Your ShelfYour Projects

THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN

2%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Tuesday, May 12, 1885

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 62, No. 19

Read the full edition

THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN.

By William H. Littlejohn

THE DISCUSSION OF THE SABBATH QUESTION CONTINUED. MR. BIBLIST PITTED AGAINST FIVE ORTHODOX MINISTERS.

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
Mr. Biblist.—If you please, Maud, you may answer to the door bell. I think that our visitors have arrived.
Mr. Thoughtful.—You see, Mr. Biblist, that I have brought with me some of my friends, agreeably to your permission. Allow me, sir, to introduce them to you one by one. This is the Rev. Nolaw; this the Rev. Surplice; this the Rev. Dipper; this the Rev. Westminster; and this the Rev. Shouter.
Mr. B.—I am happy to meet you all this evening, gentlemen. I suppose that I am indebted for this visit to Mr. Thoughtful. He was very anxious that we should get together and compare views on the Sabbath question. Perhaps you are aware that I am an observer of the seventh-day Sabbath, and that Mr. Thoughtful and myself have been investigating for several evenings the comparative claims of the first-day and the seventh-day Sabbaths. I trust that all will feel perfectly free to-night to express themselves as fully on all the points which may be discussed as they think advisable. As time is passing, we will proceed without further formality to enter upon the labor of the evening. It is at your option to open the discussion yourselves, or to allow me to do so.
Rev. Surplice.—Inasmuch as you and Mr. Thoughtful have been discussing the Sabbath question, it seems to me fitting that you should lead out in this investigation in such a way as you may think proper.
Mr. B.—If there is no objection, then, I will proceed to my task. The first thing to be desired is the finding, if possible, of some common ground upon which all can stand. I start out, therefore, with these propositions: There can be no Sabbath without a Sabbath law; and the only Sabbath law found in the Bible is the fourth commandment of the decalogue. If any one has any objections to these positions, let him make it manifest. As no objection is offered, I conclude that we are agreed on this point. It follows, therefore, that if we have any Sabbath at all, it must be one which is authorized by the terms of the fourth commandment.
Mr. Nolaw.—I perceive, gentlemen, that Mr. Biblist is going to bring you into difficulty. I have met these Adventists before, and I know about how they handle this subject. You admit that the fourth commandment is the only Sabbath law in the Bible, and that it is still in force, and you can no more dodge the obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath, than you can the fact that two and two make four.
Mr. B.—It matters not at present, Mr. Nolaw, what the consequence would be of admitting that the fourth commandment is the only Sabbath law found in the Bible. Let us settle the fact first, and then deal with the consequences afterward. It is either true or not true that the commandment in question is the only one in the Scriptures which enforces Sabbath observance. To settle the point, I appeal to you directly to know whether you are aware of the existence of any other Sabbath precept than the one under consideration. If you are, please let us know where it can be found.
Mr. N.—I acknowledge, sir, frankly, that the fourth commandment is the only one of that nature that God has ever given. I admit also that in the old dispensation it enforced the observance of the seventh day of the week. I deny, however, that we are under any obligation to keep that commandment in the Christian age.
Mr. B.—Your position, then, seems to be this: In the old dispensation, the seventh day was the Sabbath; in this one, there is no Sabbath.
Mr. N.—That is the view which I hold. It is the only one, too, as these gentlemen will find, which is tenable.
Mr. B.—Well, let us see if your theory is as well fortified as you imagine. I read Rev. 1:10: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” This text was written about A. D. 96, or sixty odd years after the crucifixion. Now, if there was a Lord’s day at that time, there is one now, as you must admit. What, therefore, will you do with this passage, in order to make it harmonize with your theory?
Mr. N.—Why, I suppose that the apostle there alludes to the Christian era. You know that in the Scriptures the term day is frequently applied to a dispensation or a long period of time. It is said, for example, that Abraham saw the day of Christ and was glad.
Mr. B.—It is true that there are a few instances in the Scriptures in which the term day is applied to an era or a dispensation. These are very exceptional cases, however, when compared to the instances wherein that expression refers to an ordinary twenty-four hour day; they are as one to a thousand. The context always enables us to decide which application of the term is intended. In Rev. 1:10, it would make nonsense of the passage should we understand that the term day used therein refers to the Christian dispensation. How ridiculous, for example, it would have been for John to write to the seven churches, informing them in all sobriety that when he was in the Spirit in A. D. 96, that event occurred within the limits of the Christian dispensation. Valuable information this, indeed, to impart to his contemporaries. Who among them could have been ignorant of the fact that if John had a vision on the Isle of Patmos, it must have fallen in the Christian dispensation? Such an explanation, Mr. Nolaw, is unworthy the name. It resembles a mere make-shift more nearly than anything else. No unbiased mind would ever think of placing such an interpretation on the passage in question. Give to the words their natural signification, and all is plain.
In Isa. 58:13 we have this language: “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable;” etc. Here the Lord, through the prophet, distinctly claims the Sabbath as his holy day. In the fourth commandment, it is spoken of as the Sabbath of the Lord. It is the only day which God has ever claimed as his own. Understand John as alluding to it, and all is clear. In giving the particulars relating to his vision, he stated that it was given to him on the Lord’s day; knowing that the members of the seven churches to which he wrote, as they were familiar with the Scriptures, would readily gather that it was on the Sabbath that he was in the Spirit. Such a fact, if it were possible, would even render his view more sacred than otherwise it would have been.
Mr. N.—Well, I have given you my view of the matter.
Mr. B.—Very true, sir; but you have not supported your theory by a single Scripture argument or text worthy of mention. The presumptions, furthermore, are all against you. John says that he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day. Isaiah says that the Sabbath is the Lord’s day. Putting this and that together, it is proved that in A. D. 96 John the apostle received a revelation from the Lord on the Sabbath. There must, therefore, have been a Sabbath at that time, your no-Sabbath doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding. I might elaborate the argument still further on this point, by showing that throughout the New Testament, the Sabbath is spoken of again and again as something which actually exists in this dispensation; but perhaps this labor will not be required until you have done something more than you have as yet accomplished, in the direction of answering the positive testimony of Rev. 1:10, to the effect that God has a day in the Christian age which he calls his own.
Mr. N.—I perceive that I am somewhat hampered in the argument, as the result of not stating my position fully in the outset. The truth is, gentlemen, I do not believe that any of the commandments are binding in this dispensation; they were all—the fourth commandment with them—designed for the Jews alone, and were nailed to the cross.
Mr. B.—I thank you, sir, for this frank confession. I had surmised that what you now state is true. I fancy, however, that these gentlemen present will be very slow to indorse your views on this subject. What say you, gentlemen?
Mr. Surplice.—Why, sir, I am very astonished at the declaration of Mr. Nolaw. I should have to throw away my Episcopal church before I could adopt his view. Every morning we repeat those commandments, every one in the public congregation, praying for strength from the Lord to keep them.
Mr. Westminster.—All the churches of the Westminster Confession teach that the ten commandments are of perpetual obligation. To teach the contrary, it seems to me, would be a dangerous practice. The law and the gospel must go hand in hand. The one convinces the sinner of sin, and the other points him to the remedy.
Mr. Dipper.—Baptists long since put themselves right on the record, so far as the obligation of the ten commandments is concerned. We regard them as a summary of God’s moral precepts, which you could no more abolish than you could the Author.
Mr. Shouter.—Our discipline has these words: “No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.” I recall, also, the remarks of John Wesley in his Notes on Matt. 5:17: “It was the design of Christ to revoke any part of it? It cannot be broken. Every part of it remains in force upon all men in all ages. Neither place, nor circumstances make it liable to.” So long as I revere the memory of Wesley, I respect the teachings of the discipline of our church. I can never admit that the law of God is abolished in whole or in part.
Mr. B.—I am very thankful, gentlemen, that you all, with the exception of Mr. Nolaw, sound on the question of the perpetuity of the law. I was aware that the creeds of the different churches, generally speaking, are all that could be desired in what they say concerning the moral obligation of God’s “ten words.” It is a mistake, however, that the members of these churches, as a rule, are so sound on this subject as they should be. In presenting the argument on the question, it is a very common thing to meet church members who, in order to escape a difficulty which they cannot answer, take refuge in the theory that the ten commandments are not in this dispensation. This class of reasoning is multiplying very rapidly. Fifty years ago, they were rarely met with; whereas at the present time, as already stated, they are found in great numbers. I do not recall the name of a single man of commanding ability and acknowledged piety, who lived prior to this century, who favored the doctrine that the law of God has been abolished. I might prove to you by numerous instances that Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, Clarke, and Jonathan Edwards were all unflinching advocates of the doctrine that the ten commandments were designed to be obligatory upon us in all ages. Even Alexander Campbell—in the founder of the sect to which our friend Nolaw belongs—was sound on this question. In his discussion with Bishop Purcell, of the Catholic church, he declared that “God’s ‘ten words,’ not only in the Old Testament, but in all religions, were the most emphatically regarded as the basis of all religion and morality.”
What will come out of this modern repudiation of the only law which God ever condescended to write with his own finger and utter with his own voice, time alone can tell. It is certain, however, that the results which will follow must be mischievous to the last degree. The men who take the course in question remind one of the Samson, who, in order to destroy his enemies, pulled down the temple in which both he and they were lodged, thus putting an end to his own existence at the same time that he caused them to perish. In doing away with the moral law of men, though they may be ignorant of the fact, are endeavoring to overturn the very pillars of the structure of society. In order to get rid of the Sabbath commandment, they would open the floodgates of iniquity, and give men license to set at naught, worship idols, blaspheme, dishonor their fathers and their mothers, kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, and covet.
N.—Why, sir, what you say is not true. I hold no such doctrine as you charge upon us.
B.—Well, let us see if your views, practically speaking, do not lead to the very results that I have mentioned. You hold, do you not, that the abolition of the fourth commandment releases men from the obligation to observe the Sabbath that it imposes?
N.—Yes, sir.
B.—Very good. Now will you be so kind as to inform me, if you can, how the abolition of the commandment can relieve men from the obligation which it imposes, unless it be true also that the abrogation of the other commandments relieves men from the necessity of performing the duties which they enforce?
N.—I don’t see your point, sir. Of course we are not compelled to observe laws that have been repealed; but what has that to do with the matter under discussion? You asserted that those who take the position that the law has been set aside teach that men are at liberty to set God at naught, worship idols, blaspheme, dishonor their fathers and mothers, kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, and covet. Now I deny that what you say is true. There is no possible connection between the commission of such sins as these and the doing away of the law.
B.—Well, let us see whether you are right. I believe that you admitted just now that we are not under obligation to keep laws that are not abrogated; did you not?
N.—Yes, sir.
B.—You also hold that all the ten commandments have been abolished?
N.—Yes, sir.
B.—But did you notice, sir, that the catalogue of sins which I mentioned corresponded precisely with those forbidden in the decalogue?
N.—Why, no, sir; I did not observe it.
B.—Such was the case, nevertheless. Should men set God at naught, worship idols, blaspheme, dishonor their parents, kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, or covet—or, in other words, commit the sins which I charged you with encouraging—they would break each one of the ten commandments (with the exception of the fourth), in the exact order in which they are laid down in the decalogue. But I inquire now what it is that restrains men generally from committing sin, if it is not the fear of punishment? Paul says, in Rom. 4:15, that “where no law is, there is no transgression.” But where there is no transgression, of course there can be no punishment; and therefore, if the ten commandments are abolished—as you argue that they are—there is no penalty for their violation, and therefore that one of the most powerful inducements to the avoidance of the sins which they forbid, has been taken away. Thus, sir, I demonstrate my charge that the men who, in common with you, hold the no-law theory, are guilty of encouraging the practice of all the sins condemned by the commandments. Until you can make it appear that individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their teachings, you cannot evade the charge which I have brought against you and those who sympathize with your antinomian notions.
N.—It does not make any difference what you say, sir; I still insist that the law of God, as embodied in the form of the ten commandments, has been abolished. It is true that, in so far as they are based upon moral principles, we are bound to respect them.
B.—Do you think, sir, that we shall be saved if we do not do so?
N.—We shall, without doubt.
B.—Permit me to inquire, now, how many of the ten commandments are based upon natural law, or what you term moral principles?
N.—Well, I suppose that it is generally admitted that all of them, except the fourth, are of this character.
B.—So it appears that all the assaults upon the law of God are prompted by the single desire to get rid of the Sabbath commandment.
Mr. N.—No, sir; we do away with all the commandments.
Mr. B.—A strange way, indeed, you have of doing away with nine of the commandments. Why, sir, you just told me that all, except the fourth, rested upon moral principles, and that we should be punished were we to violate any one of them. Now I would like to have you tell me what would be gained by doing away with a given law, provided that, despite its repeal, it should continue to exist in another form to that extent that offenders will be punished for its violation. You see that the thing is absurd upon the face of it. According to your own theory, as explained by yourself, nine of the commandments are actually binding upon the race as fully as they ever were. All that you have succeeded in doing—judging of the matter from your own stand-point—is this: you have transferred nine of the commandments from the region of explicit statutory provision to the mystical domain of natural law. In other words, you have deprived the race of all the benefits of a written code, which distinctly marks out their duties and clearly states the penalty of transgression, to remand them to that condition of doubt and uncertainty in which they were before God revealed his will to them. If this, sir, is not a calamity rather than an advantage, then I am greatly deceived. If I am to be held to the observance of a law, I say, by all means, let its requirements be distinctly stated and its penalties plainly marked out in a written code, so that I may neither be ignorant of duty nor of the penalty that its neglect will insure.
Maud.—Father, it is ten o’clock.
Mr. B.—Pardon me, gentlemen. I was not aware that it was so late. We shall be compelled to close our talk right in the midst of the law subject. If agreeable to you, we will take up that subject again to-morrow night, and investigate it still further. Nothing would please me more than to have all present at that sitting, who are here this evening.
Mr. Surplice.—I feel certain, Mr. Biblist, that I express the minds of all when I say that we shall be most happy to accept your invitation.