IN DEFENSE OF THE FAITH
The
Truth About Seventh-day Adventists
A
REPLY TO CANRIGHT
by
William
H. Branson
3.
OBJECTIONS RAISED TO THE MORAL LAW
AFTER
Mr. Canright as a Baptist began to wage relentless warfare against the
moral law of God, he
resorted
to the very arguments against it which he had so completely demolished
in his former publications.
Let
us note a few of them:
The
law was given only to the Jews. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p.
320.
We
answer, then the rest of us are free from any of the restraints of the
law. We can lie, steal, swear, etc.,
with
impunity. We, being Gentiles instead of Jews, are not bound by any
restrictions on these points. Only
the
Jews were to restrain their fleshly lusts and put to death the carnal
mind. Mr. Canright would not have
admitted
this; yet the logic of his argument would lead to just this conclusion;
for, says Paul, where no law
is,
there is no transgression. Romans 4:15. And again, Sin is not
imputed where there is no law. Romans
5:13.
Well, then, according to Mr. Canright, the Gentiles are entirely free
from lawful restraint. No law, no
restrictions,
therefore no sin; for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John
3:4. We are Christians, people
of
another race and dispensation; we are free!
May
we inquire of the reader whether he would like to locate in a community
of professed
Christians
who actually lived what Mr. Canright taught concerning the Ten
Commandments after he
renounced
Adventism; a place where people felt themselves entirely liberated from
any obligation to keep
the
Ten Commandments; where there was no restraint against murder, theft,
adultery, false witness,
covetousness,
Sabbath breaking, idolatry, swearing, etc.? Even a heathen would not be
willing to risk his
life,
family, and property in such a place. Think of it! No law of God! Do
just as you please. Just remember
that
the Jews were the ones who had to be restrained. Surely this line of
reasoning is preposterous and a
travesty
on the Christian religion.
THE
ESSENCE OF THE LAW
But
Mr. Canright has found that the law had an essence. This essence was
something inside of the outer
shell
called the law, and was the real thing that mattered -the kernel of the
wheat, so to speak. We read:
'Yet not one jot or one tittle of the essence of the moral law is
abated. When Paul, referring to the
abolishment
of the law dispensation, said: For if that which was done away was
glorious, much more that
which
remains is glorious, he indicated the correct status of the law. The
essence of the moral law
remains.'
This is exactly what I believe. Ibid., p. 333.
Now
here is something quite new. The Jews had only the letter of the law,
but we have the
essence!
Mr. Canright as a Baptist has already stated on page 330 of his book
that the letter of the law is
not
binding upon Christians, but now he informs us that we do have the
essence. Seems a bit hard on the
Jews,
doesn't it? They had to deal with a law, even in the letter, but
according to this we Christians have no
code,
no letter of the law, no set rule of conduct, but just an essence.
It
may perhaps be felt that codes are a
bit
difficult to manage; they say such definite things, demand certain
measures of obedience, and thereby
become,
in the estimation of some, a yoke of bondage! But a mere essence is
different! With an essence
only,
one cannot be pinned down to any definite measure of service or standard
of life. Almost any form
may
be right. One man's interpretation of the standard of morality is as
good as another's, where there is no
letter
of the law to guide them, but only an essence.
What
would we say of a nation which decided to abolish all its laws and
destroy its statute books,
leaving
it entirely with its citizens to obey what they considered to be the
essence of morality? Such a
nation
could abolish its lawmaking assemblies, disband its police force, tear
down its jails, and proclaim
absolute
liberty of action to 'its citizens. Where no law is, there could be no
proof of guilt, and therefore no
infliction
of punishment. Every man would determine for himself what was right or
wrong, land would live
under
no restraint whatsoever from the pirate. But who would want to live in
such a country? What
protection
would there be of life or property? None whatever. Such a nation could
not possibly survive.
ESSENCE
OF THE LAW EXAMINED
There
is a very strange thing about Mr. Canright's 'essence of the law. It
seems that after the letter
disappeared,
this essence looked just like the former, but for the fact that it had a
new rest day. On this
point
he says:
Excepting
the Sabbath, the other nine commandments are in the New Testament,
either in the same words
or
in substance. Ibid. P. 362.
The
observance of the Lord's day [Sunday] meets the end of the fourth
commandment! Ibid., p. 332.
So
this essence is beginning to take shape again, and, lo! it appears just
like the old abolished
letter
of the law which the Jews had, except for this one point: it has Sunday
for a rest day instead of the
original
seventh-day Sabbath!
The
point seems to be that this essence stage of the law was intended
by Mr. Canright to cover
only
a brief transition period. Some means had to be found by which to get
rid of the true Sabbath, so the
dissolving
view effect was resorted to. The whole law was made to fade out into an
essence. Then a
waving
of the wand, a command from the juggler, and, lo! it takes definite form
again-changes back into
real
substance, but the holy Sabbath of God has disappeared, and the first
day of the week has taken its
place.
While
Mr. Canright was still a seventh-day Sabbath observer, he wrote as
follows regarding the
argument
that nine of the Ten Commandments are re-enacted in the New Testament,
but that the fourth one
is
left out. Note how fully Mr. Canright the Adventist answers Mr. Canright
the Baptist in the following
statements:
Those
who hold this theory teach that all the Ten Commandments were abolished
at the cross,
and
nine of the ten re-enacted at the same instant!
Of
course this must have been done simply to get rid of the Sabbath, as the
law would have been
all
right, but for that.
Or,
as some claim, the law was abolished at the cross, and re-enacted at
Pentecost, which leaves
an
interregnum of fifty days without any law at all. 'Where no law is,
there is no transgression.' Rom. 4:15.
All
the crimes committed during those fifty days must go unpunished, as
there was no law to condemn
them
...
The
world was in rebellion against the law of the Father. God sent His Son
to reconcile the world
to
Himself. Says Paul, 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
Himself.' 2 Cor. 5:19....
Men
cannot be judged by an abolished law; hence all those before the cross
will go free in the
judgment,
having no law to condemn them. Will God judge the millions of Hebrews
who lived from Moses
to
Christ by an old dead law which, according to our opponents, was always
only a yoke of bondage,
grievous
to be borne? It would be a violation of every principle of law. Thus I
read in the decision of the
supreme
court of Iowa, 1862 ('Iowa Reports,' Vol. XII, p. 311):
'The general principle relied upon, independent of some statutory rule,
is not controverted, that when a
statute
is repealed it must be considered as if it had never existed, except
with reference to such parts as are
saved
by the repealing statute.' This refers to the criminal code, not to the
civil law. But our opponents
claim
that all God's law was abolished- - no part saved. Hence it cannot be a
rule in the judgment.
It
assumes that the Ten Commandments has been abolished, when no record of
its repeal can be
found.
Notice how carefully the record is made when even human laws are
abolished..
Law
repealed. 'Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa,
That section 2498 of
the
Revision of 1860, be and the same is hereby repealed.' Approved Feb. 7,
1870. Session Laws of the
Thirteenth
General Assembly of Iowa, p. 112.
Let
our opponents bring something like this for the repeal of God's law, and
we will believe them.
Laws
which are to decide the eternal destiny of billions of souls should be
given in the plainest possible
manner.
They should not be left to inference and guesswork. Beyond dispute, God
did give one law-the
Ten
Commandments. He delivered it in just that solemn, public, and definite
manner which we would
expect
in so all-important a transaction.
Our
opponents claim that Jesus gave a new code of laws in place of the old,
yet they can produce
no
record as to when it was given, where it was given, how many precepts it
has, which is the first, or the
last,
who gave it, to whom it was given, what its penalty is, wherein it
differs from the old, or any other
particular.
Of
all documents, a law should be given in the plainest manner. But in what
book, chapter, and
verse
is this new law to be found? Was it given during Christ's life? Was it
at His death? Or was it after His
resurrection?
Was it delivered in the temple, by the seaside, or elsewhere? Has it
only nine commandments
now,
or has it a dozen? Which is the first commandment? Was it given in
private, or in public? To the
disciples,
or to the world? Surely if this law has a real existence, all these
questions ought to be easily
answered.
But the Bible reader knows that the New Testament is entirely silent
upon all these questions. It
neither
knows nor says anything of such a new law. D. M. CANRIGHT, The Two
Laws, pp. 102-106.
FALLACY
POINTED OUT
Farther
on in this same work Mr. Canright pointed out the utter fallacy of his
later argument that
nine
of the commandments which had been abolished were restored in the New
Testament. On this point,
speaking
still as an Adventist, he said:
Many,
in their opposition to the Sabbath, carry the impression that all the
commandments except
the
Sabbath are repeated word for word in the New Testament. But such is not
the case. Neither the first,
second,
third, fourth, nor tenth commandments, are anywhere repeated in the New
Testament. This is an
important
fact, as it shows that the New Testament does not give a new code of
laws.
The
other five commandments, with a part of the tenth, are quoted in the
following passages in
the
New Testament: Matt. 5:21-27; 15:4; 19:18, 19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke
18:20; Rom. 7:7; 13:9; Eph.
6:2,
3; James 2:11. If, then, the Sabbath is not now obligatory because that
commandment is not directly
quoted
in the New Testament, then also the first three are not now binding, and
it is no sin to have other
gods,
worship images, or profane God's name! To what a monstrous conclusion
this theory leads! So it
always
will be found that every argument framed against the Sabbath comes with
equal force against the
other
commandments.
But
yielding the point that there are several others of the Ten
Commandments, as well as the
Sabbath,
not quoted at all in the New Testament. Our opponents next claim that
there were nine of the Ten
Commandments
re-enacted in the New Testament, not, indeed, in the very words of the
old law, but in
substance
the same. It is painfully amusing to see them try to find these
commandments as thus reenacted.
Here
is the mode generally adopted: First commandment (1 John 5:21), 'Keep
yourselves from idols.' How
plain!
But when was this written? Not until 90 A. D., or about sixty years
after the resurrection. Here, then,
were
sixty years before the first commandment was re-enacted sixty years in
which there was no law
against
idolatry! If, to evade this terrible conclusion, it is admitted that
this passage does not bring to view
the
time when, and the place where, this commandment was re-enacted, but
only a reference to it as already
existing,
then the whole point is given up. For thereby they admit that they have
no record of the time
when,
or place where, this was re-enacted. It only shows that there was a law
against idolatry; and this is
simply
a reference to it as previously existing. Here they are compelled to
admit the whole truth, and come
squarely
upon our ground. That commandment, with the time and place of its
enactment, is nowhere to be
found
in the New Testament, but it is found in the Ten Commandments. Ex. 203.
It
puzzles them very much to find the second commandment reenacted in the
New Testament.
Matthew
22:37 is generally quoted as the nearest to the point, 'Thou shall love
the Lord thy God with all
thy
heart.' If a man loves God with all his heart, he will not worship any
image. But try that a little further.
Would
he have other gods? No. Then this includes the first commandment. Would
he profane God's name?
Certainly
not. Would he violate God's holy rest day? No. Then this includes the
fourth commandment as
well
as the first three, and so proves too much for our opponents.
But
this language was spoken by Christ some time before His crucifixion, at
which time they
claim
the old law was abolished. So they have a part of the law re-enacted
before it is abolished! But the
simple
fact is, this is only a quotation by Christ from the Old Testament. The
lawyer asked Him which was
the
great commandment in 'the law' -the law already existing, not a new law
which Christ should give. In
answer
to this, Jesus quotes directly from Deuteronomy 6:5, the great commandment to love God with all
the
heart, and from Leviticus 19:18, the second, to love your neighbor as
yourself. If, therefore, the giving
of
these two great commandments was to supersede the Ten Commandments, then
it must have passed
away
in the days of Moses, 1500 BC.
Look
at the places where the other commandments are claimed to be regiven. In
Matthew 19:16-19,
Jesus, in answer to the young man, quotes the fifth, sixth, seventh,
eighth, and ninth commandments
just
as found in the Ten Commandments.
This
was no re-enactment of them, but simply a quotation from the law as
already existing. This,
too,
was before the law is claimed to have been abolished; so that Christ
reenacted these before He
abolished
them, if indeed this be a regiving of them!
So
Paul, in Romans 13:9, quotes five of the Ten Commandments. This also is
seized upon as a
re-enactment
of those commandments. But were they re-enacted both by Jesus and by
Paul, and then again
by
James? Chap. 2:8-12. How can any candid man for a moment maintain such a
position?
How
plain is the simple fact that both Christ and the apostles were only
quoting from the law,
before
given by God the Father, than whom there could be no higher authority.
It
is claimed that nine are referred to while the fourth is not; but this
is false. The Sabbath is
mentioned
in the New Testament oftener than any other of the Ten Commandments,
being not less than
fifty-nine
times in all. It is worthy of notice that in all these numerous
references not one word is spoken
derogatory
to the honor and sacredness which it had always possessed. Pages
117-120.
AN
ASTONISHING CHANGE
How
utterly astonishing it is to find this same man only a few years later
setting forth the very arguments
which
he himself had so completely overthrown.
The
one thing Mr. Canright, in his later theory regarding the essence
of the law, failed to inform
us
about, was when this new rest day (Sunday) came in after the law was
abolished and reshaped. This
point
was entirely overlooked. We would like to see the chapter and verse
cited. Where, we ask, are we
informed
in the Scripture that Christ took away one Sabbath and gave Christians
another? Where does the
Bible
say that the old law had a Sabbath, but that in the essence of the law
given to Christians this part had
been
changed or dropped out? Where is Sunday, the first day of the week,
called a Sabbath, a rest day, a
holy
day, or anything but a working day? It cannot be found in Scripture. It
is not there. Had it been, Mr.
Canright
would, no doubt, have similarly produced the text, thus settling the
question and having himself
the
necessity of creating this new essence theory as a means of
ejecting the Sabbath from the law.
The
fact is that Christians have no new moral law. The moral law is as much
in force today as
when
it was spoken by God Himself from Sinai; and the fourth commandment,
unchanged by a jot or a
tittle,
still declares, The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: m
it thou shall not do any work.
(See
Exodus 20:8-11, Luke 23:56.)
SEPARATE
FROM THE ORDINANCES OF THE LAW OF MOSES
In
his book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, Mr. Canright makes a desperate
but entirely fruitless effort
to
prove that the Ten Commandments was only a part of the ceremonial law of
Moses. In order to show that
they
constitute only one- law instead of two separate and distinct codes, it
was necessary for Mr. Canright
to
overcome the impression created by the vastly different ways in which
the two were given. One was
spoken
by God's own voice, written by His own finger on tables of stone, and
deals with moral issues only;
the
other was given through Moses, and was later written by him in a book,
and dealt with rites and
ceremonies,
sanitary regulations, and civil relations.
But
Mr. Canright soon found a way out. It would have been impossible,
he said, to carry
around
the whole law if written on stones; hence only a few samples out of that
law could have been
selected
and put on stones to be kept as a witness of that covenant. Page
343.
Surely
this is a strange argument! Think of it! The only thing that deterred
God from writing all
the
ceremonies, rites, ordinances, etc., pertaining to the sacrificial
service, was the size of the load it would
have
made to carry!
How
unfortunate for Mr. Canright and those who share his opposition to the
seventh-day Sabbath
that
the fourth commandment crept in among the samples and got onto the
tables of stone! How much
easier
it would have been to have brushed the Sabbath aside, had it gone into
the book of the law of Moses
instead! The very fact that it got in among the moral precepts of the
Ten Commandments and
became
a part of a strictly moral code would naturally give the impression that
it belonged in that class and
was
not ceremonial in nature, as, were the laws of Moses. But, of course, if
God only picked up a few
samples
at random and wrote them down on tables of stone, anything might have
gotten in.
But
is this like God? Does the Ancient of days perform His work in
such a careless manner?
Would
He give to men a rule of life and a standard of judgment, and then
inform them that those He had
given
were only a few samples? Absolutely not. To argue thus is to charge God
with folly. No, the Ten
Commandment
law of God is not a makeshift. It is perfect (Psalms 19:7);
therefore it is complete. It is
holy,
and' just, and good (Romans 7:12); therefore it cannot be improved
upon. It is just as it should be,
seventh-day
Sabbath and all, and just as it will be when we stand before the throne
of God at the judgment
of
the last great day, and find that this law is the standard by which our
lives are to be measured.
''Hence
the importance of heeding the admonition of James When he says: So
speak you, and so
do,
as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James 2:12. But
let us permit Mr. Canright to answer
himself.
When he was still a Seventh-day Adventist he wrote:
Those
who deny the pre-eminence which we claim for the Ten Commandments, can
give no reason why
the
Lord singled out the Ten Commandments, and gave them in so conspicuous a
manner as He did. All
God's
acts are in wisdom, and for a purpose. It was not by accident that He
singled out and gave the Ten
Commandments
as He did. Evidently He did it to honor that law above all others.
The Two Laws, p. 102.
NOT
UNDER THE LAW BUT UNDER GRACE
In
a further effort to establish his no-law doctrine Mr. Canright the
Baptist tries to find an argument for his
theory
in Paul's statement, You are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:14. On this he says:
Several
times Paul says directly that Christians are 'not under the law.' (See
Rom. 6:14, 15; Gal. 3:23-25;
4:21;
5:18.) It would seem as though that ought to settle it that Christians
are not to be governed by that
law,
for surely if we are not under a law, we are under no obligation to obey
it. Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced,
pp. 381, 382.
Let
it be remembered that this came from Mr. Canright after he had renounced
Seventh-day Adventism.
Now
let us listen again as Mr. Canright answers himself when he at another
time discoursed on the same
passage.
The following paragraphs, written by him while he was still in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church,
clearly
set forth what the apostle meant by being under the law, and it is
shown that Paul was teaching
the
very opposite of what was attributed to him by Mr. Canright in his later
writings.
'Probably
this passage is urged as an objection to the perpetuity of the law
oftener than any other. That the
law
here is the Ten Commandments we all agree. What, then, is meant by the
term 'under the law'? We
understand
it to mean, to be condemned by the law. Our opponents claim that it
means to be under
obligation
to obey the law; and as Paul says we are not under the law, they claim
that we are not now
obliged
to keep the law. Can it be that we need not keep the commandments
against adultery, murder, theft,
idolatry,
etc.? If their position is correct, this must follow; for these are a
part of the law. Paul's entire
argument
in this book shows that this is not his meaning.
What
subject has he under consideration in this chapter? It is not the
difference between the old
law
and the new, the change from the old dispensation to 'the new; but the
change which takes place in
individuals
at their conversion, a change from the old man to the new man, from sin
to holiness, from
condemnation
to grace. He first asks, 'How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein?' Verse 2.
Then
he says, 'We are buried with Him [Christ] by baptism.' Verse 4. This
shows that he is speaking only
of
converted men. Next he says, 'Knowing this, that our old man is
crucified with Him, that the body of sin
might
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.' Verse 6. That
this refers to conversion and not
to
a change from the old covenant to the new, will be seen by every candid
mind.
Further on he says,
'Likewise
reckon you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto
God through Jesus Christ
our
Lord.' Verse 11. Of whom is this true? Only of the converted man. So he
is not speaking of all men in
general,
but only of saints. Again: 'Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal
body, that you should obey it
in
the lusts thereof.' Verse 12. What is sin? John says, 'Sin is the
transgression of the law.' 1 John 3:4. Paul
then
exhorts them not to let their fleshly members and passions lead them to
transgress the law. 'For,' said
he,
'sin shall not have dominion over you.' Verse 14. Why not? Because the
law is abolished? No; but
because
they have left the service of sin, have ceased to transgress the law of
God. His whole argument
shows
that is what he means. 'For sin shall not have dominion over you; for
you are not under the law, but
under
grace.' Verse 14. That is, having broken off your sins, ceased to break
the law, believed in Christ, and
been
baptized, you are now no longer ruled over by sin, nor condemned by the
law, because you have
found
grace in the sight of God, and your sins are pardoned. Then he asks, in
the next verse, 'What then?
Shall
we sin [that is, transgress the law, for remember, sin is the
transgression of the law'] because we are
not
under the law, but under grace? God forbid.'
This
conclusion of Paul's utterly demolishes the theory of our opponents. For
if 'not under the
law'
means that we are not to obey the law, then it follows that we could
transgress it at will. But this, Paul
vetoes
with a 'God forbid.'
Take
two more places where Paul uses the term 'under the law' as meaning, to
be condemned by
the
law. Thus he says, in Galatians 5:16-18: 'This I say, then, Walk in the
Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the
lust
of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh; and these are contrary
the
one to the other; so that you cannot do the things that you would. But
if you be led of the Spirit, you are
not
under the law.' Now, in this case, who are not under the law? Those who
are led of the Spirit, and those
only.
And who are those who are led of the Spirit? Those who do not fulfill
the lusts of the flesh - that is,
do
not commit sin. No other meaning can be given to this text. Then those
who are not under the law are
converted
men, whose sins are pardoned, who have received the Spirit of God, and
hence do not transgress
His
law any more. The text has not the slightest reference to the abolition
of the law. Paul says that those
who
are led of the Spirit are not under the law. Then it follows that those
who are not led by the Spirit are
under
the law. This conclusion is so plain that no candid man will deny it.
But are the wicked led by the
Spirit?
No. Then they are under the law. But if the law has been abolished, then
no one can now be under it,
no
more the wicked than the righteous. This shows that the law does still
exist, and is able to hold men
under
its power.
Now
look a moment at the absurdity of our opponents' position. They say
'that by the term 'not
under
the law,' Paul means that the law is abolished, and hence we need not
obey it. If this be true, then no
one
is under the law, whether he is led by the Spirit or not. But Paul
declares that in order not to be under
the
law, we must be led by the Spirit. How plainly this contradicts their
conclusion.
Take
one more case. In Romans 3:9-19, Paul says, 'We have before proved both
Jews and
Gentiles,
that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.' And so he goes on
in
several verses to prove that all are sinners. Then he concludes thus:
'Now we know that what things so
ever
the law says, it says to them who are under the law, that every mouth
may be stopped, and all the
world
may become guilty before God.' Verse 19. Now, what is the consequence of
being under the law?
Paul
says it is 'that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God.' So that
to
be under the law is to have our mouths stopped, and to stand guilty and
condemned before God.
No
better proof could be given that the meaning which Paul designs to
convey is, that the phrase,
'not
under the 'law, but under grace,' means simply not under the
condemnation of the law, because not
sinners,
but in the freedom of e gospel, through the forgiveness of our sins.
The Two Laws, pp. 32-36 (old
ed.,
pp. 30-33).
Christians
generally believe that they should not swear, kill, steal, nor lie; in
other words, that they
should
keep the commandments. Seventh-day Adventists believe the same, with
this difference, that they
apply
the same principle also to the fourth commandment. Now, if we are under
the law because we believe
in
keeping all the Ten Commandments, then the other Christians are nine
tenths under the law by keeping
nine
of them. Consistency, Thou art a jewel.
CHRIST
TO JUDGE CHRISTIANS - THEIR LAW GIVER
From
Mr. Canright's renunciation of Adventism we quote two lines as follows:
Jesus
gave commandments to His disciples.... We are to keep His
commandments. Seventh-day
Adventism
Renounced, p. 361.
Now
it is true that Christ did give commandments to his disciples, but the
inference here is that they were
given
to supplant or supersede the Ten Commandments. But such a deduction
cannot be substantiated.
Every
command given by Christ while among men was in perfect harmony with the
precepts of the moral
law
given from Sinai. He came to magnify the law and make it honorable. Mr.
Canright further says:
As
Christ, . . . the head of the church....is to judge the world (John
5:22) at His judgment seat
(Rom.
14:10), how reasonable that He should give the laws to that church.
Ibid., p. 365.
This
is all very well, but we inquire, Will not Christ also judge the Jew? Or
is it the plan that the
Father
and the Son shall divide the work, one judging the Jews and the other
the Gentiles? Will the Jews
have
to face one standard, the Ten Commandments, and the Gentiles another,
the so-called new law of
Christ?
If so, will we then afterward go to the same heaven? How is this? Does
God have two standards of
citizenship
for His kingdom? Must the Jew attain to one standard of morality and I
to another? Can I get
through
easier than he? Will these two different standards be maintained in
heaven, the Jewish community
living
according to one rule and the Christians another? Or will the Jew
perhaps have to undergo training in
heaven
and familiarize himself with a new moral standard-one that looks just
like the old one he used to
know,
but which has the Sabbath dropped out and the Sunday of the pagan world
and papal church
substituted?
Surely
these things are absurdities. God has one moral standard for all time
and all men. Changing
ages,
priest hoods, and dispensations have not affected one jot or tittle 'of
the great moral' code handed
down
from heaven. And, dear reader, when you and I appear before the judgment
seat of Christ alongside
our
Jewish brethren of past ages, we will all stand on the same footing, and
one standard the Ten
Commandment
law of God will be applied to our lives, and the same judge will judge
us all. Is He the
God
of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles
also. Romans 3:29.
CHRIST
IS THE END OF THE LAW
Mr.
Canright the Baptist uses as another proof text to show that the moral
law ended at the cross, Paul's
statement
in Romans 10:4, that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believes.
He
sums up his argument on this point by declaring, That ends the Ten
Commandments. Seventh-day
Adventism
Renounced, p. 334. But Mr. Canright, while still a Seventh-day
Adventist, clearly answered his
own
argument on this text as follows:
We
agree that this means the Ten Commandments, but we do not agree that it
means that Christ has put an
end
to that law. End does not always mean termination. It is very frequently
used as meaning the object of a
thing,
as in James 5:11: 'You have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen
the end of the Lord.' This
certainly
does not mean that the Lord died in the days of Job. James means to say,
You have seen the object
of
the Lord in the afflictions He brought on Job. The word 'end' is used in
that sense in the text. Christ is the
object
of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. The Two
Laws, pp. 43, 44.
That
is to say: What the law demands of me, Christ is. The law finds complete
expression in His life. He
came
to fulfill, or to live out its every requirement. The moral standard
demanded by the law and that
revealed
in Christ are the same. Therefore the purpose, or end, of the law is
that I should be like Christ; and
it
is evident that this standard can be reached only through faith and
obedience.
THE
LAW DEAD
When
Mr. Canright renounced Adventism he boldly declared that the law of God
was dead. His
argument
for this is based on the following statement by the apostle Paul:
Know
you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the
law has dominion
over
a man as long as he lives? For the woman which hath a husband is bound
by the law to her husband so
long
as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband. So then if, while her
husband
lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:
but if her husband be dead,
she
is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man. Wherefore, my
brethren,
you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you
should be married to another,
even
to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit
unto God. Romans 7:14.
Now
let us note Mr. Canright's comments on these verses:
No
statement could be plainer: we are delivered from the law which is
dead. Seventh-day
Adventism
Renounced, p. 388.
The
apostles say that the law is dead. Ibid., p. 390.
But
the text does not say that the law is dead. Mr. Canright finds it
necessary to misrepresent the
meaning
of the text in order to read his no-law theory into it. That Mr.
Canright himself well understood the
fallacy
of this argument that the law is dead, is evidenced by a former extended
statement published by him
concerning
the true meaning of this text. Let us note how, in his earlier
statements he completely shatters
his
own later argument:
The
position of our opponents on this chapter is, that Paul is showing the
contrast between the
old
dispensation and the new-between the law and the gospel. We believe that
Paul has no reference
whatever
to any such thing, but continues the same subject that he considered in
the sixth chapter; namely,
the
change which takes place in every individual at his conversion from sin
to holiness. He first shows how
the
law condemns the sinner, and yet is just and holy in so doing; and then,
how the sinner obtains pardon
and
grace through faith in Christ, and thereby receives strength to keep the
law which he previously found
himself
unable to obey. Thus we read: 'Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to
them that know the law)
how
that the law bath dominion over a man as long as he lives?' Verse 1. He
then illustrates what he means
by
this statement: 'For the woman which bath a husband is bound by the law
to her husband so long as he
lives;
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.'
Verse 2.
Consider
the illustration. Today a woman in Iowa marries Mr. Smith. Now the law
of Iowa binds
her
to Mr. Smith as long as he lives. There are three things in the
illustration: 1. The woman; 2. The
husband;
3. The law. Paul says, 'If the husband be dead, she is loosed from the
law of her husband.'
Observe,
she is loosed from that law. But what is it that died in this
illustration? Is it the law? Suppose that
Mr.
Smith dies, just as Paul says, does that abolish the law of Iowa which
bound her to Mr. Smith? How
absurd
that would be! No; the law does not die, and yet the death of Mr. Smith
does loose the woman from
that
law; not because the law is dead, but because the person is dead to whom
it bound the woman. Paul
proceeds:
'So then if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she
shall be called an
adulteress.'
Certainly, if while Mr. Smith lives she should marry Mr. Jones, she
would be an adulteress; for
the
law does not allow her to have two husbands at the same time. Paul goes
on: 'But if her husband be
dead,
she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man.' Yes; if
Mr.
Smith dies, then she is freed from the law of Iowa, and can now marry
Mr. Jones lawfully. Bear it in
mind
that Paul twice says that if her husband dies she is loosed from the
law, freed from the law. But the
same
law which bound her to Mr. Smith now binds her to Mr. Jones. It will be
seen that in all this
illustration
there is not the slightest reference to the death or abolition of the
law; the law remains the same
all
the time. It is the husband that dies, not the law. Now, did Paul know
how to properly use an illustration
or
not? We think he did. . . .
If
this illustration is a proper one, it is a very unfortunate one for the
no-law position; for in the
illustration,
the law never died at all, while he declares that by the death of the
husband the woman is freed,
loosed
from the law, and yet the law lives. Now the only question is, What is
represented in the illustration
by
the two husbands? We answer that the old man, the carnal mind, the body
of sin, the unconverted man,
is
represented by the first husband, and the Lord Jesus Christ by the
second husband. The following
language
of Paul settles this point: 'Wherefore, my brethren, you also are become
dead to the law by the
body
of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to Him who is
raised from the dead, that we
should
bring forth fruit unto God.' Verse 4.
'Paul
plainly says, 'My brethren, you are become dead. Not that the law is
dead; that it was these
brethren
who died. Then with whom is the second marriage made? This he as plainly
states: They should be
married
to Him who is raised from the dead. In other words, while the old,
carnal man lived, the law of God
bound
them down in condemnation to that old body of sin; but when that was
dead, then they were united
to
Christ. The next verse confirms the fact that Paul is speaking here of
their conversion from sin to
righteousness.
'For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the
law, did work in our
members
to bring forth fruit unto death.' Verse 5. 'When we were in the flesh,'
plainly means when we were
unconverted,
and has no reference to being under some former dispensation. He
continues: 'But now we are
delivered
from the law, that being dead wherein we were held.' Verse 6. The margin
says, 'Being dead to
that'
wherein we were held. The American Bible Union translation says, 'Having
died to that wherein we
were
held; That is, the old man having died which kept us from being united
to Christ, we are delivered
from
the law just as in our illustration the woman was delivered from the law
of Iowa when Mr. Smith
died.
That it was not the law, but the old man, that died, is put beyond
controversy by the following
language:
'For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came,
sin revived, and I died.
And
the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the
commandment,
deceived me, and by it slew me.' Verses 9-11. Here Paul says, 'I died;'
the law 'slew me.'
Now,
did the law die, or did Paul die? He says emphatically the law slew him.
Then it was not the law that
died,
but the old man.
Then
hear his conclusion. If the position of our opponents is true, Paul
should have concluded like this:
Wherefore
the law is dead and abolished, it being a yoke of bondage. But instead
of such a conclusion he
sums
it up thus:
'Wherefore
the law is holy and the commandment holy, and just, and good.' Verse
12. The Two Laws, pp.
36-39.
This
statement was made by Mr. Canright in 1886, just three years before he
published his Seventh-day
Adventism
Renounced, in which he so emphatically declares that the law is
dead. How one could so
quickly
and so completely reverse himself on so vital a point of Christian
doctrine, we cannot understand.
We
feel sure that the candid reader will agree with us that in this
reversal Mr. Canright was certainly not
advancing
from darkness into light, but was rather retreating from light into
darkness.
He
had departed from the plain and very evident interpretation of
Scriptural teaching, and had
espoused
a theory which cannot possibly be maintained, since it has no foundation
in Scripture.
In
fact, all teaching that tends to lessen reverence for and confidence in
God's great moral
standard,
the moral law, is altogether subversive of truth. Contrary to Scripture,
and harks back to the
rebellion
of Lucifer in heaven, and his later efforts in Eden when he succeeded in
persuading our first
parents
that the commands of God could be disobeyed with impunity and even
profit. For six thousand
years
Satan has been seeking to break down the restraints which God has placed
upon His people through
the
giving of the Ten Commandments, and the present almost universal reign
of lawlessness serves as
evidence
of how well he has succeeded. Infidels, agnostics, skeptics, and
scoffers have joined in sowing the
seeds
of rebellion and lawlessness, and today the world is reaping the
whirlwind. What then may be
expected
when even the ministry join forces with them, and begin to teach that
Christians are under no
obligation
whatsoever to keep God's great moral code, urging that it has been
thrown into discard by the
ushering
in of the gospel dispensation? Will not Satan thus greatly exult over
us, and will not the kingdom
of
God thus suffer loss?
|