Earlier text: Power of The TruthJustification and Salvation.
It is said that Martin Luther rejected the letter of James, because he thought it disagreed with Paul's letter to the Romans on the doctrine of justification. It is not surprising that Luther, just emerging from the darkness of Roman superstition regarding the merit of church rituals, should take extreme ground in the other direction, and feel alarmed at what appeared to be a dangerous error in the letter of James on justification by works. But the present generation of Protestants ought to be able to take a more calm and consistent view of these letters. There is no discrepancy between the teachings of Paul and James; but there is, even to this day, a sad misunderstanding of what Paul really teaches. We propose to show that the modern "holiness" teachers argue concerning sanctification exactly as Paul does concerning justification. Now while Paul's position on justification is perfectly consistent with reason and with the principles of justice and of government, to apply the same argument to sanctification is subversive of justice and government. It leads to the rankest and most dangerous form of "antinomian perfectionism." It must be admitted that at first view, or on a superficial reading, of the writings of Paul and James, there seems to be a contradiction between the letter of James and that of Paul to the Romans. Paul says that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, or without works. James says a man is not justified by faith alone without works. Can these be harmonized? They can; and their harmony may be easily shown. Carefully examining the argument of Paul we find that he was discoursing of the sinful condition of the human race, and of the utter inability of a sinner to relieve himself by the law. The law is a rule of right; of course it condemns all wrong. Some find fault with the law because it condemns, but will not justify, the sinner. But for this very fact we respect it and love it. We could not respect a law which justified wrong-doing. It condemns the sinner only because he deserves condemnation. In this it does right. The wrong is in the transgressor—not in the law. Now Paul affirms that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And then he immediately presents the remedy. This is the blood of Christ, and faith in his blood. As Christ is the gift of God's love (John 3:16), justification is "freely by his grace." But the subject of the argument is not for a moment lost sight of, though it is strangely overlooked by many modern theorists. He is speaking of sinners condemned, and therefore the justification of which he speaks is "for the remission of sins that are past. In this is found the solution of the apparent difficulty; Paul speaks to the Romans of justification from past sins; James does not; he has quite another subject for his discourse. It must be evident to all that our present or future conduct has no influence over our past life. Present obedience meets only a present demand, and we can do no more than our duty to-day. It is required of us, every moment of our lives, to love the Lord our God with all our heart. Less than this is short of duty, but more than this we cannot do. Now if we fail to love the Lord with all our heart to-day, can we make amends by loving him with more than all the heart to-morrow? The idea is absurd. Man can do nothing whatever toward relieving himself of the burden of guilt for past sins. Therefore in regard to remission of sins that are past, justification is, and of necessity must be, without the deeds of the law—entirely outside of our own works. "Freely by his grace." James, to the contrary, says not one word about the remission of past sin. He is speaking of what is necessary to the formation of character. And his remarks on this subject are as evidently true as are those of Paul on the subject of remission. We can form character by our actions as regards the present and future; but we cannot reform the past. That is gone, beyond our control. We must all give assent to that which James says as readily as we assent to that which Paul says. A rich man's prayer for the suffering poor will doubtless be accepted, but only just as far as he puts forth an effort to relieve their sufferings. All must accept the truth that "faith without works is dead, being alone;" that it is better to show our faith by our works than to assert our faith without works. Paul, so far from contradicting this, asserts the same thing in the very strongest terms; stronger, if possible, than the expression of James. No writer in the Bible pleads for obedience and good works more vehemently than does Paul. Thus in Phil. 2:12; "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." How Martin Luther could reject the letter of James and accept this, we cannot understand. Nor can we understand how the modern "holiness" teachers can take the ground which they do, in the face of such exhortations or injunctions as this of Paul to the Philippians, except on the ground of the well-known fact that hobby-riders seldom realize the necessity of being consistent. Now if the question is asked, why did not Paul speak in Rom. 3:28 as he did in Phil. 2:12? the answer is at hand: He was speaking on another subject. It was because he made the just and proper distinction between justification and salvation. Justification is not of or by works; it only fits a person for working; it places him where he can work to divine acceptance. But if he refuses or neglects to work, he forfeits his justification, and falls from the grace whereby he was "freely justified." Justification is for past sins, or for their remission; salvation is future, and is conditioned upon "patient continuance in well-doing." Rom. 2:7. It must be remembered that justification, referred to in these remarks, is in the sense used by Paul, that is, a releasing from the condemnation of sin. James uses the word in quite another sense: as showing one's self to be right, or conforming to justice. Though Webster gives his third definition as the "theological" one, his second is equally so, namely, "To pronounce free from guilt, or blame; to absolve; to clear." Now it is evident that James does not use the word "justify" in this sense at all. Webster's first definition will exactly meet the case, namely: "To prove or show to be just, or conformable to law, right, justice, propriety, or duty." This explanation is necessary to prevent misunderstanding of the term as used by the two writers. Now we are prepared to examine the error of the "perfectionists." A writer on holiness recently gave as one means "to prevent the spread of holiness" among the people, the following: "Imbue them with the idea that they are to be holy by striving to do right, to keep the law of God." This position is unscriptural; it is not evangelical. We would supplement it with this statement: If you would spread fanaticism among the people; if you would fasten upon them the chains of "antinomian delusion," imbue them with the idea that they can be holy without obedience to God's commandments; that they can be good without doing good. The words of the apostle John are very appropriate here: "Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." 1 John 3:7. Holiness is by obedience. But these modern "holiness" teachers make no just distinction between justification and sanctification. As we have before remarked, they treat sanctification precisely as Paul treats justification in his letter to the Romans. Paul says that justification is without works, or without the deeds of the law. They say that holiness is without works—without the deeds of the law. But their declaration is contrary to the Scriptures; contrary to every principle of justice and of government. Again they make sanctification and salvation identical; but Paul's idea of "working out your own salvation" is, in their estimation, a great error, and to be greatly avoided. Their ideas of the gospel of salvation are partial or one-sided. The gospel makes provision for the past and for the future. For the past it offers justification or remission; for the future, it takes away the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, and leads to obedience to the law. For the past it absolves from sin; for the future it prevents sin. If it does not this it does nothing to prepare us to stand in the Judgment of the great day. To prevent sin is to prevent the transgression of the law, "for sin is the transgression of the law." Now if a sense of duty to obey God's commandments is detrimental to holiness, then a sense of license to transgress the commandments of God must lead to an increase of holiness. But transgression is sin; and, hence, in this modern holiness system, sin and holiness are closely allied; they are nearly convertible terms. We do not wish to be unjust, or even severe. But what else can we say when it is boldly avowed that the idea of being holy by obedience to God's law is detrimental to the cause of holiness? But they might say they believe in obedience, but not in holiness acquired by obedience. We give them the benefit of our own supposition, and then declare the position unscriptural. We repeat the quotations: "Work out your own salvation." "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." We will examine this point more particularly. As concerning moral character, holiness, sanctity, and purity, mean the same thing. The Saviour prayed thus to his Father: "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." John 17:17. We inquire, What is necessary to fulfill this prayer? No man can be sanctified by merely hearing the truth. To the contrary, a knowledge of the truth increases the condemnation of the hearer if he does not accept it. Neither is a man sanctified by merely believing the truth. Many are convinced of the truth, and really believe it, but it has no influence on their lives, and they are not benefited by it; their faith is dead and profitless. Peter shows how the work is accomplished: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." 1 Peter 1:22. It is obedience which purifies or sanctifies. In obedience to the word of God the prayer of the Saviour is answered in us. To sanctify the disciples of Jesus through the truth, is to lead them to obey the truth. Once more: the truth which is directly sanctifying in its nature is that which calls for obedience; it is the law of God. The soul is not purified by a truth which we cannot obey. Take for illustration the very important truth, "There is one God." Of this James says: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils [demons] also believe, and tremble." This truth must be believed, but cannot be obeyed; it is declarative, not preceptive. The demons do as "well" with it as we—they believe; and do even better than some men—they tremble, but are demons still. If to their belief they would inquire for the will of the "one God," and walk in obedience to his commandments, they would cease to be demons. And so would all sinners—transgressors of law—cease to be sinners, and become saints of God, if they would cease to transgress and become obedient. He who speaks disparagingly of obedience to the law of God disparages true holiness and presents a false standard of righteousness. It is fanaticism, and not holiness. All such are self-deceived—"vainly puffed up by the fleshly mind," or carnal mind, which is not and cannot be in harmony with the law of God. Of course it is understood that no one pleads for obedience independent of faith in Christ. Justifying faith is that which leads to obedience and enables us to obey, or to do good works. To teach obedience as the means of justification from past sins would indeed frustrate justifying grace; for obedience can answer no demand of past short comings. If the "holiness" teachers will apply their declarations to unconverted sinners and to the subject of justification, no one could reasonably dissent. But as applied to sanctification they are every way unscriptural, fanatical, and subversive of true Bible morality. Sunday Law Infringement on Religious Rights.
WHEN we published our argument on the enforcement of the Sunday law, we were not aware that any one had ever considered the point that the Sunday law is oppressive to the conscience of the Sabbath-keeper, and really amounts to a prohibition of the observance of the Bible Sabbath, because it would compel many to work on the seventh day to gain a livelihood. We find the same presented to the Supreme Court of California in the Brief of Mr. Brandon, as follows:— “Now, in view of the struggle for existence which exists in all civilized countries; in view of the intense competition which exists in all branches of business in the present age, it needs no argument to show, that in that strife and competition, a citizen cannot suspend his business occupations during two consecutive days and yet hope to secure a livelihood for his family, a result, indeed, oftentimes hardly attainable by31 the most diligent and assiduous labor during six days. In this condition find themselves numerous citizens of our State, both Israelites and Seventh-day Christians, who are entitled to claim from the State the same paternal care, protection, and consideration vouchsafed to citizens of other religious denominations. Struggling to provide a living for themselves and families, to retain their children as upright, honorable citizens of the Republic, and entitled to have secured to them the elevating and moral influences of the religious observances that pertain to their faith; unable scarcely to earn that hardly-battled-for living in six days’ labor, the compulsory Sunday law requiring them to suspend their labors or business on another day immediately succeeding the one specially enjoined by divine command, presents to these men the alternative of either seeing their families need many of the necessaries of life, or of yielding in their conscientious observance of what they esteem a divine command. Can it be said, I ask, in all candor, in all justice, that an obstacle is not here interposed to the exercise of the religious observance, or worship of their citizens. I think no one but he whose sense of right and truth was blinded by religious zeal for the faith whose predominance was sought, but would answer in the affirmative. “It does present an obstacle; and an obstacle of so serious a nature that thousands, aye, tens of thousands have been compelled to yield in their conscientious observance, because they found it utterly incompatible with the peremptory command of the State. With that sacrifice made, there is lost to these men the elevating, moral, and religious influences conceded by all thinking minds to be due to its setting apart of certain recurring periods for spiritual things—influences the necessity and benefit of which are continually and urgently insisted on by ministers of the Christian faith when advocating the observance of Sunday by the members of their own Churches;—but of which these wronged and oppressed citizens are deprived. For it must be remembered, that to these men it is not a matter of choice or selection what day of religious rest shall be observed. Their religion does not prescribe the setting apart of a seventh part of time, or any recurring seventh day as a day of religious observance, but a special definite day only is enjoined. A day that cannot be supplanted by another. Hence it is, that not observing that day, and no other day having any religious sanctity, they lose all the sanctifying and beneficial influences to be derived therefrom, as the result of the interference of the State, and its attempted enforcement on them of the observance of a religious observance of another creed, under the flimsy device of a sanitary regulation.” The Entrance of Death.
By John Nevins Andrews
"BECAUSE thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, . . . . cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. . . . . In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3:17-19. We have in these words the exact sense of the penalty of the law which was threatened in the probation under which Adam was first placed. The very first act of disobedience must bring this period of probation to a close; for it could last only while man maintained his innocence, and when he committed his first transgression, he made the penalty of the law inevitable. Now he was a fallen being under sentence of death. He was excluded from Paradise, and he must henceforth lead a dying life till he should return again to the ground from which he was taken. Adam now possessed a sinful nature, and because of God's curse upon him for his sin, he bore within himself the seeds of death. The irrevocable sentence of death was pronounced upon him in the day of his transgression; but before passing this sentence on him, the Judge promised a Redeemer, and of necessity with that Redeemer did secure to man a second probation. To show that God was in earnest with man he makes death his certain portion. But in giving man the opportunity to recover his lost innocence and to regain Paradise, the execution of the penalty was deferred till space for repentance could be first secured. Adam's nature being sinful, he could transmit to his posterity no purer nature than himself possessed. In the loss of Paradise he stood as the representative of his race. When he was excluded from it we also were excluded. Paul says that "it is appointed unto men once to die." Heb. 9:27. This appointment was made when God said to Adam, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," which proves that this sentence of death concerned Adam and his posterity alike. He now possessed only a dying life, and all who are descended from him can by nature possess no higher life than this. The sentence of death is upon all mankind, not for the actual transgression of each person, but because they possess only a forfeited life, the right of the race to live being lost when man lost his innocence, and when his first probation ended in having sentence of death passed upon him. Now he lives by sufferance, the sentence of death hanging over him, but its execution being deferred in the case of each generation to give space for repentance. The entrance of death was an attestation that his innocence was lost and that the first probation of the race was a failure. And as death has been the portion of mankind without respect to character during the whole period of man's fallen state, it is plain that its present infliction upon men is not the punishment for their own personal transgressions. They are upon a second probation, and this involves a day of judgment at its close which shall determine the case of each individual, and shall award immortality to those who are worthy to receive it, and shall consign all others to the lake of fire and the second death. Rev. 20:14, 15; 21:8. This second death is the penalty for personal transgression under the second probation of our race. Rom. 6:23. We shall hereafter see that it is, in the measure of suffering involved, incomparably awful, and in no measure to be placed on a level with the death which comes in consequence of Adam's transgression. We believe these statements respecting the origin of death, and concerning the relation which mankind sustains to it to be so just that Bible students will acknowledge their truthfulness. But there are important questions involved in this which some are not able to treat with candor. What place had death in our world while man was innocent? Not any. What brought death into the world? Sin. On what ground does sin occasion the death of man? Simply this, that when man violated the law of God, he forfeited his right to live. God told Adam that disobedience would bring death. His innocence was his title to life. Sin was the occasion of death. If sin gives death admission to our world is it reasonable to think that death gives us admission to Heaven? Death was not the doorway to Heaven while man was innocent, for then there was no death. If Adam had continued in his uprightness, and God had seen fit to take him to Heaven, we have in the translation of Enoch an example of the manner in which he would have done it. Translation is the door by which Enoch and Elijah entered, and by which all shall enter who are alive at the coming of Christ. There was no occasion for sin to make a new door to Heaven by introducing death. Moreover, the character of death, which is that of an enemy, is no better fitted to inspire our confidence than is its parentage. And can we believe that death is the gate to endless joys when it has such an origin and such a character, and when Paul and John declare that it shall be destroyed? 1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 20:14. That death is not the doorway of Heaven will be further evident when we study the doctrine of the resurrection. What is Your Motive?
By Uriah Smith
You wish with all your heart the success and triumph of present truth? Why? There are many reasons which are laudable and good, but there is one particular in which there may be danger of our cherishing a wrong spirit, and to this we therefore wish to call attention. To those who are whole-hearted in the truth, nothing upon earth is more precious than this cause. Their best interests center upon it. The strongest cords of their love entwine around it. Their hopes are bound up in it. In its prosperity they rejoice; in its adversity they mourn. The toils and sacrifice necessary to carry it forward, they welcome as desirable burdens to bear for its advancement. But this cause has its foes. Its promulgation has developed an unusual number of the same characters from whom Paul prayed to be delivered, and whom he styles "unreasonable and wicked men." These are bitter in their opposition to this work. They labor to arrest its progress. Over every indication of its decline, they raise a shout of exultation. They predict its failure. They greedily seek for flaws in the private lives or public walks of its defenders. And they would fain persuade themselves and others that our course is folly, and our hope a phantom. Now it would be very much in accordance with human nature for personal feelings to arise in our hearts against such individuals, and for us to wish for the success of this work for the gratification of these feelings, that their mouths might be stopped, their folly be made manifest, and we feel that a triumph had been achieved over the enemies of the truth. If any of us are in any degree inclined to such feelings, let us immediately commence to guard against them. We know the truth is destined to triumph, and we desire its immediate advancement; but there is a better motive for this than the one above mentioned. This is the last message of mercy to a perishing world; and sinners are lying all around us in darkness and danger. Carelessly and ignorantly they are hasting to the Judgment. They must be warned. Then let us work and pray for the success of this cause, not that we may triumph over our opponents, but that souls may be saved, and God's name be thus glorified. This is the great object. This should be the all-absorbing motive. Let us make every other consideration subservient to this, seek to realize the value of souls, and their startling danger; and earnestly desire the prosperity of the cause of truth, that the warning may be wide spread, the honest receive the light, and so be saved in the impending day of the Lord Jesus. Who Are Christians?
By R. F. Cottrell
Those who believe in Christ, follow his example, obey him, and keep his Father’s commandments; they are those who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Christ is the “Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” Heb. 5:9. Said he, “If a man love me, he will keep my words.” Again, “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.” John 14:23 and 15:14. Again, “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Matt. 12:50. The apostles, who were commissioned to disciple all nations, made a good beginning on the notable day of Pentecost; and the three thousand that “were added to the Lord” on that day heard and obeyed these words: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Their sins were their violations of the law of God; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” To repent of their sins was to turn from their transgressions of God’s law, and their immersion in the name of Christ was an acknowledgment of their faith in Christ “for the remission of sins that are past” (See Rom. 3:22–26); and both these were necessary in order to obey Christ, and become his disciples and friends, according to the words already quoted. In order to be in full a Bible Christian, it is necessary to keep the commandments of the Father and believe on and obey the Son. Open communionists adopt the motto: “No test of Christian fellowship but Christian character.” In this, we are happy to agree with them. But the question arises, What is Christian character? Perhaps it is replied, “To deal justly with men, giving all their dues, invading none of their rights, and being benevolent to the poor and needy.” We reply, it is all this, and it is more. Besides all this, it is to acknowledge both the Father and the Son, and to “continue in the Son, and in the Father;” for “he is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.” John 2:21–24. “All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” John 5:23. There is one special act of honor to the Father required in the moral law of God; and that is, to remember the day of his rest from the creation of the world to keep it holy. He honors the Father who yields to his authority. And we may, so far as human eyes can discern, keep every precept of the decalogue except the Sabbath, and not be known to do one act of special honor to the authority of God. But the name of God, as the Creator, is found only in the fourth of the ten commandments; and therefore to keep the Sabbath is equivalent to a profession of loyalty to the Creator. And it is a special act of honor to the authority of the Son to be “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” However moral a man may be in the eyes of the world, how can he have a Christian character without taking32 upon him the name of Christ in the Lord’s appointed way? A good Mohammedan may be as honest in deal as his religion of the Koran requires; yet his is not a Christian, but a Mohammedan character. A true Christian is teachable. Apollos, “an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures,” was zealously preaching the truth, so far as he had learned it; but Aquilla and Priscilla, having heard him, “took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly.” Instead of rebuking them for presuming to instruct a minister, he received the advancing light, and immediately began to preach the gospel of Christ in its then present state of development. If a man asks Christian fellowship who openly violates one of the ten commandments, and consequently has not repented of all his sins, or has not submitted to Christ by being baptized in his name, we will teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly, expecting that if he desires above all things to be a Christian, he will do what Christ says. Said Jesus, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” But here comes in the plea, “We differ in regard to baptism and the Sabbath. We do not see these things as you do.” We certainly ought not to differ. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed.” It is the will of Christ that Christians should be perfectly united. He prayed that his disciples might be perfectly united in one even as he and the Father are one. John 17:20–23. Do the Father and the Son differ in regard to the Sabbath and baptism? Where then is the fault? Is it in the word of God? Are the ten commandments so expressed that we cannot understand and obey them? Is it impossible to know what the gospel requires, when it commands us to be baptized? My friends, the fault is not in the Bible; but men have come to the conclusion that something else will do just as well. The difference on these points is that some hold to what is said, while others hold to substitutes. Let us illustrate this by a quotation from the learned Conybeare and Howson. “It is needless to add,” say they, “that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the water to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of the ordinance of baptism (though perhaps necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some important passages of Scripture.” Yes; and it is also to be regretted that a human substitute for the Lord’s Sabbath has rendered obscure to the people the fourth commandment. Now who has a right to substitute something else, in any climate, for what the Lord has said? And who has a right to say to those who do this, It is just as well; we can call you good Christians, while you make the word of God of none effect by your traditions? Has God failed to express the ten precepts of his moral law so as to be understood by those who desire to understand him? And are the precepts of the gospel left obscure, so that of necessity honest seekers for truth must differ? We cannot thus traduce the word of God. We dare not; hence we are bold to charge the fault to sinful men; men who would be heirs of the promises, while they justify themselves in keeping their traditions in preference to the word of God. As long as Christians so widely differ on points of duty, there is need of reform; and a reform will be considered worthless, so long as its advocates seem to esteem it of no importance. Imagine Luther, if you can, pleading for open communion with the Roman church, while at the same time he was exposing her corruptions of the word of God. True Christians will learn of Christ, follow his example, obey his word, and honor his Father.