Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    DOUBLE INFLICTION OF THE PENALTY

    Mr. Storrs claims that it would be unjust to inflict the same penalty a second time; and so much stress is laid on this idea that it demands a notice, though the objection really ceases to be of any force when it is shown that all now die by virtue of their relation to Adam, and that our probation is for a life and death beyond the present. Mr. Storrs says:VDRU 22.1

    “Is a revival into life not a reversal, or abrogation, of the penalty? If abrogated, can it be inflicted a second time without a second trial and sin repeated.” Life from the Dead, p. 8.VDRU 22.2

    To this I reply, 1. A revival to life is not a reversal of the penalty; for the penalty has not yet been inflicted. It is only a reversal of the inevitable consequence of Adam’s fall, to which consequence our probation does not reach. 2.There is “a second trial and sin repeated,” in the case of every individual transgressor; and Mr. Storrs’ remarks on the judgment of Adam present that fact in a striking view. He says:VDRU 22.3

    “Adam stood under a law, in a dispensation peculiar to himself.... It admitted of no repentance or renewed obedience by which the punishment could be remitted; for one transgression the transgressor must die. Under that law Adam was placed. He transgressed-his dispensation ended, and God set in judgment on him; arraigned Adam at the judgment-seat-heard the testimony-found him guilty-proceeded solemnly to pronounce the penalty of the law, but saw fit to keep the day of execution of the sentence in his own power, and hidden from the knowledge of the criminal; but ultimately he was executed.”VDRU 22.4

    And then he asks:VDRU 23.1

    “Why is Adam to be made alive, to be judged over again, and die a second time? We discover no Scripture warrant for such an idea.” Id., p. 75.VDRU 23.2

    Now, according to Mr. Storrs’ own showing, that dispensation or probation ended with that “one transgression,” and judgment set, and sentence was pronounced on the act; but the sentence was not executed for nearly one thousand years after that judgment. Then, I inquire, was Adam on probation during the many hundred years that he lived after that sentence was pronounced? I think he was; but if so, he was, of course, under a new probation. But if not, then there were over nine hundred years of Adam’s life for which he was not held accountable! I cannot discover any warrant, either in Scripture or reason, for his being “made alive to be judged over again,” so far as that “one transgression” is concerned for which he was judged, but I do discover an evident reason why he should be judged for the actions of a long life that he lived after that first judgment. And they must admit the conclusion, or deny that Adam had a second [original illegible]VDRU 23.3

    But such a denial is attended with further difficulty, it being equivalent to a denial that [original illegible] children after him had any probation. For, if [original illegible] be inquired where the probation was introduced under which his children were placed, every on will point to the promise given to Adam that “the seed of the woman” should bruise the serpent’ head. Here commenced the gospel system. But it was revealed to Adam, and through him to [original illegible] posterity. And if a new probation was not there introduced to Adam, when and where was it introduced? Will the believers in the non-resurrection theory point to the scripture giving information on this point, that is, if they deny that Adam had another probation granted to him? We find but one revelation of the bringing in of a gospel hope to Adam and his immediate descendants-that in the third chapter of Genesis concerning “the seed” of the woman. But if that was the introduction of a new dispensation, of a probation under which repentance and faith in “the seed” would procure remission, it then follows that Adam had a second trial in this new system. And, of course, for transgressions under this new probation there must be another judgment; and if this transgression was not forgiven, the penalty must be inflicted for this, as well as for the other. Otherwise the penalty of one of these dispensations and judgments will never be executed.VDRU 24.1

    And now, as Adam died under that transgression without any possibility of remission by repentance or renewed obedience, so do all his posterity-all who share in that “Adamic condition;” no degree of repentance, faith, nor obedience, will avert this death; because they were not under that dispensation which was “peculiar” to Adam, as Mr. Storrs correctly says. We had no trial of obedience or disobedience in that first judgment, though we fall under its consequences by virtue of our nature-our “Adamic condition.” On this point Mr. Storrs says again:VDRU 24.2

    “Adam’s posterity were made subject to corruption by being excluded from the tree of life, not as a penal infliction on them,” etc. Life from the Dead, p. 11.VDRU 25.1

    And it is just as true that they die for Adam’s sin, as that they were made subject to corruption thereby; for exclusion from the tree of life has the same effect on them that it had on him, to wit: it prevents their living forever. And this, says Mr. Storrs, was “not a penal infliction on them.” True; a penal infliction can only relate to an act under probation; but our probation does not relate to the exclusion from the tree of life, and consequent death; and therefore this death cannot be the penalty of our personal transgressions; but the “second death” is that penalty.VDRU 25.2

    On this point I will only add: 1. We are never exhorted to repent of Adam’s sin, nor to avert its consequences. Here is where the Pedobaptists err. Infants have no personal sins to be remitted; therefore if they are baptized for the reason given in the gospel, that is, for the remission of sin, it must be Adam’s sin, not their own. But such an idea is never hinted in the Scriptures; it is contrary to the facts and reasons given in the case. Yet according to the non-resurrection views it is the only chance for the salvation of children, Infant-baptismal regeneration and this non-resurrectionism should go together.VDRU 25.3

    2. Christ is to be the judge of men, for the Father has put all judgment in his hands, and the secrets of men are to be judged by him. And into that judgment “every work” shall be brought, evil as well as good. And it is in view of that judgment that the exhortations are given, and threatenings made, in the Bible. But there is no intimation that Adam’s sin will come into that judgment. The judgment for that is far in the past; with that we, as probationers, have nothing to do.VDRU 26.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents