(Letter)
July
25, 1953.
Dear
Brother Carter:
Due to the pressure of other matters, I have been
unable, until now, to write you in answer to your recent communications …
First, however, might I say, that it appears that you have lost sight of the
original purpose I had in first writing to you. You will recall that I objected
to your published statement to the effect that the Advocate brethren
generally held that a believer was not baptized for personal sins. This was
your conclusion after talking with Advocate brethren in Chicago. At the
time, I thought that you might possibly have talked with extremists, but I
since have learned, even as I suggested in my letter to you of April 30, that
your reporting was incorrect; that the Chicago brethren mentioned hold no such
belief . . .
When
I first wrote to you, I was hopeful that you would lend a sympathetic ear to
efforts of rapprochement with the Advocate group. This seemed reasonable
in view of your strenuous efforts to unite the Central and Berean groups, in
spite of the widely divergent beliefs among them, on the very vital doctrines
relating to the nature and sacrifice of Christ. Instead, I seem to find ... a
tendency to argue over words and phraseology, ignoring the more vital principles.
Rather than striving to show how far apart you and the Advocate brethren
are, why not instead try to discover how close we may be in our common Faith
and Hope? Certainly you must have adopted some such method in your efforts to
unite the Central and Berean brethren.
I am willing to continue the effort … Therefore, I
offer for your consideration the following:
THE
NATURE OF CHRIST. — Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 7; 1 John 4: 2-3; Romans
5:10). He was a natural descendant of Adam, through Mary, tempted in all points like unto us.
It really seems unnecessary to elaborate further on this, as the Scriptures
plainly teach it, as did also Dr. Thomas, Robert Roberts, and Thomas Williams.
I am going to assume for the moment, that you too, subscribe to this. Acceptance of this divine truth, leads us to
the next in order, that:
CHRIST OFFERED FOR HIMSELF. — The preponderance of
evidence is so great, it would seem hardly necessary to argue this point; but
nevertheless we touch on it briefly. The Apostle points out, that like the
Mosaic High Priest, Jesus first offered for himself. "By his own blood he
entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption" (Heb. 9:12). Again in Hebrews 13:20 we find Jesus'
own resurrection from the dead resulting from the shedding of his own
blood—"the blood of the everlasting covenant". This was the covenant,
or Constitution of Righteousness, of which Dr. Thomas speaks in Elpis Israel,
which could only come into force by the death of the testator (Christ), and
which provided the only means of adoption of mankind, all of whom were in a
condition of racial alienation as a result of Adam's sin, which the
Doctor termed the Constitution of Sin. It can readily be demonstrated from
their writings, that our great writers, Thomas, Roberts, and Williams, were all
in accord in respect to this vital principle, and that Brother Roberts and Bro.
Williams particularly, strenuously fought against those who denied it, and who
would make of Jesus' death, a substitutionary sacrifice, of the orthodox
churches, which could lead backwards to the Papal heresy of immaculate
conception.
God
does nothing without a reason. Therefore, we should next consider:
WHY JESUS OFFERED FOR HIMSELF.— I am sure that no one
will take exception to the statement that Jesus had no personal sins;
therefore, his sacrifice could not be for such. For what then must he offer for
himself? To condemn "sin in the flesh" (Rom.8:3) which is nothing other than Adamic
condemnation. Note what Brother Roberts says in "Blood of Christ",
page 21, the crucifixion of Christ was a "declaration of the righteousness
of God" and a "condemnation of sin in the flesh". It was the
righteous treatment of sin. It is how condemned human nature (and that included
Jesus) should be treated. Jesus was under the dominion of death because of sin.
On page 16, "Blood of Christ", Brother
Roberts expresses this thought even more clearly, "Sin had hold of him in
his nature, which inherited the sentence of death from Adam". And on page
17, "Christ could not righteously die if death had no dominion over him,
and it could not have this dominion except through Adam, through Abraham,
David, and his mother".
That
there is no doubt that Brother Roberts was referring to Adamic condemnation, we
direct your attention to The Christadelphian, Sept. 1873, "It
follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself, a sense
which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under Adamic condemnation,
inherent in his flesh".
It was right and just and necessary that Jesus die
for his own sinful flesh, which is further confirmed by him in Luke 24,
particularly verses 26 and 46. If, then, Jesus had to die to be rescued from
the condemnation that is from Adam, is it logical or reason able to deny that
his shed blood did not do the same for his believing brethren, when they
symbolically, by baptism,
"die", putting off the "old man" in symbol, as Jesus did in
actuality, when he made the one great offering? Did Jesus have to offer for his
own "sin in the flesh", yet his brethren need no such offering? We
think not, and so maintain that:
BELIEVERS
ABE BAPTIZED FOR ADAMIC CONDEMNATION.—I know of no more complete and
comprehensive treatment of this subject than Dr. Thomas' dissertation in Elpis
Israel, under the two topics, "The Constitution of Sin" and "The
Constitution of Righteousness", with which I know you are familiar. With
ample scriptural substantiation, he establishes that which we briefly summarize
as follows:
1.
All
men are born under the Constitution of Sin, as the result of Adam's
transgression.
2.
Men
are sinners in a two-fold sense, by natural birth and by their own
transgressions.
3.
All
Adam's descendants are unclean, fit only for death, which is confirmed by the
fact of the death of infants and babes who have committed no personal sins.
4.
Under
the Constitution of Sin, they are alienated from God, and without hope in the
world; strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12).
5. Sin in the flesh was condemned by the shed blood of Christ—and
in Christ shall all be made alive (Eph. 2:13, 19). We quote
Romans 5:18-19 with the Doctor's parenthetical remarks: "As through one
offense (sentence was pronounced) upon all unto condemnation; so also through
one righteousness (sentence was pronounced) upon all men (that is, Jews and
Gentiles) unto a pardon of life. For as through the disobedience
of one man the many were constituted sinners; so also through the
obedience of the one the many were constituted righteous".
6. "For
sons of Adam to become sons of God, they must be subjects of an adoption."
Baptism is the only means provided for such adoption.
7. "In
Christ" by baptism, they are no longer alienated and afar off, but are now
made nigh; are fellow-heirs of the promises; are come into covenant
relationship to God.
Also
pertinent is the statement of Dr. Thomas in Elpis Israel, page 82, 4th edition,
to the effect that whatsoever good is found in man, it originates only from
"the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" and that belief and
submission makes him free "from the law of sin and death". And in Revealed
Mystery he said, "The being begotten and born of the water by the word
is the passing from the sentence of death to the sentence of life".
Now, Brother Carter, you quote Brother Roberts as
denying man is baptized for Adamic Condemnation (though you do not give the
source). Then Brother Roberts contradicts himself, for he clearly stated quite
the opposite on occasion. Note what he said in Bible Finger Post No.
59,"Now, mankind not being sons originally, but the condemned
descendants of the condemned transgressors in Eden, it is natural to speak
of the process by which they become sons as a being born again. What is this
process? … 'Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God'".
Also, from The Christadelphian, Sept. 1873, we
quote, ". . . and what does God in Christ require? That we relinquish our
connection with the condemned Adam, and put on the name of the new Adam, in
whom the condemnation of the old is escaped by resurrection. Baptism is this
requirement in its ceremonial compliance. Having killed, we bury the old
man in the grave of Christ, and rise to union with the new".
Again, from The Christadelphian, May 1878,
"Legally, a man is freed from the Adamic condemnation at the time he obeys
the truth, and receives the remission of sins; but actually, its physical
effects remain till this mortal (that is, this Adamic condemned nature) is
swallowed up in the life that Christ will bestow upon his brethren at his
coming". '
Again, in the Roberts-Andrews debate, Brother Roberts
stated that at baptism there is a passing out of Adam into Christ, at which
time God gives the obedient believer a clean slate, that when he passes into
Christ, his whole relation to the death dispensation which Adam produced, is
put off. Please consider these quotations from Brother Roberts, in view of your
quotation that he denied baptism for Adamic condemnation.
You recognize the necessity for redemption from sinful
flesh, and that Christ will do it, if we are found faithful, through the grace
of God. But this is true too, of our
personal sins, for at baptism we are forgiven past sins only, and as we all
fall short of the glory of God, our redemption in respect to personal sins is
also a matter of the grace of God. Baptism does not save us, but only places us
in the way of salvation, whether we are talking of personal sins or sin in the
flesh.
"God brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus .
. . through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Hebrews 13:20). The
baptized believer too, is sanctified by that blood (Jesus' blood), and baptism
being a type of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, this is his (the
believer's) assurance that he too, will be raised from the dead. Further, that
that sanctifying blood will eventually, if he continues in the way of
righteousness, insure everlasting life—a change from corruption to
incorruption. See Romans 6th chapter.
ABE WE GUILTY OF ADAM'S SIN?—It depends on what we
mean by the word "guilty". Thos. Williams admitted it was not
particularly descriptive of the meaning it is supposed to convey, but he denied
time after time that it meant that Adam's descendants were responsible for
Adam’s transgression. He pointed out
that much of the Truth's vocabulary came from Dr. Thomas, and that he held and
agreed with what Dr. Thomas says on the matter, in Elpis Israel, page
115, 4th edition:
"Sin in the flesh is hereditary, and entailed
upon mankind as the consequence of Adam's violation of the Eden law. 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 Melchisedek many years before Levi was born…. Upon the same
federal principle, all mankind 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 of the original sin. Because they sinned in Adam, therefore they
return to the dust from which Adam came . . . 'in whom all
sinned'."
As we have shown previously, the Doctor has pointed
out how it is necessary at baptism, to get out of Adam —get out from the
"Constitution of Sin" and its penalties, and to come under the
Constitution of Righteousness, or the new covenant.
It
is necessary to distinguish between cause and effect. Brother Williams likened
the situation to the man having leprosy, under the Mosaic dispensation. He was
unclean, unfit for association with the congregation, but not necessarily
through any fault of his own. Yet, until he had made blood sacrifices, after
being cured of his disease, he could not rejoin the congregation. Similarly,
man, under Adamic condemnation, is alienated—unclean. There must be for him a blood
sacrifice (Christ's) and a cleansing (by baptism) before he is fit to enjoy the
association of the congregation—the Household, the sons of God. "But now
in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ" (Eph. 2:13).
CONCLUSION.—As I suggested previously, our discussion
might be more profitable if we were to try to discover wherein we agree, rather
than wherein we disagree. Therefore, in conclusion, I would ask you, if you
agree that:
All the descendants of Adam are born under the condemnation that
resulted from his transgression.
All such are subject to the penalty of death as a result.
All such are under the
"Constitution of Sin", alienated from God.
Jesus came in the flesh, and
was therefore unclean in his flesh.
Jesus had to offer for
himself because of his sinful flesh, and thereby condemned sin in the flesh.
In baptism, the believer
passes out of Adam, and into Christ; out of the Constitution of Sin, and under
the Constitution of Righteousness.
As a result, he is no longer
alienated, but reconciled to God, through Christ, and an heir of the covenants
of promise, which includes resurrection from the dead.
With sincerity, and kindest regards,
I am Your brother in Christ,
Paul L. Safford
The Christadelphian
Advocate, November 1953, pgs 244-247