p. 83 | WM. PENNIMAN by Wm. Penniman

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 28, 1871

WM. PENNIMAN

By Wm. Penniman

The Inconsistency of Those Who Hold the Bible as Their Only Rule of Faith and Practice.

THE following quotations from a work entitled, “Protestantism and Infidelity; an Appeal to Candid Americans, by F. H. Weninger, D. D., Missionary of the Society of Jesus,” pages 170, 257, show clearly not only that the papal church claims the power of changing positive institutions, but also of enacting new ones; and further it shows the inconsistency of those “Bible alone” Christians who so tenaciously cling to those ordinances of the church.

“Tell me why you baptize infants, though there is not a word about infant baptism in the whole Scripture; and why you do not wash one another’s feet, although Christ apparently commands the practice as necessary for salvation? Christ said to Peter, ‘If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me;’ and to all the apostles, ‘Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.’ You administer infant baptism and omit the other practice, because the tradition of the Catholic church has taught you that the baptism of infants is necessary for their salvation, but the washing of one another’s feet was not commanded as an indispensable rule. Relinquishing the letter of the Bible on these points, and throwing yourself back on tradition, why do you maintain that the Bible is the only rule of faith?”

He further adds, “The church, by virtue of the power which she has received from Christ, abolished the Jewish Sabbath, and substituted Sunday in its stead, in commemoration of the most glorious mysteries of our redemption.”

Thus, in accordance with the tradition of the Roman church, those professing to be “Bible alone” Christians sprinkle infants because the tradition of the Catholic church has taught them that the baptism of infants is necessary for their salvation. They also omit the positive command to wash one another’s feet because tradition of the Catholic church has not commanded it as an indispensable rite. The daughters, also, like their mother, look upon the seventh-day Sabbath as Jewish, and virtually acknowledge that the papal power which has substituted Sunday in its stead is divine. Yet they cannot show one word of authority in the Bible for the change. Protestant writers admit that there is no command for the change, yet in harmony with the mother church, and inconsistent with their “Bible alone” creed, they sanction a counterfeit day.

What is there in the Bible to teach that the soul is immortal? Or what is there to prove that the wicked will be tormented in hell? Yet there are some who think that a belief in these doctrines should be made a test of church membership. I read an article in a popular religious newspaper which advocated the idea that no one should be admitted as a member of an orthodox church who did not believe in the endless punishment of the wicked. Perhaps the following quotation may yet form a part of this catechism, and be presented to those who desire church membership: “Dost thou believe that the punishment of the wicked will eternally increase, and that the happiness of the righteous will be increased on looking over the battlements of Heaven and beholding the eternal torments of the damned in hell?”

If the candidate like Sylvanus Cobb should say he was willing to forego that amount of happiness, the examiner might reply to him that he was a little tinctured with heterodoxy and could not be admitted. If the “woes of some will make others happy,” as Dr. Beecher teaches, the preceding question is no exaggeration of their doctrine. And Prof. Finney declares that their “punishment will eternally increase.” Such are some of the extreme inconsistencies of orthodoxy.

WM. PENNIMAN

Woodburn, Ill., Feb., 1871.