Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 8.
RELIGION OR DRESS, WHICH?Page 1
Earlier text: RELIGION OR DRESS, WHICH?CAN SAINTS APOSTATIZE?
By S. Osborn
THE doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, or the impossibility of apostatizing, as taught by Richard Beard, D. D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn., is based upon the fact that Christ is the Christian’s “Advocate and Intercessor.” “Lectures on Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 486, 488. He says:— “As Christ loved the sinner so much as to suffer and die for him, he loves the Christian inconceivably more, and will not suffer him to be finally lost.” Now while all Christians can agree with the first part of the proposition as above expressed, all cannot so readily agree with the conclusions and deductions drawn therefrom. For if Christ’s love for the Christian is so great that it will forbid the possibility of apostasy, why not forbid the possibility of backsliding or sinning at all? Certainly the backslidden state of the Christian is not so agreeable, nor sin committed by him so necessary to his spiritual growth, that Christ could allow it on this ground. Neither does the Saviour take any pleasure in sin at all. Then I ask again, Why does not the unbounded love of Christ forbid sin in any form in the Christian? This seems to me to destroy at once the very idea of the final perseverance of the saints. It is replied, “This will destroy the free agency of man.” I answer, Would it not destroy free agency just as much to turn his will to keep him from a final fall, as to prevent him from sinning at all? It surely would. To support the above proposition many texts are adduced. We will examine the leading ones. Rom. 8: 32–35: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” This text is triumphantly quoted to sustain the foregoing theory. The first point they make is, that the love of Christ is so great that none of these things can separate his love from us; second, that none of these things can separate us from the love of God, etc. It is evident that if Christ’s love will not be separated from us, nor ours from him, we can never fall; but is this true in an unconditional sense? We can learn something on this from the connection. Notice the contrast Paul draws between the carnal and the spiritual mind. Verse 1 states that “there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” Verse 4 states the same in substance. Verse 9 states the reason they are not in the flesh. It is because the Spirit of God dwells in them. Next he says, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” But it is asserted that the once truly converted man will always have Christ’s Spirit. Let Paul answer. Verse 13: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Notice the condition. Read also 2 John 8, 9: “Look to yourselves that we lose not those things which we have gained [margin], but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” It is still asserted that they will abide. Then we ask what sense there would be in the caution. It reminds me of the man who left his infant child in his house and bolted and barred every door, so that it was impossible for him to get out, and then, looking in through the crack of the door, said, Unless you stay in there you will be devoured. The same contrast is kept up to verse 38, and then Paul says: “I am persuaded,” etc.; (that is, if we have the Spirit and walk in it) none of these things will “separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Verse 39. Thus all depends upon continual condition on our part. John 10: 27–29: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” This text is considered incontrovertible. The main points in it are these: 1. Sheep (believers) hear the voice of the shepherd; 2. They follow him; 3. Thus following and being obedient to him, they will never perish nor destroy themselves; 4. No one shall pluck them out of the Father’s (or the shepherd’s) hands.” p. 496. True, if every requirement thus named is complied with, they are safe. But this text proves too much for our friends; for it makes no allowance for backsliding (and they say the converted man can backslide); but if they continue to follow Christ as the text contemplates, then surely they are safe. Now let us consider this carefully in the light of other texts. John 1: 11: “He came unto his own [that is, his sheep], and his own received him not.” Here it is stated that the Jews were his own, but they would not receive him. Now if the Jew, being Christ’s, fails to receive him, and thereby suffers rejection, why not the Gentile too? They both have the same natures. The same idea is contained in Matt. 21: 43. They were his people sufficiently to have the kingdom, but on account of their lack of fruits they were rejected, and the kingdom was taken from them. Again, John 6: 66: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Notice the following: 1. They were Christ’s disciples, the same as sheep; 2. They walked with him for a time; but the idea of eating the flesh and blood of our Saviour, as taught in verses 53 and 54, was too much for them, and they finally apostatized; for it is said they “walked no more with him.” This seems to me to be conclusive on this point. Job 17: 9: “The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger.” The claim here put forth is that if a man is once righteous, he will always remain so; and that if a man once has clean hands, they will never become dirty. How contrary this is to the daily experience of every one, we all very well know. But let Job himself decide this matter. Job 9: 30, 31: “If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch and mine own clothes shall abhor me.” This needs no comment. Again, Eze. 33: 18: “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.” This shows that they can turn from their righteousness, and even die in that condition. The facts are, if the righteous continue to do their duty, they will hold on; but failing to do their duty, they will drift back so far as to die and be lost. John 4: 13, 14: “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” The point in this is, that the water that Jesus gives will not be followed by thirst; but it is intended as a description of experimental religion. “It is a well—a fountain not affected by heat or drought, but springing up unto everlasting life.” p. 500. We can agree with our author so far as the agency of Christ is concerned. But to make this text help his theory, he must show that once drinking is sufficient, and then that Christ does the rest. This is so contrary to facts and the faith of this people in other respects, that he will not attempt it. It seems that in all the texts brought forward to support their theory, they overlook the fact that they only describe the agency of Heaven for the salvation of men; that is continual and unceasing. God is “not willing that any should perish.” 2 Pet. 3: 9. Hence Christ on his part withholds not a particle of the water of life from any one that will drink of it. Therefore these texts in the widest latitude of meaning only half prove the point. Ps. 94: 14: “For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.” This is like the rest. It is all on the part of God alone. Right here let us look at the agency of man in this matter. 2 Chron. 15: 2: “And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah, and Benjamin. The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.” Again, 1 Chron. 28: 9: “And thou, Solomon, my son, know thou the God of thy fathers, and serve him with a perfect heart, and with a willing mind; for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts. If thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever.” This shows the other side. It is a testimony that the child of God may be finally lost. “A little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts and almonds.” Gen. 43:11. CHARACTER dictates destiny. REPENTANCE is the heart’s sorrow. CHEATED men have long memories. THE worst of heresies is the lack of love. GOD has his eye on your heart, and your tongue cannot deceive him. PEOPLE look at your six days in the week, to see what you mean on the seventh. GENIUS finds its own road, and carries its own lamp. NEVER find fault until it is perfectly certain that a fault has been committed. THAT which could break a proud man’s heart will not break a humble man’s sleep. WE waste our time in moments, our money in dimes, and our happiness in trifles. THE elements of success are within a man, but the chances are outside of him. IN giving us Christ, God has given all grace—a fullness of grace for all times and seasons, if we have only faith to use it. THE force, the mass of character, mind, heart, or soul, that a man can put into any work, is the most important factor in that work. IF infidelity succeeds in teaching a man that he will die like a beast, it will at the same time succeed in teaching him how to live like one. A CLERGYMAN in Boston recently aroused his sleepy audience by asserting in the most positive manner that, “notwithstanding the hard times, the wages of sin have not been cut down one iota.” THEY are brave who dare to speak
For the fallen and the weak;
They are brave who dare to be
In the right with two or three. To do good to men, as God sends his rain and sunshine alike upon the just and the unjust; to look for what is good in them, as he draws us by our nobler selves and blots out our transgressions; to pity what is bad, as—while we were yet sinners—Christ died for us,—these are the ways by which we may grow to love one another as he loved us. DARE to do right! dare to be true!
Keep the great judgment-seat always in view;
Look at your work as you’ll look at it then,
Scanned by Jehovah, and angels, and men.
Dare to do right! dare to be true!
Cannot Omnipotence carry you through?
City, and mansion, and throne all in sight,
Can you not dare to be true, and be right? TEMPERANCE—SECRECY
By Editor
The question is sometimes asked us whether we consider it advisable for a person to join a secret temperance society. We are so much in favor of pushing on the cause of temperance in any and every permissible way, that we would be willing to “stretch a point” to its utmost limit if good could thereby be accomplished. But we have always regretted that the element of secrecy has in any degree been fostered in the temperance movement. We can see no reason for it, no good in it, no end to be gained by it. What is there about this movement that should be covered from the public gaze? What reason is there to conceal anything? Why work in the dark? If the deeds are good, why not let them be known? If they are evil, they should not be encouraged. Mark: we do not say that there is anything evil in the secret lodge; we do not say that these societies have not done a great deal of good, for they certainly have; but it is our firm conviction that the same amount of effort necessary to form and maintain these societies would have accomplished many times the amount of good if it had been put forth, not in darkness and secrecy, but in the light of day. Therefore, while we advise all to work with their might in behalf of temperance, we cannot advise them to half paralyze their efforts and expose their good to be evil spoken of by entering into these organizations. Do what you do, not to be seen of men, but do not do it as though you were afraid to be seen of men. “THE SECOND ADVENT.”
By R. F. Cottrell
UNDER this title, which is in perfect harmony with numerous expressions of Scripture, a writer in the Buffalo Christian Advocate presents views which are very much at variance with his chosen title. A second implies a first while it does not disprove a third, but there can be but one second in any series of events. The sacred writers would have the Christian church look for a second advent of Christ. Says Paul, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Christ had once appeared to men, and he is to appear a second time to those who look for him according to the promise, “I will come again, and receive you to myself.” Again signifies once more, or a second time. But this writer, after referring to several instances of the Lord’s appearing to his disciples in vision, proceeds to the following expressions: “The ‘coming’ seems a matter of course, a common occurrence, a stated feature of the dispensation.” “He did ‘come in the glory of his Father,’ and has not ceased to come. His promise is sure, and in the recorded fulfillments we have a revelation of what is yet to come. A notable instance of his advent was to John on the Isle of Patmos.” He inquires, “Was this the only coming of the Lord to the ‘beloved disciple’? The whole character of Christ, and the current of the gospel, forces the conviction that it was merely one of many; a representative occurrence, illustrating the certainty and mode of advent, which began soon after the descent of the Spirit, and is to continue to the final catastrophe, at the end; a personal coming to spiritual vision.” What does all this mean? How many second advents are there? What is the final catastrophe of which he speaks? and in what relation to other events is it to come? Speaking of the disciples when they saw the Lord ascend from the Mount of Olives, our writer says, “Still they hoped to see him again, and stood gazing, when two angels came to say, ‘This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven.’ This agreed perfectly with the promise, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ How could he be present with them, if he did not come?” The promise to the apostles and the church, that he would not leave them, but be with them alway, to the end of the world, by his Spirit, is made, by this writer, to agree perfectly with the promise that, though he was about to leave them and go to the Father, he would come again and take them to himself, or the assurance to the disciples by the angels, that “this same Jesus shall so come in like manner.” What a good thing it is that we have the Bible, and that the poor have the gospel preached to them! If they depended upon such expositors, they might well be pitied. THE DEVIL'S IRON WEDGE.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
[Republished by request.] Satan is no fool; he is a good mechanic. Long experience has taught him just what kind of tools to use. A small, sharp, iron wedge is a great favorite with him. Probably most of our readers know how to split rails. It is a trade, like anything else. An experienced man can split the toughest log, one which the green hand would pronounce a hard case, impossible to split. I have split a great many rails in Western New York. Let me describe the process. Here lies a white oak log, ten feet long, two feet through, gnarled, winding, and tough. It looks like a hopeless job to lay that out into rails; nevertheless it can be done. The old log lies there, and laughs in your face, and says, “Touch me if you dare; take the rails out of here if you can.” And the rails say, “See how united we are, see how we stick together, see how we love each other. Divide us? no, never. We are not at all afraid of that.” But the old rail-splitter walks around it, looks it all over, and deliberately lays his plans, and goes at it. Reader, how do you suppose he commences? Does he begin with a large, clumsy, wooden wedge, trying to drive that in first? He might try forever without success. There lies an iron wedge; he takes that up. How does he use it? Does he commence by trying to drive it in the largest end first? Oh! no; he would not succeed very well that way. No, sir; the first thing he does is to take his little, light, sharp-edged ax, and strike a few blows marking out where he wants the log to split. The ax does not penetrate an inch deep, and bounds out quickly; and the old log sneers at the futile attempt. But the woodman knows that he has made a beginning. Now he looks around, and finds his smallest, brightest, and sharpest little iron wedge. He places the sharp point of this in one of the little gashes made by the still sharper ax. The rails, however, lie there very quiet and unconcerned. They say, “What does that little thing amount to? Suppose, Mr. Woodman, you get that little wedge clear in, it won't amount to much; that will never split this great log, and divide us, and get us separated.” But the rail-splitter views the matter differently. So he lifts his maul, and lays on blow after blow till the little wedge is entirely buried in the end. Not much of an opening has been made, just a little crack a few inches deep. But that is a beginning. He follows this up now with a larger iron wedge placed in the opening made by the little sharp-edged tool. Again he lifts the maul—listen! crack, snap, go the splinters, and soon you have an opening an inch and a half wide and perhaps two feet deep or more. Now the old log begins to groan. It did not care anything about the strokes of the little ax, nor the work of the small wedge; but this large wedge troubles it some. But the work does not end here. The rail-splitter now brings forth a large wooden wedge. He inserts the blunt end of this clumsy tool into the opening made by the smaller wedges. Now listen; crack, snap, twing—see how very rapidly that rent grows in the old log! It creeps along down the sides and into the heart, while every splinter cries out in alarm, “What shall be done? Let us out with that big wedge, or we are ruined.” But it is too late now. A still larger wedge follows each preceding one, till finally twenty rails lie there each one separate from the other. Now let us transfer this to the church. The devil's work is to separate the members one from the other, as a man separates a log into rails. But how is this to be done? Look at that little church just brought into the truth. They are all rejoicing in the light, and happy in the Lord and in each other's confidence. They love to associate together, to pray and talk and sing together. It is the delight of their lives. They are perfectly united. They feel as though nothing could ever separate them. But the devil has succeeded so many times that he never despairs of even the most united church. But where shall he commence? How shall he get his wedge in? He knows it is useless to commence with some great affair. It would be impossible for him to get these brethren or sisters into a real hand to hand fight. No; they would be frightened at the very idea. He could not get one of them to steal from another. They would never think of it. He knows that he must commence with some small matter. Like the rail-splitter, he must begin with his smallest and brightest iron wedge. The devil looks the church all over, and studies each member carefully. Pretty soon he finds his tool. Quite generally it is that little, smooth-tongued, talkative sister. He watches. Now he prompts her to commence tattling a little, or surmising or magnifying some small thing. Then he finds another tool in some silly one who will run and carry this to another member. There! the work has begun. The devil has got his little iron wedge in; but now it must not be left there. It must be driven clear in. So he induces every member that comes along to take up the maul and hit it a blow. At every stroke it enters deeper. The work is now encouragingly begun. Now the devil is ready for something larger. He soon finds occasion to follow up this little opening with a more grave matter. A larger wedge is put in. Now the members forget the other affair, and turn their attention to pounding this wedge, and in it goes, deeper and deeper. Now the church is in trouble. It begins to groan and sigh and shed tears, while the devil laughs. But he does not let it rest there. He must keep following it up. By this time he has managed to provoke some one to say some very harsh thing of another. All right, this is just what he wanted. This is his big wooden wedge. He puts that in the rent, and now sets every one lustily to mauling this, when the work is done. Like the old oak log, the church now lies split right in two. The balance of the work is easy. It is a small matter now to split them up into factions. My brother, my sister, is your church in trial? How did it come about? The devil did it, of course, but who was his tool? He could not have done it without his little iron wedge. Where did he find that? Have you unwittingly submitted yourself to do this work of Satan? Are you the devil's iron wedge? Louisville, Ky., is agitated over the question of a better Sunday observance. It has been thought heretofore by the friends of this institution, that they could best uphold it by an appeal to the religious element among the people, setting forth the day to be sacredly observed as a divine institution, and bringing to its support the sanction of the law of God. But the agitation of the Sabbath question during these later years has largely dispelled this idea from candid and thoughtful minds. A day concerning which Christ has left on record not a single word; a day which cannot show when, where, nor by what means it was made a Sabbath; a day concerning which there is in the Bible no law, commandment, exhortation, or admonition, except to use it for secular purposes; a day never called in the New Testament by any sacred title; a day which cannot show the first example of Sabbatical rest during its hours by any divine being or inspired apostle,—such a day does not do well to set up any very high claim to a divine character, nor to urge its own observance very strongly on religious grounds. The people of Louisville seem to be aware of this fact, and hence in the call for a mass-meeting, which was to be held Feb. 10, “for the purpose of securing a better observance of our weekly rest-day,” they say:— With regard to the Sabbath as a religious institution, we purpose to do nothing whatever in this meeting. We withdraw from the discussion every religious question. Your attention will be called exclusively to the Sabbath as a civil institution—a day of rest from labor and public amusement—set apart for that purpose by the immemorial usage of the American people and the laws of the land. To make this clear distinction, and put the first day of the week on a civil and not a religious basis, is a step in the right direction so far as it relates to the Sabbath controversy. It will be something to have this great fact acknowledged, that there is no religious element in it, but that it is an arrangement made by man alone, and resting on the same basis as any other legislative enactment. But this does not make it a Sabbath. This does not alter the requirements of God’s law, nor do away with his Sabbath. Only on the ground of being a civil institution can Sunday claim legal support. Those who called the mass meeting above mentioned, say, “We seek no new legislation.” But we apprehend that in nearly all, if not all, the States, Sunday legislation recognizes the day either as “the Lord’s day,” which it is not, or as “the Christian Sabbath,” which it likewise is not. This should be so changed as to eliminate the falsehood, and show that Sunday is only such a day of rest as the people are able to make it, and that it is such a day solely and alone because they make it so. From a sermon by T. De Witt Talmage, published in the Advance of Jan. 9, 1879, we take the following statement concerning the origin, the different forms, and the nature of Communism:— Communism was born in France, April 10, 1792. It was born again in France, March 18, 1871. It invaded Germany in 1844, and was called “socialism.” Trouble arising among the Silesian weavers about their wages, it was supposed that socialism would cure the trouble. It invaded England in 1862, and was called the “International Party,” and it has come to this country under various titles, and unless our American people find out its true character, the time will come when it will build barricades across the streets of New York, and Brooklyn, and Boston, and New Orleans, and all the streets of our great American cities will run red with the blood of our best citizens. I can tell you its true character. Instead of being the friend of the workingmen, it is their worst foe. I arraign it to-day, not only as the worst foe of the workingman, but as the robber, the despoiler, and the murderer of nations. Robespierre, Danton, and Marat projected it. The party in France was called the Committee of Public Safety, the National Guard, the Mountain because of the elevated seats in which they sat in convention. On the night between the 9th and 10th of August, 1792, suddenly the bells of Paris rang, and indiscriminate wholesale cut-throatery began. The depraved people of the city marched up to the Tuileries, took it, captured the prisons, took off the heads of 1,500 people that were incarcerated, guillotined the king, throwing his body into a trench and covering it with quicklime, so that no future funeral ceremony might be expected; after the sham trial of beautiful Marie Antoinette, they rolled her head into the sawdust; and without any opportunity of appeal or trial, they arrested and put to death all those who were suspected of being friendly to law, and order, and government. Communism ruled the hour of assassination. ED. REVIEW: The statement is made by one A. T. Gill, that a S. D. Adventist held a tent meeting in Delhi, Michigan, last season, and held a discussion in the Presbyterian church for three successive evenings with a young student by the name of Wm. Rise, and that in the last evening he admitted that Mr. Rise was more than a match for him on a scriptural discussion. Who was that Adventist? ANS. No S. D. Adventist that we know of ever held a tent-meeting in Delhi, certainly no one the past season. Brn. D. H. Lamson and M. E. Cornell held a meeting in Delta Oct. 21 to Dec. 13, 1870, but there was no discussion, nor any of the circumstances mentioned above. Pass it over to Rev. 22:15. Will you explain Mark 7:15, 18, 19, and harmonize with it the custom of S. D. Adventists in making the use of tobacco a test of fellowship. E. R. J. ANS. We presume our correspondent asks this at the suggestion of some inveterate tobacco-user, who would fain sustain himself in his filthy and degrading habit by a perversion of the words of the Lord of temperance and purity himself. But these words are against him. They cannot be even perverted to the support of such a practice. If a person is disposed to give a rigidly literal interpretation to the words which speak of those things which enter into a man, let him interpret verse 20 in the same way: “That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.” Does not the tobacco-user see that he cannot use this text? Does he not see that it is not half so good a text for tobacco as it is for whisky? For is not the tobacco mostly ejected from the mouth? Is any one so besotted as to swallow it? Does it not, then, come out of the man? And according to his fearfully literal construction, is he not defiled thereby? If an explanation of the passage is required it is only necessary to say that Christ is evidently rebuking the ceremonial scrupulousness of the Jews, who were continually washing their hands, cups, and platters, and straining out gnats, lest they should partake of some visible or invisible mite, as food, which might be unclean according to the ceremonial law. And while they were so scrupulous in this respect, their hearts were full of evil thoughts, thefts, covetousness, etc. Christ says that it is by these they were defiled, not by the former. Any Day of Rest or the Seventh Day
THEY tell us that any one day of rest after six days of labor is all that the Sabbath commandment requires. If this is so, we shall certainly be safe and shall not fall from grace, if we keep the day named in the commandment, the seventh day.