things Exhibited by Dr Thomas', The
Christadelphian (1870) 7:228
[6]
Thomas J. ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning
the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, The Herald of the
Kingdom and Age to Come (1852) 2:181
Kingdom and Age to Come (1852) 2:181
[7]
Thomas J. ‘Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall’, The Herald of the
Kingdom and Age to Come (1855) 5:159
[8]
ibid, p 159
[9]
ibid, p 159
[10]
ibid, p 159
[11]
ibid, p 159-160
[12]
ibid, p 160
[13]
ibid, p 160
[14]
Thomas J “Immortality, Heaven, and Hell the Unscriptural Character and Heathen
Origin of Popular Dogmas Demonstrated; and the Truth Concerning These Things
Exhibited by Dr Thomas” The Christadelphian (1870) 7: 228
[15]
Thomas J “The Wicked In the Resurrection” The Christadelphian (1881) 18:197
[16]
Roberts R “Future Punishment not Eternal Torments” The Christadelphian
(1870) 7:368
[17]
Roberts R “Future Punishment not Eternal Torments” The Christadelphian (1871)
8:15
[18]
Roberts R “Answers to Correspondents” The Christadelphian (1874) 11:526
[19]
Roberts R ‘The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin and Death” The
Christadelphian (1869) 6: 85
[20]
Thomas J “Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall’, The Herald of the Kingdom
and Age to Come (1855) 5:159
[21]
I would argue that Roberts’ early views were correct, and that in combatting
Edward Turney’s flawed theological views he abandoned this position of
theological strength and made errors of his own such as teaching a change of
nature. On this point, C.C. Walker’s observations say much in what they imply
rather than state, “Brother
Roberts became much more conservative
on this matter in after years, and so does everyone who, like him, has a
great respect for the Word of God.”, Walker C.C. ‘Was the Nature of Adam
Changed After He Sinned in Eden?’, The
Christadelphian (1921) 58:258
[22]
Mahoney J Christianity in Evolution: An
Exploration (2011: Georgetown University Press) p 55
