Is the Bible Sufficient?
By J. N. A.
THE RULE OF PROTESTANTS: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. THE PAPISTS' RULE: "All Scripture &c. Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it." Note of the Doway (Catholic) Bible on 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. We submit the foregoing rules to the consideration of those who love the word of God. Perhaps the most important difference between Protestants and Papists arise in the choice of these rules. On this grand question Protestants and Papists have ever joined issue. Those who have received God's word as the rule of their lives, have claimed that by the word alone, they might be made perfect, and be thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Those who have attempted to sustain human institutions, have added to this perfect rule the traditions of the Church. The question now arises which of these rules shall we adopt. If the former, then we are bound to reject human institutions which claim support from us as religious duties; if the latter, then we are bound to become Papists; for the tradition of the church establishes Mass, the worship of the Virgin, the adoration of saints, the first-day Sabbath, Purgatory, Indulgences, &c. This is not a question of trifling importance. The Bible is a sufficient rule or it is not. If it is a sufficient rule who may presume to add to it "the tradition of the Elders?" If it is not a sufficient rule who shall amend it? These thoughts are suggested by an article in the Advent Herald of April 19th, from the pen of "D. T. T.," in which the writer attempts to show by the aid of tradition, that the first day of the week is the "Lord's day," and that it ought to be religiously observed in the place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. That in this position he occupies the ground of the Papists as expressed in the second rule, will not be denied. Had he attempted to enforce the first-day Sabbath by divine authority, we would not lay this to his charge. There are, however, many very obvious reasons why some other rule beside the Bible should be resorted to by those who would sustain the first-day Sabbath. Every student of the Bible is aware that no mention is made in the word of God of a change of the Sabbath. No text can be found which teaches us that the first day is sanctified time, nor can a single sentence be found requiring us to keep it holy. Hence the necessity of adding tradition to the word of God. The apostle Paul, to whom appeal is made in the Herald, testified that he had "kept back nothing that was profitable," but we ask where in any of its teachings did he show that the observance of the first day had taken the place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment? If it be answered that he showed the duty of observing the first-day Sabbath by uniting with the disciples on one occasion, to break bread on that day, we answer that he pursued his journey on the same day in which he broke bread. Acts 20:7-12. If it be objected further that respect was early paid to the first day, and that we are under obligation to follow the example of antiquity, we answer that, when "the tradition of the Elders" makes "void the commandment of God," it is a heaven-daring sin to render obedience to the commandments of men in the place of the holy law of God. Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 17:1-13. But we deny that antiquity is on the side of those who observe the first day. We appeal not to uninspired and fallible men like ourselves, we go back beyond them, and appeal to the oracles of God, to those who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The man who will show from their writings, another Sabbath beside that which is styled the Sabbath of the Lord, will do that which has never yet been done. Until, however, this is done, we shall be constrained to deny the divine origin of the first-day Sabbath, and consider it a counterfeit, occupying the place of the Sabbath of the Lord. Hear the apostle Paul with reference to the Romish apostasy, Thess. 2.—Was that apostasy to be consummated at once? Was the "Man of Sin" to arise at once in his full strength and commence his blasphemous work? Far from it. He testifies that the mystery of iniquity had already begun to work, and that in the predicted time the "Man of Sin" would be revealed. Hence we may trace the apostasy back even to the days of the apostles, where it began imperceptibly to develop itself. How then may the truths of the gospel be distinguished from the errors of men? We answer, make the word of God your only rule, receive what is written therein and reject all beside. That the Protestant world now cherish an institution without foundation in Scripture, which was established by the gradual development of the great apostasy, can only be accounted for by the fact that Protestants have adopted the rule of the Romists in the place of their own; viz.: the Bible and tradition, in the place of the Bible alone. That the institution of the first-day Sabbath was not of divine origin, but a tradition of the Elders by which the fourth commandment is made void, the historical quotations given in the Herald abundantly prove. That the change of the holy Sabbath was gradually brought about, and not consummated till the commencement of the 1260 years of antichrist's reign, is also a matter of fact. The Council of Orleans, A. D., 528, accomplished this work. The word of God shows that the dragon is yet to make war on the remnant of the Church who keep the commandments of God; and that the two-horned beast is yet to require on pain of death, that we worship the image of the first beast and receive his mark. Hence it is evident that the claims of the beast are to be enforced on those who keep the commandments of God. Rev. 12:17; 13:15, 16. Those who acknowledge the authority of the beast, will then receive his mark—this counterfeit Sabbath of the beast; for it is the act of bringing this to a test which will constitute it emphatically the mark of the beast, or mark of that power that should "think to change time and laws." "As to me," says Martin Luther, "I do not cease my crying of 'The Gospel! the Gospel! —Christ! Christ!' and my enemies are as ready with their answer—'Custom! Custom! —Ordinances! Ordinances! —Fathers! Fathers!' 'That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God,' says St. Paul." We are not, however, at a loss to show from the Bible, what day God has set apart for himself and called his holy day. "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Gen. 2:3. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day," &c. Isa. 53:13. "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1:10. The seventh day is the only day which God has claimed as his—The only one which he has required us to keep holy. Those who dare to make void the commandments of God that they may keep the tradition of the Elders, do it at their own peril. To such we commend the following from the Book of God: "Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar. Prov. 30:6. J. N. A.
Paris, Me., May 8, 1851.