"APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE" VERSUS "POSITIVE PRECEPT."
By G.
EVEN Baptists (except Seventh-day Baptists) accept the mythical plea of "apostolic example" for Sunday observance. As the Scriptures give no such warrant, the assumption is based solely on tradition, and traditional authority for religious dogma in the professed Christian Church is papal in principle. Baptist history and much Baptist literature show that Baptists are, at least theoretically, bound to this position. Attention is called to this fact because of a recent utterance of the pastor of Messiah Baptist Church, Trenton, N. J., who is reported as saying that "apostolic example has all the moral force of a direct and positive precept." Such a position places the example of fallible man on an equality with the law of God, while even Christ made the Word of God the standard of His example. By the Spirit of prophecy before His advent He had declared, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart." Ps. 40:8. Again He lays down this principle, "He that is of God heareth God's words." John 8:47. "I have not spoken of Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." Ch. 12:49. "I speak that which I have seen with My Father." Ch. 8:38. In praying to His Father for His disciples, He said, "I have given them Thy Word." John 17:14. "Tho He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered." Heb. 5:8. Such was the example which the Scriptures set for us to follow. 1 Peter 2:21. In all the apostolic injunctions to follow apostolic example, there is the incentive that the apostle has followed Christ. The only apostle who enjoins the brethren to follow him is Paul, and he invariably implies that the following is to be in the things wherein he has followed the Lord. There is no instance where he sets up his own example to be followed independently of the word or example of Christ. See 1 Cor. 4:15, 16; 11:1-3; Phil. 3:13-17; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 2 Thess. 3:6-16. In all these instances the purpose is not to "draw away disciples" from the commandments of God, after the apostle himself, but to establish them in the teaching of Christ by both precept and example. This is further demonstrated by Paul's charge to Timothy to "preach the Word;" by his assertion that the Scriptures "are able to make thee wise unto salvation," and by his further assertion that through the Scriptures "the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." See 2 Tim. 3:14 to 4:2. But when we assume that "apostolic example has all the moral force of a direct and positive precept," we are confronted by some conflicting examples which it is difficult to reconcile as "positive precepts." When Paul would have Timothy accompany him in his labors, he circumcised him. Acts 16:1-3. Here was apostolic example, but if it had "all the moral force of a direct and positive precept," then the apostle himself was afterward at fault, for he did not have Titus circumcised. Gal. 2:3. Here is another instance of conflicting apostolic example: Paul says that "when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him [following apostolic example]; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulations." Verses 11, 12. And Paul adds that "they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." Verse 14. On one occasion we read of Paul's "having shorn his head in Cenchrea; for he had a vow." Acts 18:18. Afterward, when he came to Jerusalem, James and the elders gave him some advice about the expediency of his observing certain Jewish ceremonies. They said there were thousands of Jews there who believed, and they had heard that Paul had been teaching the Jews to "forsake Moses," and not "to walk after the customs." So they said to Paul, "We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads; and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing;7but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." Ch. 21:23, 24. Now, notwithstanding Paul had been teaching that "circumcision is nothing," and that the ceremonials of the Mosaic dispensation were done away in Christ, he followed the advice of the elders, of whom James was the leader. "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them [ceremonially] entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them." Verse 26. However, the expedient did not work; for before the dead ceremony was finished, the very trouble that it was designed to forestall came upon Paul. He was set upon by a Jewish mob, and would have been killed but for the interference of Roman soldiers. This is a very striking instance of "apostolic example;" but there are few, if any, of the advocates of the legal force of such prestige who will maintain that any one is under obligation to follow this particular example. A council of Jewish believers had before decided that the Gentile disciples need "observe no such thing." James had suggested the concession, and Paul had circulated it among the Gentiles far and wide. Now if "apostolic example" were to make circumcision and the whole ceremonial law binding upon the Jews, there would be one law for the Jews and another very different law for the Gentiles. But this would be in contravention of apostolic teaching that in the image of Christ "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all." Col. 3:11. Apostolic example as a plea in support of dogma not indorsed by the Word of God, is a delusion and a snare; even where the example is a matter of fact; but where the alleged example is wholly mythical, as in the case of Sunday observance, infant baptism, sprinkling, etc., the doctrine thus supported becomes, if possible, even more deceptive. G.