Review and Herald, Vol. 52, No. 10. (8/29/1878)

Review and Herald

Aug 29, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 29, 1878

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELDER D. M. CANRIGHT.

TEXT: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.” 1 Cor. 8:6.

THERE is but one true and living God. He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, just, holy, and worthy of all praise and worship. He is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, of the heavens and of the earth. No one who reads the Old Testament can fail to notice that this is the great burden of those writings; viz., to set forth and enforce in every possible manner, and on every occasion, the great fact that there is but one true God, and that he is a living, conscious, intelligent Being, possessed of feeling, affection, and sympathy.

At the time when the Bible was written, nearly the whole world had adopted either Polytheism or Pantheism. Polytheism taught that there were many gods, even thousands of them. Athens is said to have had thirty thousand gods. Rome had its gods, Greece had its gods, Egypt had its gods. Each was willing to allow that the others’ gods were just as good as its own. Every nation, every city, and even every household, had its peculiar god. In opposition to this, Moses and the prophets set forth the grand fact that this doctrine of many gods was a lie, and that there was but one God, Jehovah, the living God.

The doctrine of Pantheism at that time also prevailed largely. It teaches that everything is God,—the sun, the stars, the earth, water, fire,—everything. Put them all together and you have God. But this monstrous error the Bible denounces, and sets forth in its stead the truth,—that all these material things were created by a living, intelligent, personal Being, who is infinitely above them all. This doctrine is so plainly taught in the Bible that it is scarcely necessary to argue it at length. We will quote a few of the plainest scriptures upon this point, asking the reader to notice them particularly:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Ex. 20:3. All others were false.

“Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him.” Deut. 4:35. This declaration is emphatic. There is no God beside the Lord.

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.” Deut. 6:4. Here we strike the key-note of the doctrine of the Deity. “The Lord our God is ONE Lord.” Not many, not a thousand, not a hundred, not ten, not three, but only ONE,—one God.

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me.” Deut. 32:39.

“Thou art great, O Lord God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee.” 2 Sam. 7:22.

“Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.” 2 Kings 19:15. This one God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

“Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all.” Neh. 9:6.

“For thou art great, and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone.” Ps. 86:10.

“Before me there was no God formed; neither shall there be after me.” Isa. 43:10. This is very strong language. “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isa. 44:6, 8.

“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” Isa. 45:5. “I am God, and there is none else.” Verse 22. No comments of ours can make these declarations plainer. There is just one eternal God and no more,—one who is the Author and Father of all things.

Turning to the New Testament, we find the same doctrine taught just as plainly as in the Old. Neither Moses nor the prophets ever set forth the unity of God more strongly than Jesus himself. He taught it and reiterated it many times. Thus he says: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. . . . And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God; and there is none other but he.” Mark 12:29–32.

The scribe said, “There is one God, and there is none other but he.” To this declaration Jesus assented. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3. Jesus says his Father is the only true God. “But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the gospel as Elder Roe, surely the latter would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Saviour in this text.”

“There is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many); but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Cor. 8:4–6.

Says the great apostle, “There is none other God but one,” and “there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.” He tells us who this one God is. It is not the Holy Ghost; it is not Jesus Christ, but it is the Father. Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 1:17. There is, then, only one wise God. 1 Tim. 2:5; Deut. 6:4. Those who are familiar with the Bible will see that I have selected only a few of the plainest texts upon this doctrine. How the doctrine of the trinity, of three Gods, can be reconciled with these positive statements I do not know. It seems to me that nothing can be framed which more clearly denies the doctrine of the trinity, than do the scriptures above quoted.

And then the Bible never uses the phrases, “trinity,” “triune God,” “three in one,” “the holy three,” “God the Holy Ghost,” etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible. Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements:—

They place the Father first in the trinity, and the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. If they are all equal, why do this?
They have a mediator between men and the Father, but not between men and the Son or the Holy Spirit. Then they do not themselves regard them as equals.
The Son prays, but the Father does not.
The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them.
The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death.
They do not pray to the Son in the name of the Father, as they do to the Father in the name of the Son.
The Father does not plead with the Son, as the Son does with the Father.
They do not offer any sacrifice to the Holy Ghost, as they do to the Father.
Their continual effort to prove the Son equal with the Father is virtually proof that he is not. They never try to prove the Father equal with the Son.

According to Trinitarians,—

Greater and less imply perfect equality. “My Father is greater than I.” John 14:28.
The Sender and Sent are both one. “Thou didst send me.” John 17:8.
The self-existent God has a Father. John 20:17.
The expressions one and three mean the same. Eph. 4:6.
The Father and Son are the same. Matt. 3:17.
Christ prayed to himself.
Jesus was that Father who sent him.
He was that God who gave him.
They teach that God sent himself, came out from himself, prayed to himself, thanked himself, bore witness of himself, went back to himself, sits at the right hand of himself, is his own Father and his own Son, pleads with himself, left Heaven, and was there all the time.
Jesus is very God and very man.
He is the invisible God, but was often seen.
He is the immortal God, but he died.
He is the omnipotent God, but an angel strengthened him.
He is the omniscient God, but did not know the day and hour of his appearing. Mark 13:32.
He is equal with the Father, and yet is the Father.
He is the Son, but is as old as the Father.
He is as great as his Father, though his Father is greater than he. John 14:28.
He is the begotten Son, and the unbegotten God.
He has a Father, and is the God who has no Father.
Divinity and humanity were united, never to be divided (so say the creeds), yet the divinity forsook the humanity on the cross.
They are never to be divided; yet one was dead, the other living.
God has no body, yet “he took again his body.”—Creeds.
God is eternal, but was “begotten before all worlds.”
The Son has a Father, but the Father has no Father.
The Father has a Son, but the Son has no Son.
God never gives thanks, but the Son does.
The Father is never second, but the Son always is.
God does not receive his power from another, but the Son does.
The Father was never crucified, never forsaken by his God, and did not receive his life from another, but all this is true of the Son.

Trinitarian creeds contradict the word of God thus:—

CREEDS SAY:　　　　　　　　　　　 BIBLE SAYS:

Trinity.
Triune.
God is three.
God is three Lords.
His name is three.
Holy three.
God the Spirit.
God died for us.
Worship the Trinity.
When we pray say, “Holy Trinity.”—Ep. Pr. Book.
The Son and Holy Ghost are as much the true God as the Father.
Christ is equal with God.

God. Gen. 1:1. One. God is one. Gal. 3:20. God is one Lord. Deut. 6:4. His name is one. Zech. 14:9. Holy one. Isa. 12:6. The Spirit of God. Gen. 1:2. The Son of God died. Matt. 27:54. Worship God. Rev. 22:9. When ye pray say, “Our Father.” Luke 11:2. “Our Father,” that they might know thee, the ONLY true God. John 17:3. “My Father is greater than I.” John 14:28.

The Bible says nothing about the trinity. God never mentions it, Jesus never named it, the apostles never did. Now men dare to call God, Trinity, Triune, etc. It is a great thing to name our God. We may name our horse, our child; but who presumes to name God? The child should not name its father. We should not name God.

God is self-existent, and the source and author of all things,—of angels, of men, of all the worlds,—of everything. Thus Paul says, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen.” Rom. 11:36.

He is the source of all life and immortality. Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.” 1 Tim. 6:16. Notice that this glorious God is the only one who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source of all life and immortality. Even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, derives his existence and his life from the Father, for so he himself says, “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” John 6:57. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself, and in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed that the Father is the one from whom the gift came.

In harmony with this, the apostle says, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Cor. 8:6. How carefully Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son. He says, “The Father, of whom are all things,” and “Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” The Father is the source of everything. Jesus is the one through whom all things are done. All the authority, the glory, and the power of Christ he received from his Father. It was given to him, he had it not in himself. “And Jesus came and spake

unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth.” Matt. 28:18.

A belief in this doctrine is very important. Indeed, it cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Jesus even declares that the knowledge of this truth is necessary to eternal life. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3.

We must know the Father as the only true God. Then there is no true God besides the Father. But we must also know his Son Jesus Christ, whom he has sent. How simple and plain is this doctrine, and how abundantly sustained by the Holy Bible.

(To be continued.)

“THE FORMER THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY.”

By Mary A. Davis

Farewell to sin and sorrow, Farewell to grief and pain; Hail, bright eternal morrow, Welcome, Jehovah’s reign.

Our feet are worn and weary, Our eyes are dim with tears; Lo, through the tempest dreary, The morning light appears!

Rejoice, ye broken-hearted, In union glad and sweet, Loved ones whom death has parted, Before the throne shall meet.

Farewell, farewell forever, To gloom and doubt and fear; Behold, our glory ever, The Light of life appear!

His banner, love, is o’er us, The Lamb who once was slain; Raise high the gladsome chorus, Immanuel doth reign!

“God with us,” ay, forever, Jehovah dwells with men; No power his own can sever, Nor mar their peace again.

Sin now forever vanquished, Death’s cruel reign is o’er, His grasp on man relinquished;— Ye mourners, weep no more.

It comes, the hour appointed; The joyous message rings,— Messiah, the Anointed, Is crowned the Kings of kings!

MARY A. DAVIS.

Battle Creek, Mich.

FEET-WASHING—WHERE AND WHEN.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

My attention has been called to an article under the above heading in the Herald of Gospel Liberty.

That article purports to be a conversation between a minister and a layman respecting the ordinance of feet-washing.

I conclude that the author selected this method of presenting his views, simply because it was more convenient and forcible than direct statements would have been.

Let this be as it may, however, it seems to me that the Reverend who participates in the discussion—whether he be a real or fictitious character it matters not—reasons in a manner entirely unworthy one bearing his title; and, as I am deeply interested in the question to which the hypothetical conversation relates, I will examine in as brief a manner as possible what seem to be the real points in his argument. In doing so, for the sake of brevity I will state them in substance and in numerical order, offering such suggestions as may occur to my mind.

1. Feet-washing does not follow the communion, because John alone mentions it and does not speak of the communion.

It is true that John does not mention the Lord’s supper in connection with the account which he gives of feet-washing. This, however, is by no means proof positive that the two ordinances were not celebrated on the same evening. It has been stated, and seems to be generally accepted by scholars as true, that the definite purpose that John had in writing his gospel was that of supplying certain things which the authors of the other three gospels had failed to record. This being true, it is manifest that in giving an account of the events which took place in the upper room on the evening preceding our Lord’s betrayal, it was unnecessary that he should repeat the account of our Lord’s supper, which had been given in full by the other three.

It was, also, in the highest degree proper that he should do, just as he has done in giving a full description of the washing of the disciples’ feet by the Master, as this was the main deficiency in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

What he says in detail respecting the passover supplies some items not mentioned by the others, and is of value in locating the time at which the feet-washing took place. To say, therefore, that because he does not mention the communion in the connection it is thereby proved positively that it did not take place, is an assumption altogether unwarrantable.

To illustrate: It is agreed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did all of them give an account of the fourth passover supper. It will be agreed, also, that two of them speak of the circumstance connected with the supper which relates to the bearing of the pitcher on the part of the individual owning the room where the passover was celebrated, and that a third evangelist does not allude to it at all.

It will also be conceded, that, whereas Matthew and Mark both refer to what the Lord said in reference to Judas as dipping with him in the dish, Luke makes no mention of this circumstance whatever. But shall we therefore conclude that they were giving an account of two or three different suppers which occurred on different occasions, simply because each one does not make mention of all the events to which the others have called attention? Even the writer of the article, himself, would not admit that this would be a safe course, since he agrees with us that they all did write of the same time, place, and circumstance.

What, then, is the proper rule to be followed in such cases?

The answer is obvious.

It would not be safe to insist that all the particulars should be brought out by each evangelist; but simply that they should agree in a sufficient number of them to make it unreasonable to suppose that they could refer to different occasions.

Following this rule, we will hereafter show that the feet-washing and the Lord’s supper did transpire on the same evening.

2. “The supper eaten in connection with the washing of feet could not have been the paschal supper, because the disciples understood the Lord to instruct Judas to purchase things for the feast; whereas the supper was already ended.”

The gist of this argument seems to be that supper being ended, it could not be that the disciples understood the Lord to refer to anything to be purchased for it, inasmuch as being past already nothing could be needed for its purposes.

To this we reply:—

a. There was evidently a confusion of mind on the part of the disciples; as it is declared that while some thought that the language of the Lord had reference to the purchase of articles for the feast, others thought that it related to the giving of alms to the poor. It would not be at all singular, therefore, if, during the excitement produced by the declaration of Christ that one of the twelve should betray him, some of the number, hearing the words, “That thou doest, do quickly,” might give them a wrong and inconsistent application for the time being, not recalling for the moment the fact that they were already in possession of everything which they needed.

Again, as the occasion differed somewhat from an ordinary passover supper, and as Christ’s plans were larger than their plans, they might have for the moment fancied that he possibly had in his mind the purchase of something to be connected in some way with the balance of the weekly feast, not pausing to inquire whether this would be either legitimate or necessary. After a few moments, however, the confusion was all dispelled, and the real meaning of the Master was explained, and they found that the “doing” which he had in his mind was related to the betrayal.

Before any great weight can be rested upon a point of this nature, it must be shown, either that the apostles took the right view of the subject, and that the Lord did direct Judas to purchase something for the feast, or that it was not possible for them, in a moment of extreme excitement, to form an unsound judgment in regard to the import of an obscure declaration.

3. The writer states that he was no prouder years ago, when he carried out the ordinance of feet-washing, than he is now that he has given it up.

Possibly this statement is correct. We trust, also, that the reverse may be true; viz., that he is no prouder now than he was then. But be this as it may, we think that it will not be denied that participation in the ordinance is calculated to develop humility.

4. “After washing their feet, ‘he sat down’ (verse 11) and talked a long time to them, as recorded in John, chapters 13 to 16, whereas, after the communion he talked very little, but they sang a hymn (Matt. 26:30), and went out to the Mount of Olives.”

The conclusion drawn from the foregoing is that the conversations must have occurred at different times, and therefore that the washing of the feet, and the partaking of the Lord’s supper, with which they stand connected respectively, must have transpired on different evenings.

But does not the reader readily discover the lameness of the argument?

Mark you; it is not John who says he talked long in the one case, and Matthew who states that he conversed but a brief time in the other; but it is the writer himself who makes the declaration.

But how is he enabled to arrive at this conclusion?

Simply by inferring that Matthew reports all that he said at the time in question. But such an inference is altogether unwarrantable in the absence of any declaration to that effect on the part of the evangelist. The most cursory reader of the gospel knows that such a system of interpretation could not stand a moment when put to the test.

Nothing is more common than for the sacred writers to vary materially in the particulars in their accounts of the same transaction. One often presents a single point or two in a discourse or interview, and then passes directly to the consideration of other matters; while perhaps another, in recording the same event, will bring out additional facts and declarations which the other did not see fit to mention at all. This statement is so obviously true that the intelligent reader need not be furnished with instances illustrating its correctness.

5. “Here in Matthew is a plain account of the institution of the communion, and Jesus was betrayed the same night. But on the other night Judas sought opportunity to betray him—went to the priests, fixed the price, etc. (See Matt. 26:14–16.) So I saw that feet-washing could not have been the same evening of the last supper.”

It has seldom been our fortune to witness a more egregious blunder in any controversialist than the individual styled “Rev.” has made in the foregoing quotation.

His error consists in confounding two meetings which were separated in both time and place.

The meeting from which Judas went out to bargain for the betrayal of Christ was the one where the head of the Lord was anointed by the woman with the expensive ointment of spikenard. This took place some time before the period of the passover had been reached, and transpired in the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany, a little town outside of Jerusalem (see Matt. 26:6–16); whereas, the supper eaten in connection with the washing of feet which is spoken of by John in the thirteenth chapter of his gospel, was partaken of in the city of Jerusalem itself, on either the 14th or 15th of Nisan. (See the five coincidences mentioned below.) When the writer shall discover this fact, he will perceive that there is no inconsistency in the statement that Judas went out on the occasion of the administration of the Lord’s supper, as spoken of by Matthew, for the purpose of betraying the Lord, agreeably to the bargain which he had previously made at the time of the gathering spoken of in Bethany, where nothing occurred in any way resembling feet-washing.

6. “There is no account in the Scriptures, either that the woman spoken of by Paul in Corinthians had partaken of the Lord’s supper in connection with the washing of feet, or that any of the early Christians did so.”

To this we reply in a word that we shall not be held responsible for what God has not caused to be recorded, but simply for that which is written.

When the Master said, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” the presumption is that the faithful apostles, and with them the early Christians, carried out the injunction of the Lord. That presumption cannot be broken by the absence of an historic statement; for God has never promised that such a statement should be made, and it was not important that it should be made, since the record of examples is unnecessary where positive precept is at hand. To illustrate: The gentleman himself will admit that the Sabbath was binding and was kept by the Jews from Moses’s time to that of David, a period of five hundred years; and yet it is not once mentioned in all the history of that period.

7. “I conclude that feet-washing is a work of love, and teaches general kindness and acts of humanity in serving one another.”

Such, in substance, is the admission of the writer, and surely it ought not to be construed into antagonism to the ordinance itself; for an institution which is humanitarian in its character, and calculated to demonstrate to the world the love which the disciples of Christ have for one another, is worthy of the highest commendation.

Our friend is mistaken, however, as we have shown in another place, in supposing that it was administered by our Lord at the time in question for the purpose of cleanliness. The grand idea which it was calculated to illustrate was the humility of the Master. He sought an occasion for its administration when, according to the Jewish custom, the disciples had already been in the bath. He commanded us to follow his example, not for the sake of physical purification, but that we might demonstrate before our own eyes as well as before the eyes of others, the great condescension of our Lord, thereby being impressed as we could be in no other manner, with the humility which should mark our lives and conduct toward all men.

Finally, as the whole discussion turns with the gentleman upon the point whether the Lord’s supper and the feet-washing were administered on the same evening, and as we have shown that his reasons for supposing that they did not were altogether unsatisfactory, we now turn to contemplate the subject from the positive standpoint, affirming that they did.

In confirmation of such an assertion we offer the following coincidences in circumstances and place:—

1. The Lord’s supper and the ordinance of feet-washing were both instituted at the time of the passover. John 13:1; Matt. 26:17, 26; Mark 14:12, 22; Luke 22:7, 19.

2. They were both instituted in the city of Jerusalem. John 18:1–13; Matt. 26:18; Mark 14:13, 14; Luke 22:10, 11.

3. They both originated on the night of the betrayal. John 18:1–4; Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34.

4. In connection with the institution of both, the Lord remarked, “One of you shall betray me.” John 13:21; Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21.

5. At the supper which was eaten in connection with both, he pointed out Judas as the one who should betray him. John 13:26; Matt. 26:23; Mark 14:20.

Here, then, we have five specifications, all of which go to prove that the passover supper partaken of by the Lord just before his crucifixion was the one at which he originated the sacraments of the communion and feet-washing.

To reason otherwise, and to insist in the face of these facts that the supper mentioned by John was different from the one mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would make it necessary for the individual so doing to bring himself to the point of believing that the Lord and his disciples partook of two suppers at the time of the passover, in the city of Jerusalem, on the night of the betrayal, and that at each of these suppers he declared that one of the twelve should betray him, and pointed out Judas as the individual who should accomplish the work in question.

But the candid reader will readily perceive that such a conclusion is too violent to be entertained for a moment. He will immediately decide that it is in the highest degree improbable that the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have referred to any other occasion than the one of which John also speaks, since it is altogether incredible that the same persons should have been present at the two suppers, in the same city, on the same night, and that on both occasions the same words, in substance, should have been spoken, and the same things enacted over again.

Having reached this decision, he will find that all the arguments which the gentleman whom we are reviewing has brought forward against the perpetuity of one of the most solemn and impressive ordinances left by the Lord to his church, have been disposed of, and that it now only remains

for him, as an individual, to decide whether or not he will carry out the duty imposed upon him by the divine Son of God when he said, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.”

NEVER BORROW TROUBLE.

By Christian Woman

Every heart some secret sorrow Has, which it cannot reveal, And we often trouble borrow From the woes we never feel.

Griping ever in the darkness, Keeping out the light of day, Struggling ’mid the thorns and briers, When there is a better way;

Go we on thus sad and dreary, Casting shadows everywhere, When we should be blithe and cheery, Making sunshine here and there.

Is there not enough of sorrow In each hour by the way? Take no thought what’s for the morrow, You’ve enough to bear to-day.

Grace sufficient for each trial Is the promise God has made, And he’ll give us no denial When we look to him for aid.

Then no longer borrow trouble, Nor anticipate what’s ill; Would you all your sorrows double, And your cup of woe well fill?

Joyful, though the way is cheerless, Let us climb the rugged hill; There is light amid the darkness, Much to cheer and comfort still.

For a night there may be weeping, Morning brings us sweeter joy; Through the darkest cloud are peeping Rays of light without alloy.

—Christian Woman.

BIBLE LESSONS FOR YOUTH.

LESSON XII.—THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM.

QUESTIONS.

1. When Abram was ninety-nine years old, what did God do for him? Gen. 17.

2. What special promise did the Lord make him at this time? Verses 16, 19.

3. Did Abraham believe the promise? Rom. 4:18–22.

4. How was his faith counted to him? Rom. 4:3.

5. How was it necessary that Abraham's faith should be proved?

6. What did the Lord say to Abraham after Isaac was born? Gen. 21:12; Heb. 11:18.

7. What did the Lord require Abraham to do with Isaac? Gen. 22:2.

8. What did Abraham proceed to do? Gen. 22:3–10.

9. What did he believe God would do? Heb. 11:19.

10. Did God allow Abraham to take the life of his son? Gen. 22:11, 12.

11. What did he say to him through his angel? Verse 12.

12. In both these trials of faith, what was Abraham required to believe?

13. Was it for Abraham's benefit alone that it was recorded that his faith was imputed to him for righteousness? Rom. 4:22–25.

14. On what conditions will our faith be imputed to us for righteousness? Rom. 4:24.

15. For what was Christ delivered to die? Rom. 4:25.

16. For what was he raised?

17. Who will be blessed with faithful Abraham? Gal. 3:9.

18. To whom will righteousness be imputed as well as to him? Rom. 4:11.

19. What is this righteousness called? Rom. 3:22.

20. What have we all done? Rom. 3:23.

21. If we should live a perfect life hereafter, would that atone for past sins?

22. What have we broken? 1 John 3:4.

23. What does that broken law demand? Eze. 18:4; Rom. 6:23.

24. Unless the demands of the law are met, can God forgive us and be just? Rom. 3:26.

25. How are the demands of the law met? Rom. 3:24; 10:4.

26. Does God accept him in our stead? Rom. 3:25.

27. What do we obtain by faith in him? Verse 25.

28. Having obtained forgiveness for past sins, what must we do in order to be saved?

29. What must we do if we sin again?

SYNOPSIS.

When Abram was ninety-nine years of age, the Lord appeared to him, and renewed his promises and his covenant. He also changed the name of Abram to Abraham, and of Sarai to Sarah. He said that Sarah should be a mother of nations, although she was then ninety years old. Abraham believed this promise, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Rom. 4:3.

It was necessary, however, that Abraham's faith should be proved by works. In due time Isaac was born, according to the promise, and the Lord said to Abraham, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Gen. 21:12. But when Isaac had grown nearly to manhood, the Lord told Abraham to offer him on Mount Moriah as a burnt offering. Read Gen. 22.

Abraham proceeded at once to obey God, believing that Isaac would be raised from the dead; but the Lord stayed the hand of Abraham, as he raised the knife to slay his son, and said, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” Gen. 22:12.

In both these trials of faith, Abraham was required to believe what was naturally impossible. Read Rom. 4:18–22; Heb. 11:17–19.

In Rom. 4:22–25 we read of Abraham's faith as follows: “And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

Those who have such faith as Abraham had will be blessed with him. Gal. 3:9. Righteousness will be imputed to them as well as to him. Rom. 4:11.

This righteousness is called the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. Rom. 3:22.

We have all sinned. Rom. 3:23. If we should live a perfect life from this time on, it would not atone for our past wrongs. We have broken God's law, and justice demands our life. This demand must be met or God cannot forgive us and be just. Christ has given his life for us. God accepts him in our stead. By faith in him we have forgiveness for sins that are past. Then, if we keep all God's commandments, we shall be saved. If we sin again, we must again seek pardon through Christ. Read Rom. 3:22–26.

Continue reading: RICHES