Criticisms of the Sabbath-School Lessons Examined
By W. A. Colcord
The Criticisms on the Present Sabbath-School Lessons Examined in the Light of the Spirit of Prophecy
The other day the writer received, in a Battle Creek Sanitarium envelope, a copy of a thirty-seven-page leaflet, written by A. T. Jones, containing some criticisms of the present senior Sabbath-school lessons. The writer of these criticisms makes some very serious charges, and draws conclusions which, if true, are most sad and startling. Not only does he claim that the lessons themselves are “fundamentally wrong and destructive of the very foundations,” but by issuing them he asserts that “the Seventh-day Adventist ‘denomination’ has swung entirely away from the true Seventh-day Adventist ground, as well as from the true Christian ground,” and now stands committed “to sheer legalism.” We do not by any means claim that these Sabbath-school lessons are perfect, or above criticism, or that they could not have been improved. Should it be proved by the Word of God and the writings of the spirit of prophecy that error is taught in them, we should gladly reject and condemn the error; but we are not ready to admit that the writer of the leaflet under review has, as yet, furnished any such proof of the terrible and destructive error he claims is contained in them. Strong and decided issue is taken in these criticisms with the point brought out in the first lessons, drawn from Gen. 2: 17, that Adam’s life was conditioned upon obedience; that the arrangement with him was, “Obey and live, or disobey and die;” and by a line of reasoning, and the introduction and misuse of certain quotations from the writings of the spirit of prophecy, the attempt is made to prove that this is altogether erroneous, contrary to the tenor and teachings of the spirit of prophecy, “fundamentally wrong, and destructive of the very foundation of the universe of the God of love and liberty.” It is put thus:— But worse than all this even: such a conception [as the one alleged to be set forth in the lessons] presents to us God as being one who did not have enough confidence in his own goodness or the merit of his own truth or the worth of his own grace, to lead him to trust to this to win their free confidence and loving obedience; but to secure it, must put them under bonds of a legal system of bargain and “compact,” of “condition” and proviso! But if the writer of these criticisms desired to examine and test these lessons by the spirit of prophecy in a fair and candid way, why did he not quote what the spirit of prophecy says directly on this very passage of scripture,7Gen. 2: 17? Here is what “Patriarchs and Prophets,” page 60, says in commenting upon this verse:— The warning given to our first parents—“In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”—did not imply that they were to die on the very day when they partook of the forbidden fruit. But on that day the irrevocable sentence would be pronounced. Immortality was promised them on condition of obedience; by transgression they would forfeit eternal life. That very day they would be doomed to death. This, the reader will notice, teaches exactly what the Sabbath-school lessons teach. Moreover, these lessons say that the life not only of man, but of angels, depends upon the same condition; and this, likewise, is abundantly proved by the writings of the spirit of prophecy. Note carefully the following:— Like the angels, the dwellers in Eden had been placed upon probation; their happy estate could be retained only on condition of fidelity to the Creator’s law. They could obey and live, or disobey and perish. God had made them the recipients of rich blessings; but should they disregard his will, he who spared not the angels that sinned, could not spare them; transgression would forfeit his gifts, and bring upon them misery and ruin.—“Patriarchs and Prophets,” p. 53. God placed man under law, as an indispensable condition of his very existence.—“Patriarchs and Prophets,” page 49. They had many questions to ask relative to many things which they could but indistinctly comprehend. The angels graciously and lovingly gave them the information they desired. They also gave them the sad history of Satan’s rebellion and fall. They then distinctly informed them that the tree of knowledge was placed in the garden to be a pledge of their obedience and love to God; that the high and happy estate of the holy angels was to be retained upon condition of obedience; that they were similarly situated; that they could obey the law of God and be inexpressibly happy, or disobey, and lose their high estate, and be plunged into hopeless despair.—“Great Controversy,” Vol. I, page 33. These quotations, we repeat, teach exactly what the Sabbath-school lessons teach. But the author of these criticisms denies the truth here stated, and declares that such an arrangement would be a covenant of “legality” and “bondage.” He says:— They knew no such thing as “Obey and Live;” much less did they know any such thing as a bargain, a “compact,” or any hard-and-fast “condition” upon which “only” they could have life. The conclusion which he draws is expressed in these words:— Therefore, the simple and plain fact, and the plain Scripture truth, is that Adam and angels began their existence with life; and that this life was, by the gift of the grace of God, in creating them living souls; and was not, in any sense, under, nor was it by virtue of, any compact or bargain or condition or anything of the kind. Let the reader compare these statements with the foregoing quotations from the spirit of prophecy. Once more, we quote the following clear and decisive statement upon the “condition of eternal life,” as made in “Steps to Christ,” page 77:— The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been,—just what it was in paradise before the fall of our first parents,—perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized. Why did not the writer of these published criticisms give these quotations, and expend some logic upon them? These are found in the very books from which he made the quotations he gave, and they certainly bear upon the question at issue as plainly and directly as anything he quoted. The reason is apparent,—they would have upheld in very words the teaching of these lessons, and completely forestalled, upset, and disproved any such criticisms or conclusions as he made or came to respecting them. The covenant or arrangement upon which Adam and Eve began their life, as set forth in these lessons, it is claimed, was a covenant “without Christ.” But this is not a necessary conclusion at all. In the condition of life, as laid down in Gen. 2: 17, there is nothing said about Christ or faith; but shall we conclude that there was no Christ and no faith then? Was there no one and no means that could have kept Adam from falling? In the terms of the new covenant, as recorded in Jer. 31: 31-34, there is not a word said about Christ or faith; but shall we conclude that there is, therefore, no Christ and no faith in the new covenant? Such deductions, however, would be just as logical and just as fair and consistent as those drawn by the author of these criticisms upon the Sabbath-school lessons. Because everything is not always stated which is involved or implied in a note, question, or answer, shall we conclude that it must necessarily therefore be denied or ruled out, and that we have a right to draw any conclusions which this sort of logic would warrant? Any one who will allow himself to indulge in such a method of reasoning as this can come to about any conclusion he desires, and can involve the Word of God itself in contradictions and inconsistencies. In Sister White’s article in the last number of the REVIEW, the following statements are made:— “The law is God’s standard, from which there must be no swerving. . . It makes a great difference to men whether they receive or reject the precepts of Jehovah.” “Obedience to God’s law is the condition of salvation.” Pursuing the method of argument employed in these criticisms upon the Sabbath-school lessons, one might take these statements and declare that the writer of them had abandoned repentance, faith in Christ, and baptism, as essentials to salvation, and set forth “a system of legalism only.” But after all had been said, the words of Christ, as recorded in Holy Writ, would still stand: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” The logic employed in these criticisms would “entangle” the Lord himself in his talk, and make him out a mere legalist, and a teacher of a covenant of “legality” and “bondage.” It is unjustifiable to say that these lessons set forth the new or everlasting covenant as a covenant “without Christ,” as may be proved by any one who will take the trouble to read them. See note 2, at the top of page 9; notes 5 and 6, on page 11; notes 2 and 3, on page 13; the note on page 14, etc., etc., of the Lesson Quarterly. These teach the very opposite of such an idea, as does the entire series of lessons when taken as a whole. Gen. 2: 17; Gen. 3: 22-24; and Rom. 5: 18, 19, are sufficient to show that life is conditioned upon obedience. When we accept Christ as our substitute, we are then choosing the way of obedience as truly as Adam would have chosen it had he never sinned. The last scripture referred to plainly states that we are made righteous by the “obedience” of Christ, and that life is secured to us by his righteousness, or obedience; so that, whether the question of life is considered from the original condition laid down to Adam, or from the provision offered after the fall, in either case, the condition is based upon man’s choosing the way of God, which is the way of obedience. Much more might be said, but this is sufficient to show that these criticisms are clearly a misrepresentation of both the spirit of prophecy and the Sabbath-school lessons. We are sorry to say that we can not regard this effort as an honest, earnest, or sincere endeavor to “edify the body of Christ,” and “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” but rather an effort to tear down and destroy. Would that it were otherwise.