MUST WE MURDER TO BE SAVED?
So we are taught by Daniel P. Pike, in the Herald of Gospel Liberty, of March 2, 1878. And he teaches not only that we must murder, but lie, steal, commit adultery, dishonor parents, covet, swear, and worship other gods, to be justified by Christ. This may seem like a pretty strong charge; and it is. But we will submit his own words, and the reader may sit as juror in the case. The article to which we refer was called out by some Sabbath tracts sent to this man by a friend, with the inquiry why he should not obey what they taught. In response to this, Mr. P. launches out in a ranting, rambling drive against “visions,” “Moses,” “old covenant,” “law,” “Sinai,” “stone,” “Judaism,” “the flesh,” “school-master,” in contrast with “Christ,” “all things made new,” “grace,” “faith,” &c., overriding the plainest distinctions, and rendering the teachings of God’s word an indistinguishable mass of chaos and confusion. The particular paragraph to which we call the attention of the reader is the following:— “To make the observance of Saturday necessary to salvation or eternal life, would be to make one of the deeds of the law, or one of its works, turn on the observance of the seventh day, and thus justify by the deeds of the law, which the apostle Paul says is not true. I think Paul knew and told the truth.” This, ambiguous as it is, is about the straightest piece of phraseology in the article, and we put it first in evidence to sustain our charge. The fourth commandment of the decalogue is a command uttered by the voice of God, in connection with nine other commandments, which, together with this, cover all our duty to God and to our fellow-men. “Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12:13. This commandment enjoins the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord our God. It is founded in the very nature of things; for it is just as natural to devote some time to the worship of a supreme being, as it is to perform that worship itself. And the day is particularly and expressly specified: the seventh day of the week upon which God rested from the work of creation. It can be no other day, any more than some other day than the 4th of July can be the day on which to celebrate American independence. Now if the decalogue is binding, this is what God requires of us in reference to his Sabbath; and if we refuse to comply, we violate his commandments, and must answer at his bar for our transgression. Mr. Pike is trying to show not only that this commandment need not be kept, but more, that we must not keep it; for if we do we fall from grace, and lose the favor of Christ. He quotes Gal. 5:4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” But unfortunately for these no-Sabbath men, there are nine other precepts, the obligation of which rests upon exactly the same basis as that of the fourth. If they can show that the Sabbath is not to be kept, we can show that the others are not to be kept. If they can show that to keep the Sabbath is to be justified by the law, we can show the same of the others. If they can show the others re-enacted, we can show that the Sabbath is re-enacted also. Now mark his argument: We must not keep the Sabbath, in other words, we must not keep the fourth commandment; if we do we seek to be justified by the law, and fall from grace. But what is the difference between this and the other commandments? Do we not fall from grace just as much by trying to keep them? Beyond all controversy, we do. Then, according to his argument, we must not keep them to be accepted of Christ. But not to keep the sixth commandment, is to kill, and so with the others; not to keep them is to do the things which they forbid. Reader, do not be thrown off your guard by these theological jugglers. Whatever they say about the fourth commandment, do not forget to test upon the others. But it will be said that the others have been re-enacted. Against this we enter an unqualified denial. Not a single commandment can be found re-enacted in the New Testament. That mention is made of some of them we admit, but they are only quotations in as few words as possible from the original ten. But these quotations amount to nothing if, as Mr. Pike claims, the ten were abolished at the cross. A few other deformities in this argument demand notice. He endeavors to dissuade from the observance of the seventh day by such expressions as this: “Nowhere does Jesus command us to keep Saturday.” We wonder where he commands us to keep Sunday. Again: “No such text can be found that requires us to obey the thunders of Sinai in ‘blackness and darkness.’” What does he mean by this? There is no such expression used in the Bible in regard to the giving of the law on Sinai. It was prompted by the same spirit which led another man to denounce the ten commandments as a “miserable, rickety, thunder and lightning old law, which is dead and buried, and don’t deserve a grave-stone.” Truly we may well “think Paul knew and told the truth,” when he said that “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7. Is it “blackness and darkness” to forbid murder, theft, adultery, and blasphemy? Does he mean that the law of God is unjust and imperfect, adapted to a dark and imperfect state? David says that it is perfect. Ps. 19:7. Solomon says that to keep it is man’s whole duty. Paul says that it is “spiritual,” “holy, just, and good.” Rom. 7:12, 14. And James says that we are all to be judged by this law at last. Jas. 2:10-12. And this is the law which Mr. Pike takes it upon himself so defiantly to slander. To prove the law abolished, he quotes, “The law was until John.” To prove it again he quotes, “Christ is the end of the law.” The law could not end at two places. If it ended at John, it did not end at Christ. Which will he take? Finally he says, “The Jewish Sabbath has given way to Christ’s day, Lord’s day. ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.’ This day is Christian’s day, preferred to Jew’s day, Sinai’s Sabbath of stone memory.” If the day, Sunday, occupies this position by divine appointment, it is entitled to respect and regard. Indeed, we disregard it at our peril. But now hear him again:— “For many reasons I prefer to keep Lord’s day the first day of the week. I think all days are sacred and are the Lord’s. I can enjoy a meeting of worship any day when convenient. God is pleased with Christian worship anywhere and at any time. As I read the words of Jesus, it is not Jerusalem’s temple or Samaria’s mountain, or a particular place for worship. The first day of the week in China may not be the first day of the week in America.” Thus does he surrender the whole argument, and ignominiously confess that he has no confidence in his own reasoning. All days are sacred, all Lord’s days, one just as good as another; and, in short, you can’t tell when the first day is, anyway! Again, Mr. Pike replies to his friend who said he fears the loss of eternal life, if he does not obey, in these words: “Did this trouble you when under conviction? Did it trouble you at conversion? Had you not better walk in Christ as you received him?” In accordance with this we suppose if a man receives Christ as a Roman Catholic, he must never come to the truth of Protestantism. If he receives him as a Methodist, and is sprinkled, he must never be troubled about the Bible doctrine of immersion, nor come to its practice. In short, he must never advance a single step beyond his first experience, and never “grow” or “increase” in the knowledge of the truth. Here, in all its intensity, is the gospel of spiritual stagnation and death. When we take this in connection with another statement made by Mr. Pike, his crude and ill-digested ideas on this subject are fully accounted for. He says he began to read the Bible at nine years of age, and, converted at fifteen, read it with new feelings, and has seen no occasion to change for years, &c. About that time we infer he took his position. The trouble is he decided too young; and not allowing himself to grow, he is where he now is. Now we commend to him the example of Paul, who said that when he became a man he put away childish things. Says Mr. P., “I long since gave this subject a careful and prayerful examination.” As to its carefulness, the reader can judge by the positions he takes. And as to its prayerfulness, Solomon says, Prov. 28:9, that if a man turns away his ears from hearing the law even his prayer is an abomination.