p. 570 | Grace and Obedience

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 20, 1883

Grace and Obedience.

THERE is a growing tendency toward antinomianism in this age on the part of all classes who wish to avoid the argument in favor of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. We find this tendency even among some Presbyterians, the last place in the world where we should look for it, while it is strongly manifested among the Methodists, though it is directly contrary to their "standards," to which their last General Conference decided that all their ministers must conform. In a book which treated of the position of the various denominations, we once read the following words:—

"The Methodist Conference under Wesley in 1770, declared that the universal immorality then prevailing was because of the wide-spread opinion that Christ has annulled the moral law, and that evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments.

Perhaps no part of the work of the early Methodists received stronger condemnation from those of the established church, than "Wesley's Notes" on this Conference. This controversy brought out Fletcher's celebrated "Checks to Antinomianism." Thus it will be seen that we are correct in saying that every sermon, every written article, by a Methodist, which is antinomian in its tendency, is contrary to the standards of Methodism, and therefore in defiance of the resolution of their General Conference. Among works of this nature may be mentioned the pamphlet of Mr. Armstrong against the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and those of Dr. Benson and Mr. Woodward on this Coast, especially the latter, which is as strongly antinomian as any work which we have seen from any source in many years. No man can read his work approvingly and retain reverence for the decalogue, the moral law of God, as a rule of life.

The spirit of antinomianism has shown itself very prominently among those who are called "First-day Adventists." The chief organ of these people is the World's Crisis, of Boston. One of its most prominent correspondents once argued at length that the observance of law, was contrary to the spirit and freedom of the gospel; that the rule of law could not be carried forward into the immortal state, because law supposed penalties, and the idea of penalty was abhorrent to our ideas of the perfect freedom of that state. He thence argued that the ten commandments, with their penalties, were altogether unsuited to perfected beings, and that on such only the two great commandments can be binding, namely, to love God and to love our fellow-man. And we take it as an evidence of the blinding tendency of antinomianism that the writer did not see that his conclusion was inconsistent with all his argument. These also are commandments; they are law; they are given with the authority of law, and as such have no penalty. If not, then they may be violated without any serious consequence resulting! The truth is, that if his argument is good, then these two great commandments cannot be binding in Heaven, and there would be no violation of obligation if they were not kept there!

An article in a recent number of the Crisis (first published in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy), by a late editor of that paper (M. G.), gives evidence that he is being converted to a more reasonable faith, or else it is an instance, which we sometimes happily see, of a man's intuitions being better than his religious theory. The gist of the remarks to which we refer is found in the following sentence:—

"Perfect obedience to perfect commandments affords perfect liberty."

These are "acceptable words, even words of truth." Eccl. 12:10. But how a man can utter these words and with his Bible open before him oppose the law of Jehovah written therein, we cannot just see.

There is one law given in the Bible which has a claim above everything else to be called "the law of God"—the expression of the will of the most High. That law is the ten commandments. "God spake all these words." Everything else recorded in the Bible was committed to the people through human agency. But God spoke these words, and wrote them himself on tables of stone, and had them deposited in the most sacred place on earth. These bear the impress of Deity alone.

And to these reference is made in many places in both Testaments in such manner as to show that the writers and speakers regarded them as "perfect commandments." David said directly: "The law of the Lord is perfect." This law certainly existed in David's time. And Solomon said: "Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man; for God shall bring every work into judgment." Two important statements are here made: 1. These commandments contain the whole duty of man. Therefore they constitute a perfect, moral law. 2. By them man will be judged. They were not temporary and local, but they reach forward into the judgment. Therefore, this is the same law of which Paul spoke in Rom. 2, by which man will be judged, by which also he would have been justified if he had kept it, identified there as the law which forbids theft, adultery, the worship of idols, etc. This is sufficient as showing the perfection of the law which is written in the Old Testament. On the violation of this the New Testament is based. Had this been perfectly kept no gospel would have been needed.

The conclusion would be unavoidable, without even a word of proof, that this law would insure "perfect liberty" to all who kept it. But we have evidence on this point also. David said: "I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts." Ps. 119:45. The nature of this liberty may be learned from verse 165 of the same psalm: "Great peace have they that love thy law; and nothing shall offend them." The first psalm is a strong testimony of the blessedness of him whose "delight is in the law of the Lord."

James speaks twice of "the law of liberty." He says: "Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Jas. 1:25. And again: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point, or commandment], he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." Jas. 2:10-12. Here again is the same law identified; the law by which we shall be judged; and called the law of liberty.

But we must remember that perfect commandments afford perfect liberty only in perfect obedience thereto. If broken they condemn the transgressor; and the more complete and perfect the law, the more sure and terrible the condemnation. This shows the great folly of those who speak evil of the law because it condemns and will not justify the transgressor. None but a bad law would justify a sinner. It is not the province of law to justify its transgressor. "For we know that the law is spiritual." Rom. 7:14. It cannot harmonize with carnality, and the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom. 8:7.

All the outcry against the law is made to evade the claims of the Sabbath, of which the Lord said: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," no longer tread it under foot, "and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable," not sneer at it as "the old Jewish Sabbath," "and shalt honor him," etc.; God's honor is concerned in the memorial of his creation, "then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord." This is the greatest "liberty" we can enjoy; it is the sum of gospel blessings. And "the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it." And who dares contradict what he has spoken?

David loved the law of God, yet he prayed, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Ps. 119:18. Much more do they who oppose the holy law of God, need to have their eyes opened, that they may discern the holiness, justice, spirituality, and perfection of the law of Jehovah.