4. Death and mortality are not the same thing
One of the most egregious misrepresentations of evolutionary creationism in our community by anti-evolutionists has been to claim that they deny the historicity of Adam, or argue that he was not a special creation, but evolved. Despite repeated corrections, they still persist in making this mistake, as bro. Bramhill’s article confirms:
One of the most egregious misrepresentations of evolutionary creationism in our community by anti-evolutionists has been to claim that they deny the historicity of Adam, or argue that he was not a special creation, but evolved. Despite repeated corrections, they still persist in making this mistake, as bro. Bramhill’s article confirms:
“Similarly, Genesis tells us that Adam was specially created out of the dust of the ground and that Eve was made from one of his ribs. He was the first man and she was the first woman and the mother of all living. Death entered as a consequence of their sinful actions (Genesis 2:17, 3:19). If this is not accepted and Adam and Eve were simply part of a developing evolutionary chain, death was not introduced as a punishment for sin. The creation-evolution debate confronts us therefore with a critical question: are all men dying today because it is a natural phenomenon, or because it is a consequence of sin?”
Frustrating as this failure to accurately represent evolutionary creationist views on Adam may be, bro. Bramhill’s argument shows one of the fundamental errors made by opponents of evolution in our community with their failure to differentiate between death as a punishment for sin and mortality. Death is not the same thing as mortality. Humans die because they are corruptible creatures, made from the ‘dust of the ground’, not because of their sins. They remain dead after they die if they reject Christ.
This confusion is plainly apparent in bro. Bramhill’s paragraph, where he correctly refers to death as a punishment for sin at the start, then makes the mistake in his last sentence of changing the subject from death to mortality:
The creation-evolution debate confronts us therefore with a critical question: are all men dying today because it is a natural phenomenon, or because it is a consequence of sin?”Closely coupled with this conflation of death and mortality is the need for every human being to descend exclusively from Adam in order to genetically inherit a constitution that had been made immortal. 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 [1] 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 DeathJohn Thomas is worth quoting on this point as he is careful to differentiate between mortality and death as a punishment for sin.
Gift of God: --> Eternal Life
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.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:
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]
‘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.)
References
1. Monogenism is the belief that the entire human race descended exclusively from two people.
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
4. Thomas J, ‘The Wicked In the Resurrection’ The Christadelphian (1881) 18:197
5. Roberts, Answers to Correspondents The Christadelphian (1874) 11:526
6. Thomas J. ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, The Herald of the
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
References
1. Monogenism is the belief that the entire human race descended exclusively from two people.
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
4. Thomas J, ‘The Wicked In the Resurrection’ The Christadelphian (1881) 18:197
5. Roberts, Answers to Correspondents The Christadelphian (1874) 11:526
6. Thomas J. ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, The Herald of the
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
