p. 1 | Untitled article by M. E. S.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 8, 1858

CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. No. 4.

By M. E. S.

BY M. E. S.

WE have noticed faith as the first condition of salvation. We can, after a moment's consideration, readily understand why this is necessarily the first requirement. Persons are induced to action in one of two ways; either by the power of force or by the power of motive. God never makes use of the former in the work of redemption; but leaving man a free moral agent, governed by his own volitions, he says, "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.". Yet, understanding he will not act without being impelled by force or motive, he sets before him "exceeding great and precious promises," that by motive power he may be influenced to perform the conditions required in order to their attainment. First, however, he must believe those promises are true before he will be induced to seek them; that verily "God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Thus we see faith consistently and necessarily stands first in the plan of salvation.

We would now ask for the conditions upon which these promises are based, in order to ascertain the next condition of salvation. We have seen that the promises embrace eternal life. Ezekiel tells us, [chap. xviii, 4,] "The soul that sinneth it shall die," hence the class of sinners are excluded from them. But what is sin? [Our inquiries must be minute in order to ascertain our own position regarding the promises.] John says, [1 John iii, 4,] "Sin is the transgression of the law." What law is here referred to? We have but two distinct laws given in Sacred Writ, and indeed one of these sprang from the other, since it was the ministration of it; and was known as the law of commandments contained in ordinances. This law consisted of types and shadows prefiguring the work of redemption to be accomplished by Christ, and was nailed to his cross when he suffered as the great antitype of the sacrifices contained in this ceremonial law. Eph. ii, 15. This law, therefore, having been done away at the death of Christ, could not convict Gentiles of sin, since "where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. iv, 15.

But of the other law, the law of God or Ten Commandments, none will admit that any part save the fourth was typical. Since the remaining nine were the embodiments of as many great principles, the transgression of which would be considered sin in all ages of the world. But why call the fourth commandment a type? We understand that shadows to be of any service must continue until they reach their substances. Thus the typical law was in force until the appearing of Christ, "who being come an High Priest of good things to come," which were shadowed forth by that law, himself, Jesus, took that law out of the way. Since the shadows in him and his ministration had reached their substances, and were consequently no longer necessary in the plan of redemption. Does the Sabbath of the Lord prefigure anything of the work of Christ, which work was instituted for the express purpose of bringing back the human race from their fallen state to that of primeval innocence and bliss? We answer, The Sabbath commandment says nothing of the work of Christ, nothing of sin or redemption, but points directly back to a work consummated prior to the fall of man, and says, "Remember" &c., because the Lord rested on the first seventh day of time, he sanctified it, i. e., set it apart, and hence all succeeding seventh days, must necessarily be sanctified time. Now how could God consistently ordain a type of man's redemption before man had fallen? He could not. The Sabbath claims priority of institution over all the other commandments, and must be as binding.

But suppose it was a type, prefiguring as some maintain, the heavenly rest. We have before remarked that a shadow cannot be of use, except as it continues until it reaches its substance. Thus in tracing the shadow of a tree for the purpose of finding the tree itself, the shadow must continue until it reaches the object that casts it, otherwise it were unavailing. But in the substance under consideration, the shadow that extends over the space of four thousand years, suddenly ceases; we pass over a distance of nearly two thousand years and then ushers in the great antitype alone, its type having long since ceased. How could we in such a case know with any certainty that the shadow which pretends to be such, at all prefigures that for which it is claimed? how many intervening objects might not such a shadow belong to?

Were the Sabbath a type, why should it be excluded from the christian dispensation? Is it because Christians have no interest in its antitype, the eternal Sabbath being designed only for Jews? This idea would darken the future too much for those who hold the above position, yet we think it consistent with their views. Then let us agreeably with God's word, discard the notion of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment's being a type, and leave it to fill the place designed for it by the Lord of the Sabbath.

Now since nothing but types and shadows were taken away by the death of Christ, we conclude that the perpetuity of the entire law remained unchanged at that time. We will now turn for a few moments to James ii, 10-13. "For he that said, [margin, that law which said,] Do not commit adultery; said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Now "where no law is, there is no transgression," for "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Hence the law here spoken of, must have been binding: James taught that it was the rule by which his brethren should be judged. "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." What law was here meant? What one contained the commandments cited? They are the sixth and seventh commandments of the decalogue, the very law that some believe was done away twenty-eight years previous to the time in which this epistle was written.

We have seen that the class of transgressors are excluded from the promises. Let us inquire, Whom does this class comprise? Paul represents the law as speaking, [Rom. iii, 19,] and it is evident it will effect some who are not under it. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." We see here, to be under the law, is to be under its condemnation; and that Paul pronounces the whole world guilty. Thus also verse 23. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We are now led to conclude that the whole human family are excluded from receiving the promises. Just here the earnest inquiry arises, Is there no hope, no remedy? and man cries out, as did the jailor to Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" or the convicted on the day of Pentecost, "Men and brethren what shall we do?" They already believed and now Peter tells them, [Acts ii, 38,] "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," &c.

Then repentance is here made the next or second condition of salvation. Is repentance elsewhere taught by inspiration to be necessary? Hear the Saviour discourse: [Luke xiii, 1-4,] "There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering, said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Also verse 5, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

What are we to understand by this term? It is evidently not of itself sorrow or remorse for sin, since those whom Peter addressed were already pricked in the heart. Macknight renders it reform in these and in all parallel passages. We believe there is but one true repentance, and that is produced by grief on account of sin. See 2 Cor. vii, 20. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation," &c. [Notice, the repentance is separate from the sorrow and produced by it. The Bible nowhere tells us how much sorrow we must have; but it is certain we must have enough to produce reformation, which as we have observed is the second condition; repentance would be the natural consequence of sorrow and regret for any given course of action.] The apostle also declares, "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." One led to act by the influence of motive, will only act while that motive possesses power. Thus persons who repent while simply under the influence of fear, will, when the fear is no longer felt, relapse into former habits. We have here one reason of so large a number who openly profess Christ in our popular exciting revivals so soon returning to former sinfulness.

We are now led to inquire into the nature of Bible repentance or reformation. What rule governs it? Evidently none other than that rule or law by the transgression of which man has forfeited his claim to the promises. Thus David says, [Ps. xix, 7,] "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." This law, the same that man has broken, will, if obeyed, convert or reform the soul, and the part that has been transgressed must govern the reform. Thus a thief may keep all ten of the commandments, save the eighth which says "Thou shalt not steal;" but while he persists in breaking that, he is not a reformed man. That alone will convict him of sin, and only that can become the rule of his reformation. Suppose this thief was at first transgressing all the commandments, and should return to the observance of all save the eighth, is he then perfectly reformed? is he not a sinner, a thief still? The same principle will apply as well to any other commandment. Suppose now he recognizes the binding nature of all the commandments, but not fully understanding them, is still not perfectly keeping all! has he now a repentance that needeth never to be repented of, i. e., a reformation that can be extended no further, since he has become perfectly obedient? Jas. ii, 10 says, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." How so James? Is a man just as depraved, who keeps all the commandments save one, and that, it may be partially, as another who is in the habitual violation of them all? This is certainly not the idea, since the Scriptures recognize degrees of wickedness. Compare Matt. xii, 45; xxiii, 15 and 2 Pet. ii, 20. What then shall we understand the Apostle to teach? Simply this: justification by the deeds of the law, is based on perfect and entire obedience, and the penalty of anything short of this is death. Since anything less than absolute obedience is sin, and "the soul that sinneth it shall die." The penalty can be no more for the transgression of the entire law. Capital punishment illustrates this idea. A man in the State of Illinois is punishable with death for the murder of one individual, while should he kill ten, instead of being sentenced to ten deaths in consequence, he can receive no greater penalty than for the murder of one.

We can now, I think, understand the nature of repentance as brought to view in the Bible. It is no partial reformation; but the repentance to salvation produced by godly sorrow, is that which is not to be repented of. 2 Cor. vii, 20. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of." It is becoming "dead to sin." Romans. Now a person is not dead while he retains the last remains of life. But it may be replied, One certainly repents if he embraces and observes what he at the time supposes to be all God's requirements, although in reality, he be ignorantly in the habitual violation of some part of the divine law. We would ask if God expresses his requirements in such a manner as to justify this conclusion? If so, why talk of a repentance that needeth not to be repented of? and why did not James say he that offends knowingly in one point is guilty of all? Jehovah has in his plan made no allowance for ignorance. His requirements are all expressed positively, absolutely. It may be asked then, what will be the destiny of our forefathers, who lived and died in the habitual violation of the fourth commandment. We would answer, They are in the hands of the Lord, and "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" but from certain expressions in Holy Writ, we conclude that they will not be judged by the light we have. Thus Paul declared, "I was alive without the law once" (i. e. the knowledge of the law,) if alive it must have been because sin was not imputed, and with it condemnation; "but," (says he) "when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." As soon as Paul understood that he had been breaking the law, he realized that death, the penalty of the law rested upon him. Then, although he had as he thought, perhaps repented before, he now finds he had not the repentance required, since he is obliged to repent still further. And had he eventually been justified by it, his justification would manifestly have been out of the plan of salvation laid down by inspiration. It is evident that condemnation results from rejecting light. See John iii, 19.

Dear brethren and sisters, shall we apply the foregoing? When we were observing the first day of the week for the Sabbath of the Lord instead of that required by the fourth commandment, were we perfectly obedient to God's requirements, and hence had no further need of reformation? Again, when we supposed we were keeping that commandment, but instead, except twice in the year observed a part of two days, did we then have a repentance which admitted no reform, because it was perfect? We may endeavor to justify ourselves on the plea of ignorance and conscientiousness; but could not some who keep the first day, especially those (and such there are) who admit the perpetuity of the law, and suppose they are keeping the fourth commandment, claim justification on the same ground? Nothing can make a repentance which is not perfect Bible repentance, as we have already seen. But a word to the wise is sufficient.