THE LAW AND TESTIMONY by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 28, 1875

THE LAW AND TESTIMONY

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE GIFTS AND OFFICES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.—NO. 6.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

THE LAW AND TESTIMONY.

According to Rev. 12:17, war will be made with the remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. This shows both the perfect agreement between keeping the law and having the power of the Spirit, and the opposition which will exist, and already exists to a great extent, against the law and the testimony. It is a well-known truth that the indignation of the world and a worldly church is quickly aroused against those who keep all the commandments of God, just as they were written and spoken by the Lord. But nothing seems so readily to arouse the prejudice, yes, the hatred and malice of the carnal mind, as the manifestation of the spirit of prophecy. The world bestows its incredulous smile as if it pitied the folly of those who could embrace the promise of God as a reality (that incredulous smile often proving more cutting than the severest language), while a proud and worldly church cannot restrain its feelings of scorn for, or abhorrence of, those who humbly and reverently claim “the promise of the Spirit” according to the words of both Christ and his apostles. Surely the fulfillment of the prophecy, Rev. 12:17, is no mystery to those who are intently watching the signs of the times, and have noted the feelings of popular religionists toward those who dare to reprove the lukewarmness of the present age, in which so many have “the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.”

This connection between the law and the means and benefits of the gospel is logically deduced from the preaching of the apostle on the day of Pentecost. That the law was not abolished at the crucifixion is proved in this, that not a sermon was preached—not a duty made known—between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost; and the first duties enjoined on that day were repentance for sin and baptism for the remission of sin. Now it is plain to see that if the law was previously abolished, and if men were to look to the apostles for the proclamation of a new code, then the whole transaction was a failure, inasmuch as “where no law is there is no transgression,” and of course no call for repentance. Again, “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” and therefore to preach baptism for remission of sin when no law existed would be a sheer absurdity. If the law which had existed was abolished at the cross, no one could be convicted under it; and as no law for the new dispensation had yet been given by the apostles, it would follow necessarily that no one was at that time bound by any law; sin could not be imputed to them at all. Therefore, according to this antinomian notion the preaching of repentance and baptism at that time was a nullity—mere sound without sense. Thus it is easily shown that the doctrine of the antinomians—the no-law theorists—more than perverts the gospel; it subverts it; it saps its very foundations, leaving it destitute of life and power. It is virtually a rejection of the gospel, both in its facts and its promises.

It has been remarked that baptism has not only its form, but also its order and relations. It is often urged that if its form be changed—if it be no longer immersion or a burial, as the word signifies and the illustrations of Scripture indicate—it ceases to be the baptism of the gospel; and when administered under such change it is not valid. But let us consider its necessary relations. We learn that baptism is for the remission of sin; also that sin is the transgression of the law, and that sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore, if no law existed from the cross to the day of Pentecost, as must have been the case if the law was abolished at the cross, then there could be no sin imputed at that time of which to repent or for which to be baptized. Now as baptism stands related to sin, and sin is related to an existing law, it follows that the law did exist; for sin was imputed to them.

Thus it is shown that Peter’s preaching would have been groundless and of no force if the law had been abolished. Even so now, all who preach the abolition of the law preach a gospel (so-called) without any basis; it is a nullity. As it is a nullity, and not the gospel in fact, not being a system of salvation from the transgression of the law, the baptism enjoined in such preaching is not truly gospel baptism; it is deprived of its relations and of its significance, and therefore of its efficacy. And all who administer baptism under such teachings are offenders against the gospel.

This conclusion is logical; it is unavoidable, and is not drawn from this text alone. In Rom. 6:1–6, baptism is called a burial, and, of course, should be subsequent to death; for all must admit that it is wrong to bury before death. But the death which precedes baptism is death to sin, to the transgression of the law. It is expressly said in verse 2 that we cannot be dead to sin and live in it; but we do live in it as long as we continue to transgress the law. We do not die to sin until we cease to transgress the law, and therefore baptism, or burial, cannot properly take place while we continue to transgress the law. We are to be buried in the order or likeness of Christ’s death which is thus stated:—

“For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. 15:3, 4.

Now, if ceasing to transgress the law is dying to sin, as all must admit, then no one can be planted in the likeness of Christ’s death who has not ceased to transgress the law, from the evident truth that Christ died before he was buried. There is no mistaking this point. He that transgresses the law lives in sin; if he lives in sin he has not died to it; if he has not died to it he is not prepared to be buried; and if he is so buried he is buried alive, that is, without a death to sin, and hence is not buried in the likeness of the Saviour’s death. Such baptism is not in the order of the gospel—it is only a perversion of gospel baptism.

And this is still further shown in Rom. 7:1–6. This scripture says the law holds a man as long as he lives, and the woman who marries a second husband before the death of the first is guilty of adultery. In the application of this fact Paul says to his brethren:—

“Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead.” Rom. 7:4.

The wages of sin is death. There would be no death if there were no sin. Thus we see that Paul is arguing concerning man in his sinful condition. The law would not thus hold man unto death if he had not sinned—if his life was not forfeited. The death here referred to is on account of sin; the same that is spoken of in chap. 6—there called a death to sin. But without this death they cannot “be married to another,” even to Christ. Marriage to another without such death would be spiritual adultery. This is the force and intent of this scripture. The old man must be crucified, the body of sin destroyed—chap. 6:6; and every effort to unite this body of sin to Christ must meet with his decided disapproval. On this subject it is said in another text:—

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27.

As union with Christ is represented by the figure of being married to him, so baptism is the ordinance by which that marriage is said to be consummated. The marriage ceremony does not unite the hearts of the parties; if there is no previously existing union of hearts the marriage ceremony is but mockery. So baptism does not in spirit unite us to Christ, but it is the legal rite by which that union is acknowledged and ratified. It is an established rule in all governments that he makes himself guilty who solemnizes the rite of marriage without legal authority, or where there are impediments and disabilities which forbid the marriage, while the parties suffer the shame of an illegal union. This is exactly the position of the parties where baptism is administered before the candidate has died to sin. While he is yet living in transgression of the law, the rite is illegally administered; the marriage is a nullity, and the administrator is liable to indictment.

The arguing of this point is not a digression from our subject. Its bearing on “the promise” of Acts 2:38, 39, is easily seen. “The gift of the Holy Ghost” is promised to those who repent of sin, and who are baptized for the remission of sin. But it is proved that antinomianism ignores genuine repentance and the burial of him who is dead to the transgression of the law, by ignoring the law itself, by which is the knowledge of sin. Therefore, it has no just claim to “the promise,” there being no legal fulfillment of the condition. Thus it is shown that antinomianism, or a denial of the perpetuity of the law of God, shuts out the Spirit of God and neutralizes the promise of the gospel.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”

Here we will state an interesting fact and notice an objection. In a work on the relation of different church doctrines to moral obligations, we recently read the following words:—

“The Methodist Conference under Wesley, in 1770, declared that the universal immorality then prevailing was because of the widespread opinion that Christ had annulled the moral law, and that evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments.”

“Wesley’s notes” on this Conference drew forth upon him and upon the work of the Methodists severe criticisms from certain dignitaries of the established church. And these in turn brought out “Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism,” a work worthy of the careful reading of every searcher for Bible truth. This is an interesting item of ecclesiastical history, and it serves to prove the statement we have made that antinomianism has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. But an objection has been raised upon it which well deserves notice. It has been said that while the Methodists condemned the no-law theory, and advocated the ten commandments as God’s great rule of morality, they did not themselves keep the law; for the law says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work,” but they called the first day the Sabbath, and kept it instead of the day indicated in the law; and that they therefore really occupied a ground similar to that of those whom they reproved.

Admitting the correctness of the statement concerning the teaching of the law, to argue which is not our present purpose, the reply is thus made: There is a very wide difference between the position of those who acknowledge the authority of the law, who make it the avowed and actual intention of their lives to keep the law, even though they are mistaken in some points of duty enjoined therein, and those who deny the authority of the law, who declare it to be the object of their lives to repudiate and to disregard its claims. The position of the former is that of loyal citizens laboring under certain mistakes in regard to duty; while the latter are disloyal, virtually denying the constitutional authority of the government. If the ideas of the latter could be carried out to their legitimate results, the government would be entirely overthrown.

On this consideration we readily vindicate the early Methodists, and all others who recognize the existence and the claims of the law of God, from the reproach which must fall upon those who repudiate the law and deny its authority. And the providence of God has justified our position in regard to this; for he has often blessed the former with his Spirit, while he has as generally withheld it from the latter.

But this vindication must not be abused, and made to favor selfishness in religion. When God in his providence calls our attention to any truth of his word, and gives us light thereon, there can be no excuse for rejecting or neglecting it, however sincere our former lives may have been, or however unpopular that truth may be, or to whatever extent it may cross our feelings or clash with our worldly interests.

Among those who have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof, in the last days, are said to be “false accusers.” One false accusation raised against those who plead for the power of godliness and for the divinely appointed means of Christian unity is, that to claim to be led by the Spirit, or to possess gifts of the Spirit, is to claim infallibility. If any should make such a claim, or try to avail themselves of the benefits of such a claim, they would abuse the promises, and forfeit the favor of God. The accusation might lie against such persons, but not against those who hold and rightly use the truth on the subject. God never inspired any one so as to make him infallible. To do this would be to take away his individuality, or his freedom of will, and consequently to remove him from probation. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, were all highly gifted of the Spirit, and yet they all erred. Of the gifts of the first two there will be no question. Of Barnabas the record says: “He was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” Yet he and Paul so differed in judgment that they had a sharp contention, and as a consequence separated in their labors. This was wrong; it was contrary to what Paul wrote by inspiration. Peter seriously erred and was rebuked by Paul. And thus is shown that they who were most highly

gifted were not always under the immediate influence of the Spirit so as to be preserved from erring. They were fallible, and dependent upon Heaven for help and strength which they received only through faith and prayer.

When the apostles were first sent forth with power over unclean spirits, they could not cast a demon out of a certain child; and the Saviour said it was because of their unbelief. Paul said they prophesied “according to the proportion of faith.” Rom. 12:6. God never endowed any one so that he could live at ease, or in carelessness, without constant zeal, and yet be in possession of supernatural power, which he could exercise according to his own will. It is God that doeth the work, and he will work to his own glory, and through such only as are humble enough to seek his glory. When “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” their speaking was the speaking of the Holy Spirit, and it must be infallible, even as God is true. But the men themselves were not infallible.

It is so far from being true that the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit lead to a claim of infallibility that they who take the opposite ground are really the egotists. For that is egotism and self-esteem which leads any to profess the ability within themselves to do all that God requires, to perfect holiness and to glorify him without his aid, independent of the means which he has ordained and set forth in his gospel. Without Christ we can do nothing; and we are only strong when strong in the might of God. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” The accusation is as unreasonable as it is unjust.

May the Lord Jesus fulfill to us his promise, and be with us and lead us to his own glory.