Is it So? by A. O. Bourdeau

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 8, 1875

Is it So?

By A. O. Bourdeau

EVIDENTLY when the apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that the mystery of iniquity had already commenced to work (2 Thess. 2; see also Acts. 20:29, 30; and 2 Tim. 4:2–4), the apostasy was commencing to do its pernicious work of corrupting the word of God. Some of those who embraced the Christian religion through the preaching of the apostle to the Gentiles and of others, were very tenacious of some of their heathen traditions and idolatrous notions which they brought along with them, and mixed with the doctrines of Christianity. Many of the fathers of the early church had been heathen philosophers, and they also retained some of their heathen notions, blending them with Christianity. Hence many of the doctrines of the papacy can be proved by their teachings.

Romanism is evidently an amalgamation, or a confused mixture of heathenism and Christianity. The Romanist’s rule of faith is the word of God and the traditions of the church. Several of their religious dogmas are a subversion of Bible truths, being based wholly on the authority of the ancient fathers, the utter insufficiency of which is very apparent.

A writer of the seventeenth century has truly said, “To maintain their greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have corrupted many of the ancient fathers, and, reprinting them

make them speak as they would have them. . . . 2. They have written many books in the names of these ancient writers, and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false witness to them.” See History of the Sabbath, published at the REVIEW AND HERALD OFFICE, Battle Creek, Mich.

But the true Christian cannot be in agreement with the church of Rome relative to their faith and practice. His rule of faith is the word of God alone. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. This testimony is explicit. Any doctrine or teaching respecting religious faith and practice which is contrary to the teachings of God’s word may be safely pronounced spurious.

In view of these and other plain facts that are adduced on this subject, how can any one who professes to take the Bible as the man of his counsel dare to resort to tradition, or to secular history, in proof of a doctrine that cannot be sustained by the word of God? Yet we frequently see some, even of those who are called ministers, who pursue this course while trying to oppose us on the Sabbath question.

A no-law Adventist preacher took such a course in this place a few months ago. He gave two discourses—one against the law and the Sabbath, and the other in favor of Sunday-keeping—which I afterward reviewed. At the close of his first discourse, after reading the eight texts which mention the first day, he stated that those texts did not prove that Sunday should be kept; but that he would bring up something that would in his next discourse. He said that, “while treating upon a religious subject, if we lack proof in the Bible, we can resort to church history. After the Revelation come the fathers.”

Between the meetings I told him that he appeared to be stepping off from the Protestant’s platform—“the Bible and the Bible alone”—to that of the Romanists—the Bible and the traditions of the church. Said he, “Is it so?” I replied, Sir, you ought to know for yourself. His second discourse really answered his question in the affirmative.

The elder necessarily adopted the rule of the Catholic Church, just as all do (though some perhaps are not aware of the fact) who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week. We read, “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” Mark 7:8. A. O. BOURDEAU.

Burke, Vt.