“Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.” James 1:15 NET
James describes from verse 14 onwards that we are personally responsible for our sins. While God might try us, His objective is not to see us fail. We are tempted and fail due to our own lusts – and the inability to control them. When our lusts go too far, when we do not control them they lead to sin. James says this then leads to death.
The Lampstand Magazine and many conservative Christadelphians insist on a reading of Romans 5:12 that replaces the word death with mortality (claiming the words are equivalent). Clearly such an approach is nonsense – the word mortal cannot fit in James 1.
Furthermore the passage simply shows that death can be used as the fate of the wicked. All humans sin but some will never die 1 Cor 15:51. James is not talking about the forgiven saints whose death is elsewhere styled sleep. They do not die because of sin. It is those who allow sin to reign in their mortal bodies who will reap the reward of death. For those saved by grace it is an altogether happier story as Paul says:
“we were dead in transgressions, [but God has] made us alive together with Christ—by grace you are saved.” Eph 2:5 NET
The pioneer approach
Our pioneers believed scientific facts were always in harmony with accurate Biblical interpretation.   They believed the earth was extremely old, and that there had been at least one pre-Adamic creation, despite rejecting evolution. They explained the evidence for evolution by arguing God had made many creations over countless years, creating simple life and repeated replacing it with more complex life, finally creating humans in a pre-Adamic creation, then creating the current creation with Adam and Eve.
Over the years, Christadelphian expositors accepted increasingly higher estimates of the age of the earth, and went further and further in their interpretation of Genesis in order to reconcile it with demonstrable scientific facts. Thus on the basis of geological evidence available to him, brother Thomas believed there had been one pre-Adamic creation; later brother Roberts agreed with brother Simons that there was now geological and fossil evidence of at least five pre-Adamic creations. Continue reading
The Lampstand insert continued…they now start to focus on Adam’s condition prior to sin: Continue reading
For more detail see this post.
For more detail on this subject see this post.
Robert Roberts in 1869 stated very plainly there was no miraculous change in Adam post the fall. Of course he changed his mind later but never really addressed his exposition of 1 Cor 15.
“But there is a misapprehension lurking under the proposition which we are combating. 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. He was given a law to observe: the law he disobeyed, and sentence was passed that he (the disobedient living soul) should return to mother earth. Continue reading
“I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen 3:15 KJV
In speaking to the serpent, God describes the enmity between the serpent and the woman and their respective seeds as being a new condition which He was putting in place. Does this speak to a change in nature, a creation of the sin-prone mind as some describe? Furthermore isn’t this evidence of Adam being the only man? Simply no, and the passage actually contradicts some of the propositions put by the special creationist. Continue reading