“There was no miracle wrought in executing the sentence under which Adam and Eve placed themselves . . . 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.” 
“If your doctrine of the atonement pivots on a physically inherited quality then the chronological primacy of Adam is absolutely critical. If it depends on a universally shared characteristic then Adam can be seen as an exemplar (in the strict sense) not as everyone’s ultimate ancestor.”
Some limited further reading:
Bro Ken Drage was a member at Watford when the evolution controversy broke in the 1960s. He has written an open letter addressing evolution and some of the history from the debate which centred around Bro Lovelock. The impact of emotion and pressure from others is noteworthy – as is his observation that the 1960’s discussion were civilised though highly charged (such civility is lacking today!). Bro Ken’s letter is reproduced in full below – it should be mandatory reading, so over to Ken… Continue reading
As has well been pointed out an Adam based faith is focused on the wrong man. Jesus is the basis of salvation, Adam brings death, division and failure. Below is a letter from the precursor of the AACE from 1987. The letter was controversial at the time. It demonstrates a range of opinions existed on Adam’s nature in Australia (and the pioneers!). It’s language at times seems unsoundly optimistic about our relationship with sin. However it provides important context on the Australian Unity Agreement which brought two opinions into fellowship. It also makes important observations about what the Unity Agreement did not address Continue reading
How could and why would God allow Adam to fail (or creative him such a way that such failure was inevitable)? Surely sin and death were never part of God’s creative plan! So say some as if their musings are authoritative or the only opinions ever held within our community. Such is “very short-sighted” according to the 1894 Christadelphian Magazine article by Sis Mary Brabyn. R Roberts published the article under the heading “the Apparent Failure of Freewill”. Though a convinced literal creationist she articulated that Adam’s failure set the basis for a far more effective salvation of man than Adam’s mere obedience could achieve. For in Adam’s failure, God’s mercy and love would be demonstrated and appreciated. Continue reading
I believe the serpent in Genesis 3 was a literal being created by God with capabilities for the express purpose of testing Adam & Eve. The following article “Eastward in Eden” from the 1964 Vol 102 Christadelphian Magazine disagrees, proposing the serpent is a literary device. Obviously LG Sargent (the editor) disagreed with that assessment. The article also touches on the ability of Adam & Eve to have evil thoughts. Once upon a time variances in views and explorations were tolerated and explored – though passionately debated. Worth a read and consideration of how difference should be dealt with.
That Adam’s nature changed and become somehow more sin prone is dogma with most Genesis literalists. However this is not a 100% affirmed by all Christadelphians. Creationists (variously YEC/OEC) have come to the same conclusion as most evolutionary creationists that such a change is NOT found in the Bible. Continue reading