p. 100 | REMARKS ON THE ABOVE by John Harvey Waggoner

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 17, 1859

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.

By John Harvey Waggoner

The above objections and remarks are gladly received, and no "animosity" will be created by such a course in yourself or any other, and no "feelings" will arise, except those of respect and kindness for any one who, with such frankness, avows his own belief, and his difference from ours. And my hope and prayer is that the same spirit of candor and frankness will lead you to see and renounce the errors into which you have fallen. Permit me to use equal plainness of speech in reviewing your objections.

On your first, I would ask, Are you sure that the transgression of any of the ten commandments was not involved in the action of Adam? I consider the law a unit, as expressed by James, and no man can transgress one without doing violence to all. Please examine again the action of Adam in connection with the first, fifth, eighth, and tenth commandments. If you deny any such connection it will show that your position is what it appears to be from your language; namely, that Christ died only because Adam ate of a certain fruit, and that other actions, though of a similar nature, bear no relation to it.

Your reference to Rom. v for proof seems inconsiderate. The “many offences” of verse 16 will not bear you out in your construction of this passage. And we are obliged to believe that, in our representative, Adam, we are “made sinners” actually or by imputation. If only by imputation, and not in reality, then the conclusion from your premise would be that our personal sins were not to be brought into the account. Compare verse 1, with chap. viii, 7. But if actually, (as I believe, the scripture teaches,) then to sustain your position, our actual sins must be precisely the same as Adam’s; that is, we have all actually and personally eaten of the same fruit of the same tree, for, for this act alone Christ died. I trust you will not be slow to abandon such a position.

Second, you say you would not risk the gift of salvation on my responsibility. I should hope not. But I never offered it on my responsibility; and were I authorized to offer it, you could not obtain it on that consideration, for the law already condemns you as a transgressor. But so far from offering anything on my own responsibility, I gave the direct testimony of the word of God; and I hazard no more in the case than I do in offering salvation to the believer in Christ. I am warranted in offering it on the responsibility of God’s promise. Am I at liberty to believe less than God says? When I read that “the doers of the law shall be justified,” shall I say, No! men would be cursed of God whether obedient or disobedient? The idea is as repugnant to my reason as to my reverence. God forbid that I should ever so far lose sight of the justice of God or the holiness of his law as to say that the obedient and the transgressor are alike in his eyes. But the Apostle further declares that “all have sinned,” and “THEREFORE by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.” After transgression, condemnation is by the law, and justification by faith, but the nature, completeness, and perfection of the law, is not changed by our voluntarily and sinfully changing our relation to it.

I am surprised that you should quote Luke xviii. or any other scripture to prove that any man has kept all the commandments, much more that you say Jesus admitted that the ruler had kept them. Such an admission is neither expressed nor implied in the context while the opposite is plainly shown in the Scriptures. The conclusion of the ruler’s case you do not give. He went away sorrowful for he was very rich. Now read Matt. xxii, 37–40. “On these two”—love to God and our fellow-man—“hang all the law.” Read carefully the first four commandments in Ex. xx. Can any one, destitute of love to God, keep them? Some say that a man may keep all the commandments, and not love God; but an examination of the first two will show the contrary. Hatred and the working of iniquity are on one side; on the other, love and keeping the commandments; and thus keeping the commandments is the opposite of working iniquity. But love and breaking the commandments are never coupled together, for obedience is the only test of love. Hence, love is the fulfilling (not transgressing) of the law. See Rom. ii, 25, 27. With this point established, read 1 John ii, 15: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Matt. vi, 24. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” I know of no other service acceptable to God than obedience to him or to his law. Without this all forms of worship are but vain pretence, as it is written: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. xxviii, 9; Matt. xv, 6–9. But the ruler was a slave to mammon, therefore not a servant of God; and his own declaration that he had kept the commandments is worth no more than that of others in the following cases. Matt. vii, 21–23; Titus i, 16.

Again, a covetous or avaricious disposition, [synonymous, according to Webster,] is also idolatrous, according to Paul. And the spirituality and comprehensiveness of the commandments are shown by our Saviour in Matt. v. With all this evidence before us, let us try the ruler’s case by 1 John iii, 17: “But whoso hath this world’s goods and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” It does not seem to me possible that you can examine and compare this testimony with the ruler’s case and then say that he had kept all the commandments.

On the text parallel to the one in question, I cannot do better than to quote from Bro. J. N. Andrews’ pamphlet on the “Perpetuity of the Royal Law.”

“There can be but one of two positions taken with respect to this text: 1. When the Saviour said, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ he named all the commandments which the young man should keep; or 2. When the Saviour said, ‘Keep the commandments,’ he enjoined obedience to them all, and then in answer to the young man’s inquiry, pointed him to the precepts of the second table, namely, his duty to his fellow-men, as that in which he was most deficient. If the first position be correct, it follows that the young man could enter into life in the character of an idolater, a blasphemer, a Sabbath-breaker, and with an heart full of covetousness; for our Lord omitted to specify any of those precepts which define our duty to God, and he also omitted the tenth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not covet.’ This position needs no refutation, and we turn from it to the other. That the second position is correct, namely, that Christ enjoined obedience to all the commandments, and then in answer to the young man’s request, pointed him to the second table, and to the second of the two great commandments—his duty to his fellow-man—the following facts plainly evince: 1. This is exactly what is recorded in the text. 2. The view that Christ specified all the precepts which the young man should observe has been shown to be false and unreasonable. 3. When the young man insisted that he was blameless in regard to his duty to his fellow-men, our Lord applied a test to him which undeceived him at once. 4. When Christ said, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ he spoke in harmony with his own words in Matt. v, 17–19. There he had declared that not even the minutest particle should pass from the commandments till the heavens and the earth should flee away, and that whosoever should violate one of the least of them, should be of no esteem in the reign of heaven. Then, our Lord being allowed to explain his own words, it follows that to keep the commandments, is to observe every one of them; and that the willful violator of the least one, shall have no part in the kingdom of God. And the apostle James, as we shall hereafter see, establishes in the clearest manner the fact that whoever understandingly violates one of the ten commandments is guilty of breaking them all. What will those say to this who affirm that the young man could keep the commandments, and yet violate every one that defines our duty to God the great Law-giver?”—Pages 13–15.

And lastly, you speak of my dilemma concerning the absence of law at the day of Pentecost, and in the interval from the crucifixion. In this you err—it is your dilemma, and your remarks do not relieve you. This is a point not often touched by our opponents, and I am thankful that you have afforded me an opportunity of examining it. And I will say, that you are the second person I ever knew that attempted to argue himself out of this dilemma, and the other took the same position. I think we may safely judge it is the best that can be done for your side.

And 1. You err in stating that they were not accused of murdering, or breaking the sixth commandment. See Acts vii, 52. “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One, of whom ye have now been the betrayers and murderers.”

2. You say they would not have asked the question if they had murdered, or broken the 6th commandment. “There was no avoiding the penalty.” 1st. This is contradicted by the above quotation from Stephen’s sermon. 2d. Your declaration involves the conclusion that there was no penalty for murder beyond that executed by man. On this see Eccl. xii, 14. “God shall bring every work into judgment.” Read and consider Heb. ix, 15.

3. You say they had sinned but not transgressed the law, because Jesus was tried by the law and condemned, yet innocent. 1st. This is a double contradiction of terms. 2d. They had transgressed the law for they were murderers. 3d. Jesus was not tried by the law and condemned. Did the law condemn an innocent man? See Ps. xcv, 16–21. Prov. xvii, 15. On the condemnation of Jesus note the following points: 1st. The Jews accused him of blasphemy, but could not prove it, and received the testimony of false witnesses. 2d. When they took him to Pilate for judgment they had not sufficient confidence in their testimony to present it before Pilate, but when he asked concerning the accusation they evaded it by saying, “If he were not a malefactor we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” John xviii, 30. 3d. He was not even condemned by the Roman law, for Pilate found no fault in him, but they induced him to deliver him to be crucified by appealing to his selfish feelings, intimating that he would lose the favor of Cæsar. 4th. If he was condemned by the law, he was a blasphemer, for this was the accusation on which he was condemned. And 5th. If he was condemned by the law there was no guilt in putting him to death, though he was a King, for the law made no exception in favor of sinful kings. “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” 2 Sam. xxiii, 3.

4. You affirm that they were not accused of murder, but were pricked in their hearts because Jesus was made Lord and Christ, or their King and Saviour. This involves the most singular position that if he had not been exalted as Lord and Christ there would have been no wrong in killing him! Is not this yielding all that I claimed, namely, that according to the positions of our opponents, there was no law against murder between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost?

Again, by what law did God condemn people for killing a king? Had he ever proclaimed such a law? Could not they have answered as our no-Sabbath friends do, [and with equal propriety,] “If it is wrong to kill a king that fact should be plainly stated?” As God is not a respecter of persons, it is just to infer that the same law that could condemn a man for killing a king would condemn him for killing a beggar.

If there is any method of relieving your position of this dilemma—so fearful in its consequences—I would be much pleased to see it. Having examined carefully many times, I fear there is no such method.

And now, dear brother, I hope you will examine these points again. Consider them in all their bearings, and see if you are not on the wrong track. This is a great and important subject, fraught with important consequences, and, I am pleased that you are disposed to examine it. My prayer is that your examination will lead you to embrace the truth more fully, and that your experience may yet be that of the apostle Paul after his conversion, even to “delight in the law of God after the inward man.” J. H. W.