Logical Deductions of Antinomianism.
By William Covert
TRUTH is consistent at every standpoint from which it is viewed. Every truth is in harmony with itself and with every other truth. The conclusions arrived at from truthful premises always beautify the premises. Error also has certain necessary conclusions which must stand logically related to the premises upon which they are based; but the advocates of error are seldom willing to acknowledge the logical conclusions that grow out of their positions. It is characteristic of falsehood to deny its own children. Not so with truth; she loves her offspring and feels that she is honored by her relations. God's law is emphatically "the truth." "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth." Ps. 119: 142. Everlasting righteousness is based upon everlasting principles of truth found in the law of truth, which, if properly obeyed, will produce this righteousness. This truth relates to all the commandments in the law spoken of, for says the psalmist, "All thy commandments are truth." And again, "The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting." This truth stated by God's word is now denied by a large class of professed Christians. In its stead they offer the gospel of Christ. The premise laid down by them is that the law of God was abolished at the cross of Christ, and that now only the gospel is to be obeyed. When requested to explain what the gospel is, they answer that the "gospel is the good news of salvation through Jesus." When asked to further explain, and tell from what man is to be saved, they reply that he is to be "saved from sin." But what is sin? If the law is not now binding, the violation of it cannot be sin. So sin must now be "the transgression of the gospel." But we ask further, Shall we regard the gospel as a moral system? or shall we regard it as a remedial system? We receive the answer that "it is a remedial system, because it saves." But from what does it save? Of course it must save from the transgression of the gospel!! The position necessitates this conclusion. What would our antinomian friends think of the wisdom of a physician who would tell them that they must all freely partake of a certain remedy or perish, simply because the remedy has an existence? If they should give credence to his testimony, would they not conclude that the shortest and safest road to health would be in the destruction of the remedy? If sin is the transgression of the gospel, how can the gospel be the good news of salvation from sin? Again, if the transgression of the gospel is that which first condemns a man under sin, then we want to know how an individual can be regarded as a sinner where the gospel of Christ has not been preached? It is evident, as viewed from the antinomian standpoint, that the heathen world are not sinners. If not sinners, Christ did not die for them. If he has not died for them, how can he save them? According to the theory advocated by this class of people, Christ either universally and unconditionally redeemed all mankind by the abolition of the law that condemned them, or else they are universally lost on account of the violation of the gospel, because there is not another gospel provided to save them from the condemnation of the one they have transgressed. New London, Ind. WM. COVERT.