p. 189 | SOUND DOCTRINE by R. F. C.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 30, 1861

SOUND DOCTRINE.

By R. F. C.

PAUL, in his letters to Timothy and Titus, has much to say concerning sound doctrine, sound speech, the faithful word and wholesome words, and instructs them to speak the things that become sound doctrine, and to make use of sound speech that cannot be condemned. In 1 Tim. i, 9, 10, he speaks of the use of the law, and shows that all that break the law do things that are contrary to sound doctrine. In chap. vi, 3, he says, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine that is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words," &c. From this we may learn that the fountain head of sound doctrine is found in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, anything that is settled by the plain and positive teaching of him who spake as never man spake, is not to be overlooked or set aside. Yet men endeavor to make Paul contradict his Lord, inferring from the teachings of the apostle a doctrine directly opposed to the express declarations of him who sent him.

The question of the perpetuity and immutability of the law of God, so much mooted at the present day, is

settled beyond a doubt by our Lord in his discourse upon the mount. Matt. v, 17-20. Here we are positively taught that Christ did not come to destroy the law or the smallest part of it. Each jot and tittle was to remain till heaven and earth should pass. Yet men are not scarce that take issue with our Lord, and vainly strive to make Paul affirm, either that that law is wholly abolished, or that it has been changed and very much improved by the abolition or change of its fourth precept.

The editor of the World's Crisis has recently been writing upon the Sabbath, and has shed some new darkness on the subject. He takes the ground that the ten commandments, and they alone, constitute the old covenant that was not faultless, and that the new covenant consists, either of the ten commandments minus the fourth, or else of the whole of the book commonly called the New Testament; I cannot decide which. But while he tries to make Paul say that the ten commandments are abolished, he seems quite delicate about taking such ground himself, but prefers the word "improved," making the better covenant an improvement on the ten commandments. Hear him:

"What does Paul mean when he refers to 'that first covenant,' which was improved in 'the second'? We assume that he is speaking of the ten commandments, or the covenant made with the children of Israel upon mount Sinai, as contrasted with the New Testament or covenant in Christ, which he calls 'the second.'

"When writing to the Galatians, Paul says, 'For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.' Gal. iv, 22-24. That is, Agar, the bond-woman's son, represents the covenant 'from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,' thus clearly intimating that this covenant is the one to be improved."

Now Paul is very bold, and saith in the language of the scripture, "Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman." The Crisis only claims that the bond-woman and her son should be "improved." Thus improved by the abolition of the Sabbath, the bond-woman and her son are made free. What utter perversion of the subject of the apostle's discourse! Paul is speaking of old Jerusalem and her children, the Jews, who were in bondage because they were under the condemnation of the violation of the law of God, which at Sinai they promised to keep; and with them contrasts the New Jerusalem and her children which are free, because they keep the same law of God, having it written upon their hearts. All the children of the New Jerusalem will be perfectly free, and among them will be many of God's ancient people who, as some suppose, were in bondage under the old covenant. But they had learned that God's law was a law of liberty to those who loved it, and could say, like David, How love I thy law! I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts. The old covenant could not forgive sins, and consequently, but for the new, no sinner could be saved.

Again, Paul says that the ministration of death or condemnation is done away. The Crisis thinks this ministration of the law is the law itself, which was written in the tables of stone. But it does not take the ground that it is abolished, but says, "Some part of what was 'engraven in stones' is done away," and a portion 'remaineth.'" In his sequel he finds all remaining but the Sabbath commandment! The apostle corrected would teach that one tenth of what was written in the tables of stone was done away; unless that all the death was in the Sabbath precept; and this the opponents of the Sabbath seem to think, for they speak of the penalty of death as being attached to Sabbath-breaking, as if this penalty was not attached to the other precepts of the decalogue.

When God promised the new covenant by Jeremiah he said, "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." This, corrected, would say,

I will write nine-tenths of my law in their hearts, leaving out the memorial of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, because it gendereth to bondage.

What new invention will come next? Is the strength of the opposition to the Sabbath of the Lord our God increased by every new position taken? If so, the common saying is reversed, and should be, Division is strength. The fact that so many positions are resorted to against the Sabbath, ought to open the eyes of honest inquirers; and it will. Those who observe the Sabbath, unitedly give one reason for so doing, namely, God made the Sabbath for man, and has never repealed the law for its observance, nor instituted another Sabbath in its place. Truth will remain truth; and God will judge the people by his law which is the truth. Ps. cxix, 142, 151, 160; xcvi, 13.