p. 329 | PROFOUND LOGIC! by D. A. Robinson

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, May 20, 1880

FromThe Review and Herald, Vol. 55, No. 21

PROFOUND LOGIC!

By D. A. Robinson

BY ELD. D. A. ROBINSON.

In reading in the World’s Crisis not long since an article entitled “How it Is,” I was led to mentally use the exclamation at the head of this article. The writer commences thus:—

“‘How is it,’ ask our S. D. Adventist friends, ‘that you acknowledge your obligation to keep nine commands of the decalogue, and yet reject the tenth?’ This specious argument has misled many. Be patient one moment, while I illustrate our freedom from the ‘tenth.’” Our logical friend then proceeds on the following supposition. A school-master finds it necessary to make a code of rules. The scholars are bound to obey all of them during the session of that school. When it closes, the teacher immediately commences a new school, not in the same locality, “but so near that many of his old scholars did attend, although many times their number from the region about came, who had never attended before. This wise teacher saw at a glance that in governing so large a school he must be more strict in many things than in the former one, and that a new code of rules was demanded,—one that would elevate to a higher standard of behavior and cultivate finer feelings than the former code, and accordingly he draws up and sets forth such an one. Suppose some of the rules of the first code should be incorporated into this new code, who will say that this fact makes the whole of the old code binding upon this new school? Nay, even if nine-tenths of the old code could be found in the new, none are so blind as to affirm that the old code, as such, is in force.”

Let us notice some of these statements.

1. “The teacher” in the case saw that in his large school he must be more particular—in short, his old code would not suffice. How would our logical friend remedy this evil, if he were the teacher? Oh! he would simply, instead of having a code of ten rules, as in the former school, have one of nine. What did his new school demand? A “higher standard of behaviour,” one that would cultivate “finer feelings.” Then of course we should expect to find in the nine rules these very elements; but lo! when they are brought forth, we recognize in them the old code intact, minus one rule. And this is called the “higher standard,” designed to cultivate “finer feelings,” etc.

This is absurdity boiled down to the lowest degree. We would suggest that the writer immediately take steps to have this method of reasoning incorporated into the standard works on logic, and thereby immortalize his name as the champion opposer of the seventh-day Sabbath. Let this method be adopted,—a method that disregards all principles of analogy, requires no use of the reasoning powers, is just the opposite of a logical sequence,—we say, let this be adopted, and our Sabbath is surely gone.

Again, the writer says that “God commenced a school at Mt. Sinai with comparatively few scholars, and gave from Sinai a code to govern that school. That school closed at the cross. Gal. 3:23, 24. At Mt. Zion God commenced a new school embracing the whole world. He gave to this school a new code, or a new covenant, which is the same thing. The first code was read to the old school by Moses; the new code was declared by Jesus Christ. . . . . The reason why we keep nine commands of the decalogue, is because they are found in the new code. The reason why we reject the other command is because it is not found in the new code. This is how it is.”

We wish the writer had, while quoting Gal. 3:24 with such evident satisfaction, given some light on the next verse. Why not quote it? Oh! the difficulty is simply this: Our friend tells us that the whole world is now in the new school which God commenced at Mt. Zion, this side of the cross; but the words of Paul in the verse in question affirm that “we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Since Paul spoke by inspiration, modesty suggests that the writer change his theory to be in harmony with the apostle’s words. But let us see about this new school. When was it commenced? At the cross. Very good. Who gave the new code? Answer, Jesus Christ. When did he give it? chapter and verse, please? Oh, he gave it during his ministry, we are told. But hold, my friend. The old school had not then closed, and did not close till the cross. Were both codes given to the old school? And then when the first code was abolished at the cross, are you sure the second was preserved? We must ask again, How is it?

The following are the legitimate conclusions from the above:—

The law given on Mt. Sinai was adapted to the people till the cross.
At the cross a new code was given, of a higher nature, consisting of exactly nine-tenths of the old code.
According to the argument (!) the new code must not be given till the old school closes, which event the writer tells us occurred at the cross; but
We are told that it “was declared by Jesus Christ.” Of course we must look for this declaration this side of the death of Christ. Will our friend give us the verse, chapter, or even the book where this can be found? Was the new code given before the cross? If so, then the old school had nineteen rules, and our friend is put to the proof to show that the new school has any at all.

Paul does clearly show that the law of ordinances was abolished at the cross (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:14, 15), but does he mean by this the ten commandments? Never. In speaking of the law of God, he says it “is holy, just, and good.” Rom. 7:12. It is established by faith. Rom. 3:31. Our Saviour says, “Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot [a small letter] or one tittle [a part of a letter] shall in no wise pass from the law.” Yet right in the face of such testimony, men will cleave to the impious assumption that one-tenth of it, at least, has passed away. This would make a good many “jots” and “tittles.”