Section 8. The Law and Legalism - outline and explanation
---===---
5. The Law of God in Church Creeds
6. Are Adventists Legalists?
5. The Law of God in Church Creeds
Unquestionably, the point of greatest controversy between Seventh day Adventists and their theological critics is with regard to the law of God. This is understandable, for if it can be proved that the law of God has been abolished, then the seventh day Sabbath has been abolished also. On the contrary, if the law of God stands revealed as perpetual in its claim upon men, then the fourth commandment confronts us with its injunction to keep holy the "seventh day."
The chief argument of those who seek to prove that the Ten Commandments has been abolished is this: The Bible speaks of only one law, which includes moral and ceremonial precepts. The Bible also speaks of the law's being abolished at the cross Therefore the Ten Commandments has been abolished. Those who thus reason seek to give added force to their argument and to make Adventists appear to be the promoters of strange doctrine, by implying, when they do not explicitly state, that the idea that two laws are described in the Bible is a peculiarly Adventist doctrine. For example, one writer declares: "The place to find emphasis placed upon these supposed distinctions [between the moral and ceremonial laws] is in the lectures and printed matter of the Seventh day Adventists. Their 'two laws' theory is based upon mere assumptions, incorrect applications of Scripture, and detached Biblical phrases extracted from their proper connections."
This statement has been widely quoted in the literature of critics. If it means anything, it means that Adventists are unique, in contrast to Christendom at large, in holding to the doctrine that the Bible sets forth two laws. The most charitable way to view this statement is to say that its author and its many fervent quoters have never carefully read the creeds of Christendom from Reformation days onward.
From Reformation times down to the definite organization of the main Protestant bodies, the confessions of faith and creeds of Protestantism have generally contained some statement concerning the law of God. An examination of these statements reveals that Protestantism in general believes three important facts concerning the law:
1. That the Ten Commandments is God's moral standard for Christians.
2. That there is a clear distinction between the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial and other laws of ancient Israel.
3. That obedience to the Ten Commandments is not to be construed as being contrary in any way to grace-that law and gospel belong together in the Christian life.
For some readers, two words in the following quotations may require explanation. The word catholic, written thus with a small c and coupled with the word church in the Protestant creeds, means the whole body of Christian believers. The word catholic simply means "universal." The word symbol is used as a synonym for creed or confession.
The text of these creedal statements and the quoted comments on them are those given in the authoritative source work by Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom. 9
The Waldensian Catechism
"The Waldensian Catechism ... must have been written before 1500. ... It consists of fifty-seven questions. ... and as many answers. ... It embodies the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's prayer, and the Ten Commandments. ... Under the head of Faith we have a practical exposition of the Apostles' Creed and the Ten Commandments, showing their subjective bearing on a living faith." - Volume 1, pp. 572, 573. 9. What is living faith?
"It is faith active in love (as the apostle testifies, Gal. 5:15), that is, by keeping God's commandments. Living faith is to believe in God, that is, to love Him and to keep His commandments." - Ibid., p. 575.
The Confession of the Waldenses, AD. 1655
"This confession belongs to the Calvinistic family.... It is still in force, or at least highly prized among the Waldenses in Italy. The occasion which called it forth entitles it to special consideration. It was prepared and issued in 1655, together with an appeal to Protestant nations, in consequence of one of the most cruel persecutions which Roman bigotry could inspire." - Volume 3, p. 757. "We believe, ...
- XXXIII. Finally, that we ought to receive the symbol of the apostles, the Lord's prayer, and the Decalogue as fundamentals of our faith and our devotion." - Ibid., p. 768.
Luther's Small Catechism, AD. 1529
Speaking of this catechism in connection with the Heidelberg and the Shorter Westminster Catechisms, Schaff says: ... These are the three most popular and useful catechisms that Protestantism has produced." - Volume 1, p. 543. Part 1 is entitled "The Ten Commandments," consisting chiefly of a series of questions on each of the Ten Commandments in order.
Then follow immediately the two questions and answers given below. "What does God say about all these commandments? "He says this:
"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.' "What does this mean?"
Answer:
"God threatens to punish all who transgress these commandments: we should, therefore, fear His anger, and do nothing against such commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all who keep them: we should, therefore, love and trust in Him, and gladly obey His commandments." - Volume 3, p. 77.
The Heidelberg Catechism, AD. 1563
"The Heidelberg Catechism was translated into all the European and many Asiatic languages. ... It is stated that, next to the Bible, the 'Imitation of Christ,' by Thomas ;1 Kempis, and Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress,' no book has been more frequently translated, more widely circulated or used As a standard of public doctrine the Heidelberg Catechism is the most catholic and popular of all the Reformed symbols.' - Volume 1, pp. 536, 540. Schaff adds that this "was the first catechism planted on American soil," and that it is "the honored symbol of the Dutch and German Reformed Churches in America." - Ibid., p. 549.
"Question 92 What is the law of God?
"Answer.- [The answer consists of a verbatim quotation of the Ten Commandments as given in Exodus 20:1-17.]
"Ques. 93 - How are these commandments divided?
"Ans. - Into two tables, the first of which teaches us, in four commandments, what duties we owe to God; the second, in six, what duties we owe to our neighbor."
[The next twenty questions, 94 to 113, deal with the significance of each of the Ten Commandments.]
"Ques. 114-Can those who are converted to God keep these commandments perfectly?
"Ans. - No; but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience, yet so that with earnest purpose they begin to live, not only according to some but according to all the commandments of God.
"Ques. 115 - Why, then, cloth God so strictly enjoin upon us the Ten Commandments, since in this life no one can keep them?
"Ans. - First, that all our life long we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that we may continually strive and beg from God the grace of the Holy Ghost, so as to become more and more changed into the image of God, till we attain finally to full perfection after this life." - Volume 3, pp. 340-349.
The Form (or Formula) of Concord, AD. 1577
"The last of the Lutheran Confessions The Formula of Concord is, next to the Augsburg Confession, the most important theological standard of the Lutheran Church, but differs from it as the sectarian symbol of Lutheranism, while the other is its catholic symbol." - Volume 1, pp. 258, 338. The object of this Formula was to bring harmony into Lutheranism after some thirty years of theological disputation. Among the many questions raised by various theologians was that of the proper relation of the law to the gospel. Schaff well observes in this connection:- Protestantism in its joyful enthusiasm for the freedom and all-sufficiency of the gospel, was strongly tempted to antinomianism [no-law-ism], but restrained by its moral force and the holy
character of the gospel itself." - ibid., p. 277. The following quotation from the Formula of Concord shows how clearly and how vigorously the no-law doctrine was repudiated:
Art. 6. Of The Third Use of The Law Statement of The Controversy
"Since it is established that the law of God was given to men for three causes. First, that a certain external discipline might be preserved, and wild and intractable men might be restrained, as it were, by certain barriers. Secondly, that by the law men might be brought to an acknowledgment of their sins. Thirdly, that regenerate men, to all of whom, nevertheless, much of the flesh still cleaves, for that very reason may have some certain rule after which they may and ought to shape their life, etc. A controversy has arisen among some few theologians concerning the third use of the law, to wit: whether the law is to be inculcated upon the regenerate also, and its observation urged upon them or not? Some have judged that the law should be urged, others have denied it.
Affirmative
"The sound and godly doctrine concerning this controversy." 1. We believe, teach, and confess that although they who truly believe in Christ, and are sincerely converted to God, are through Christ set free from the curse and constraint of the law. They are not, nevertheless, on that account without law, inasmuch as the Son of God redeemed them for the very reason that they might meditate on the law of God day and night, and continually exercise themselves in the keeping thereof (Ps. 1:2; 119:1 sqq.). For not even our first parents, even before the fall, lived wholly without law, which was certainly at that time graven on their hearts, because the Lord had created them after His own image. (Gen. 1:26 sq.; 2:16 sqq.; 3:3).
"2. We believe, teach, and confess that the preaching of the law should be urged not only upon those who have not faith in Christ, and do not yet repent, but also upon those who truly believe in Christ, are truly converted to God, and regenerated and are justified by faith. ... [Sections 3 to 6 amplify the foregoing statement.]
Negative
"Rejection of false doctrine.
"We repudiate therefore, as a false and pernicious dogma, contrary to Christian discipline and true piety, the teaching that the law of God (in such wise as is described above) is not to be set forth before the godly and true believers, but only before the ungodly, unbelievers, and impenitent, and to be urged upon these alone.". - Volume 3, pp. 130-135.
The Scotch Confession of Faith, AD. 1560
"Subscription [to this Confession] was required from all ministers [in Scotland] first in 1572. From that time till the Revolution of 1688 this native Confession was the only legally recognized doctrinal standard of both the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches in Scotland. ... Edward Irving ... bestowed this encomium upon it: 'This document is the pillar of the Reformation Church of Scotland.'" - Volume 1, pp. 682, 684, 685.
The old spelling is given, but with possibly a few exceptions the meaning can easily be understood.
The Second Helvetic Confession, AD. 1566
This confession was written by Henry Bullinger, of Zurich, Switzerland, Zwingh's successor. "Bullinger ... preserved and completed the work of his predecessor [Zwingli], and exerted, by his example and writings, a commanding influence throughout the Reformed Church inferior only to that of Calvin." "The Helvetic Confession is the most widely adopted, and hence the most authoritative of all the Continental Reformed symbols, with the exception of the Heidelberg Catechism.... Upon the whole, the Second Helvetic Confession, as to theological merit, occupies the first rank among the Reformed confessions." - Volume 1, pp. 391, 394, 395.
This confession is accompanied by a number of explanatory footnotes, as is the case with various of the creeds and symbols. These footnotes have been placed in brackets in the text.
Chapter XII - Of The Law of God
"We teach that the will of God is set down unto us in the law of God; to wit, what He would have us to do, or not to do, what is good and just, or what is evil and unjust. We therefore confess that 'the law is good and holy' (Rom. 7:12). And that this law is, by the finger of God, either 'written in the hearts of men' (Rom. 2:15), and so is called the law of nature, or engraved in the two tables of stone, and more largely expounded in the books of Moses (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:22). For plainness' sake we divide it into the moral law, which is contained in the commandments, or the two tables expounded in the books of Moses. Into the ceremonial, which does appoint ceremonies and the worship of God; and into the judicial law, which is occupied about political and domestic affairs.
'We believe that the whole will of God, and all necessary precepts, for every part of this life, are fully delivered in this law. ...
"We teach that this law was not given to men, that we should be justified by keeping it; but that, by the knowledge thereof, we might rather acknowledge our infirmity, sin, and condemnation; and so, despairing of our strength, might turn unto Christ by faith. ...
"The law of God [to wit, the moral law, comprehended in the Ten Commandments], therefore, is thus far abrogated; that is, it does not henceforth condemn us, neither work wrath in us; 'for we are under grace, and not under the law' (Rom. 6:14). Moreover, Christ did fulfill all the figures of the law; wherefore the shadow ceased when the body came, so that, in Christ, we have now all truth and fullness. Yet we do not therefore disdain or reject the law. We remember the words of the Lord, saying, 'I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them' (Matt. 5:17). We know that in the law [to wit, in the moral law] are described unto us the kinds of virtues and vices. We know that the Scripture of the law [to wit, the ceremonial law], if it be expounded by the gospel, is very profitable to the church, and that therefore the reading of it is not to be banished out of the church. For although the countenance of Moses was covered with a veil, yet the apostle affirms that 'the veil is taken away and abolished by Christ' (2 Cor. 3:14). We
condemn all things which the old or new heretics have taught against the law of God." - Volume 3, pp. 854-856.
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, AD. 1571
The official statement of doctrine of the Church of England. In 1801 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America adopted the Thirty-nine Articles with minor deletions and variations. Article IX, "Of the Resurrection of Christ," reads the same in the American Revision of 1801 as in the original English edition of 1571. To avoid the old English spelling, we quote from the 1801 revision.
Article VI - Of The Old Testament
"The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral." - ibid., pp. 491,492.
American Revision of the Thirty-nine Articles by the Protestant Episcopal Church, AD. 1801
Article VI - Of The Old Testament
"The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral." - Ibid., p. 816.
The Anglican Catechism, AD. 1549 and 1662
(Church of England, and Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America)
"The Catechism of the Church of England, and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, is found in all editions of 'The Book of Common Prayer,' between the baptismal service and the order of confirmation." - Volume 3, p. 517. The American edition contains a few minor changes. Such changes as occur in the section quoted below are indicated in parentheses. "Question.-You said that your godfathers and godmothers (sponsors) did promise for you that you should keep God's commandments. Tell me how many there be.
"Answer - Ten.
"Ques. - Which be (are) they?
"Ans. - The same which God spoke in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. [Then follows the recital of the Ten Commandments.]
"Ques. - What does thou chiefly learn by these Commandments.
"Ans. - I learn two things: my duty towards God, and my duty towards my neighbor. [Then follow two questions, one concerning the duty to God, and the other, the duty to our neighbor.]
"Catechist. - My good child, know this, that thou art not able to do these things of thyself, nor to walk in the commandments of God, and to serve Him, without His special grace; which thou must learn at all times to call for by diligent prayer."'-Ibid., pp. 518-520.
The Irish Articles of Religion, AD. 1615
'Probably composed by the learned Archbishop James Ussher. ... Adopted by the ... Irish Episcopal Church. ... Practically superseded by the Thirty-nine Articles. ... Important as the connecting link between the Thirty-nine Articles and the Westminster Confession, and as the chief source of the latter." - Volume 3, p. 526.
"84. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites be abolished, and the civil precepts thereof be not of necessity to be received in any commonwealth, yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is freed from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral." - Ibid., p. 541.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, AD. 1647
Of the Westminster Assembly that drew up this confession, Schaff declares: "Whether we look at the extent or ability of its labors, or its influence upon future generations, it stands first among Protestant Councils." - Volume 1, p. 728. The Westminster Assembly carried on its work during that period in English history when the Puritans, who desired to reform more fully - the English church from any trace of Roman Catholicism, were in the ascendancy. With minor variations, the Westminster Confession is considered authoritative by Presbyterian bodies everywhere.
Particular attention is called to the texts of Scripture given as proofs of the statements in the confession. Those texts most frequently used by the No-Law advocates, are here used in such connections by the framers of this confession as to show the difference between moral and ceremonial laws, and the perpetuity of the former, etc.
Chapter XIX - Of The Law of God
'I. God gave Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.' [1]
"II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mt. Sinai in Ten Commandments, and written in two tables; [2] the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.' [3]
1. Gen. 1:26,27 with Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:14,15; 10:5; 5:12,19; Gal. 3:10,12; Eccl. 7:29; Job 28:28.
2. James 1:25,2:8,10,12. Rom. 13:8,9; Deut. 5:32; 10:4; Ex. 34:1, Rom. 3:19.
3. Matt. 22:37-40, Ex. 20:3-18.
"III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; [4] and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. [5] All of which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. [6]
"IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require. [7]
'V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; [8] and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. [9] Neither does Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. [10]
"VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned. [11] Yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly." [12] Discovering also the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives. [13] So as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of humiliation for, and hatred against sin. [14] Together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. [15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruption, in that it forbids sin; [16] and the threatening of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. [17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; [18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. [19] So as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the One, and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace." [20]
4. Heb. 9, 10:1; Gal. 4:1-3; Col. 2:17.
5. 1 Cor. 5: 7; 2 Cor. 6:17. Jude 23.
6. Col. 2:14,16,17; Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:15 16.
7. Ex. 21; 22:1-29; Gen. 49:10, 1 Pet. 2:13,14; Matt. 5:17, with verses 38,39; 1 Cor. 9:8-10. 8. Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:2; 1 John 2:3,4,7,8; Rom. 3:31,6:15
9. James. 2:10,11.
10. Matt. 5:17-19; James 2: 8; Rom. 3:31
11. Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; 3:13; 4:4,5; Acts 13.39; Rom. 8:1.
12. Rom. 7:12,22,25; Ps. 119:4-6; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:14-16,18-23.
13. Rom. 7:7,3:20.
14. James 1:23-25; Rom. 7:9,14,24.
15. Gal. 3:24; Rom. 7:24,25; 8:3,4. 16. James 2:1l; Ps. 119:101,104,128.
VII. Neither are the fore mentioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it". [21] The Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done." [22]
Chapter XX - Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience
"1. The liberty which Christ bath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law." [23] ... All which were common also to believers under the law. [24] But under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected." [25]" - Volume 3, pp. 640-644.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, AD. 1647
"This catechism was prepared by the Westminster Assembly in 1647, and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1648; by the Presbyterian Synod of New York and Philadelphia, May, 1788; and by nearly all the Calvinistic Presbyterian and Congregational Churches of the English tongue.... It is more extensively used than any other Protestant catechism except perhaps the Small Catechism of Luther and the Heidelberg Catechism." - Ibid., p. 676.
17. Ezra 9:13,14; Ps. 89:30.34.
18. Lev. 26:1,10,14 with 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 6:2,3; Ps. 37:11 with Matt. 5:5; Ps. 19:11. 19. Gal. 2:16; Luke 17:10.
20. Rom. 1:14. 1 Peter 3:8-12 with Ps. 34:12-16; Heb. 12:28,29
21. Gal. 3:21; Titus 2:11-14
22. Ezek. 36:27; Heb. 8:10, with Jer. 31:33.
23. Tit. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13.
24. Gal. 3:9,14.
25. Gal. 4:1-3,6,7; 5:1; Acts 15:10,11.
"Question 14 - What is sin?
"Answer - Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." "Ques. 39 - What is the duty which God requires of man?
"Ans. - The duty which God requires of man is obedience to His revealed will.
"Ques. 40 - What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?
"Ans. - The rule which God at first revealed to man for his Obedience, was the moral law. "Ques. 41 - Wherein is the moral law summarily comprehended?
"Ans. - The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. "Ques. 42 - What is the sum of the Ten Commandments?
"Ans. - The sum of the Ten Commandments is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and our neighbor as ourselves.
"Ques. 43 - What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
"Ans. - The preface to the Ten Commandments is in these words: 'I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.'
"Ques. 44 - What cloth the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
"Ans. - The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us, that because God is the Lord, and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all His commandments."
[Then follows a series of questions and answers explaining in order each of the Ten Commandments.] - Ibid., pp. 678,684,685.
The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Church, AD. 1658
Concerning the "general creeds or declarations of faith which have been approved by the Congregational Churches in England and America," Schaff declares: "They agree substantially with the Westminster Confession, or the Calvinistic system of doctrine, but differ from Presbyterianism by rejecting the legislative and judicial authority of presbyteries and synods, and by maintaining the independence of the local churches ..... The American Congregationalists have from time to time adopted the Westminster standards of doctrine [the Westminster Confession of Faith], with the exception of the sections relating to synodical church government."
"The first and fundamental Congregational confession of faith and platform of polity is the Savoy Declaration, so called from the place where it was composed and adopted [Savoy, in the Strand, London]." - Volume 1, pp. 829, 835. "The Savoy Declaration is merely a modification of the Westminster Confession to suit the Congregational polity." Volume 3, p. 718. Schaff indicates "the principal omissions, additions, and changes." No change is noted in Chapter XIX, "Of the Law of God," or in Section 1 of Chapter XX, "Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience," of the Westminster Confession.
The Confession of the Society of Friends, Commonly Called Quakers, AD. 1675
"The most authoritative summary of the principles and doctrines of the Religious Society of Friends." - Ibid., p. 789.
The Eighth Proposition "Concerning Perfection
"In whom this holy and pure birth is fully brought forth [the "spiritual birth," as discussed in the seventh proposition] the body of death and sin comes to be crucified and removed, and their hearts united and subjected unto the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion or temptation of the evil one, but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect. Yet does this perfection still admit of a growth; and there remains a possibility of sinning where the mind cloth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord." - Ibid., pp. 794, 795.
The Baptist Confession of 1688
(The Philadelphia Confession)
"This is the most generally accepted confession of the Regular or Calvinistic Baptists in England and in the Southern States of America. It appeared first in London, 1677. ... It was adopted early in the eighteenth century by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches, and is hence called also the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
"It is a slight modification of the Confession of the Westminster Assembly (1647) and the Savoy Declaration (1658), with changes to suit the Baptist views on church polity and on the subjects and mode of baptism." - Ibid., p. 738. Schaff notes the specific changes made in certain chapters of the Westminster Confession. No change is noted in Chapter XIX, "Of the Law of God," or of Section I of Chapter XX, "Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience."
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, AD. 1833
"Widely accepted by the Baptists, especially in the Northern and Western States. ... The text is taken from the 'Baptist Church Manual,' published by the American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia.' - Ibid., p. 742.
XIL - Of The Harmony of The Law and The Gospel
"We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government. [1] That it is holy, just, and good. [2] And that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen men to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their love of sin. [3] To deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy law, is one great end of the gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible church. [4]" - Ibid., p. 746.
The Methodist Articles of Religion, AD. 1784
"The Twenty-five Articles of Religion were drawn up by john Wesley for the American Methodists, and adopted at a Conference in 1784. They underwent some changes, chiefly verbal.... They are a liberal and judicious abridgment of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.... The text is taken from the official manual of The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, ed. by Bishop Harris, New York, 1872." - Ibid., p. 807. All the important branches of Methodism contain in their creeds the following from these Articles of Religion:
1. Rom. 3:31; Matt. 5:17. Luke 16.17. Rom 3.20; 4:15.
2. Rom. 7:12,14,22; Gal 3:2l; Psalm 119.
3. Rom 8:7,8. Josh 24:19; Jer. 13:23; John 6:44, 5:44
4. Rom. 8:2,4; 10:4; 1 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 8:10; Jude 1:20,21; Heb. 12:14; Matt. 16:17,18; 1 Cor. 12:28.
VI - Of The Old Testament
"The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, does not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth, yet, notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral." - Ibid., p. 808.
The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, AD. 1839
"The most authoritative doctrinal standard of the orthodox Graeco-Russian Church." Volume 2, p. 445.
"On The Law Of God And The Commandments
485. What means have we to know good works from bad?
"The inward law of God, or the witness of our conscience, and the outward law of God, or God's commandments.
486. Does Holy Scripture speak of the inward law of God?
"The apostle Paul says of the heathen: 'Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.' Rom. 2:15.
487. If there is in man's heart an inward law, why was the outward given?
"It was given because men obeyed not the inward law, but led carnal and sinful lives, and stifled within themselves the voice of the spiritual law, so that it was necessary to put them, in mind of it outwardly through the commandments. 'Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions.' Gal. 3: 19.
488. When and how was God's outward law given to men?
"When the Hebrew people, descended from Abraham, had been miraculously delivered from bondage in Egypt, on their way to the Promised Land, in the desert, on Mt. Sinai, God manifested His presence in fire and clouds, and gave them the law, by the hand of Moses, their leader."
490. You said that these commandments were given to the people of Israel: must we, then, also walk by them?
"We must; for they are in substance the same law which, in the words of St. Paul, has been 'written in the hearts' of all men, that all should walk by it. "491. Did Jesus Christ teach men to walk by the Ten Commandments? "He bade men, if they would attain to everlasting life, to 'keep the commandments;' and taught us to understand and fulfill them more perfectly than had been done before He came. Matt. 19:17; and 5." - ibid., pp. 521, 522. Questions No. 492 to 608 deal in detail with each of the ten commands.
D. L. Moody on the Ten Commandments
In addition to these quotations from the great Protestant creeds and confessions, it is pertinent to quote also from the writings of the evangelist D. L. Moody. He was the founder of the Moody Bible Institute, which has been followed by the creation of Bible institutes in various parts of the country. These Bible institutes today are probably the most pronounced in their declarations against the law of God, and in their denunciation of those who teach that the law has any place in the life of the saved man. The statements from D. L. Moody speak for themselves.
The book from which the following quotations are taken is entitled Weighed and Wanting, Addresses on the Ten Commandments, by D. L. Moody, published by Fleming H. Revell Company, Chicago, copyrighted 1898 by The Bible Institute Colportage Association. The frontispiece consists of a reproduction of the Ten Commandments as given in Exodus 20:3-17. There are twelve chapters, an introductory chapter entitled "Weighed in the Balances," then a chapter on each of the Ten Commandments, and a closing chapter entitled "The Handwriting Blotted Out." The first quotation is from the chapter entitled "Weighed in the Balances."
"It is a favorite thing with infidels to set their own standard, to measure themselves by other people. But that will not do in the day of judgment. Now we will use God's law as a balance weight....
"Let me call your attention to the fact that God wrote on the tables of stone at Sinai as well as on the wall of Belshazzar's palace....
"The law that was given at Sinai has lost none of its solemnity. Time cannot wear out its authority or the fact of its authorship.
"I can imagine some one saying, 'I won't be weighed by that law. I don't believe in it.'
"Now men may cavil as much as they like about other parts of the Bible, but 1 have never met an honest man that found fault with the Ten Commandments....
"Now the question for you and me is, Are we keeping these commandments? Have we fulfilled all the requirements of the law? If God made us, as we know He did, He had a right to make that law; and if we don't use it aright, it would have been better for us if we had never had it, for it will condemn us. We shall be found wanting. The law is all right, but are we right? ...
"Some people seem to think we have got beyond the commandments. What did Christ say? 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, and the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verify I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' The commandments of God given to Moses in the mount at Horeb are as binding today as ever they have been since the time when they were proclaimed in the hearing of the people. The Jews said the law was not given in Palestine (which belonged to Israel), but in the wilderness, because the law was for all nations.
"Jesus never condemned the law and the prophets, but He did condemn those who did not obey them. Because He gave new commandments, it does not follow that He abolished the old. Christ's explanation of them made them all the more searching..
"The people must be made to understand that the Ten Commandments are still binding, and that there is a penalty attached to their violation. We do not want a gospel of mere sentiment. The sermon on the mount did not blot out the Ten Commandments....
'Paul said: 'Love is the fulfilling of the law.' But does this mean that the detailed precepts of the Decalogue are superseded, and have become back numbers? Does a father cease to give children rules to obey because they love hint? Does a nation burn its statute books because the people have become patriotic? Not at all. And yet people speak as if the commandments do not hold for Christians because they have come to love God. Paul said: 'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.' It still holds good. The commandments are necessary. So long as we obey, they do not rest heavy upon us; but as soon as we try to break away, we find they are like fences to keep us within bounds. Horses need bridles even after they have been properly broken in....
"Now my friend, are you ready to be weighed by this law of God? A great many people say that if they keep the commandments, they do not need to be forgiven and saved through Christ. But have you kept them? 1 will admit that if you perfectly keep the commandments, you do not need to be saved by Christ; but is there a man in the wide world who can truly say that he has done this? Young lady, can you say: 'I am ready to be weighed by the law'? Can you, young man? Will you step into the scales and be weighed one by one by the ten commandments?
"Now face these Ten Commandments honestly and prayerfully. See if your life is right, and if you are treating God fairly. God's statutes are just, are they not? If they are right, let us see if we are right. Let us pray that the Holy Ghost may search each one of us. Let us get alone with God and read His law-read it carefully and prayerfully, and ask Him to show us our sins and what He would have us to do." Pages 10-17.
The next quotation is from the chapter entitled "The Fourth Commandment."
"I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' It is just as practicable and
as necessary for men today as it ever was-in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.
"The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with, when they will admit that the other nine are still binding? .
"Once when I was holding meetings in London, in my ignorance I made arrangements to preach four times in different places one Sabbath. After 1 had made the appointments, I found I had to walk sixteen miles; but I walked it, and I slept that night with a clear conscience. I have made it a rule never to use the cars, and if I have a private carriage, I insist that horse and man shall rest on Monday. I want no horse hand to rise up in judgment against me.
"My friends, if we want to help the Sabbath, let business men and Christians never patronize cars on the Sabbath. I would hate to own stock in those companies, to be the means of taking the Sabbath from these men, and have to answer for it at the day of judgment. Let those who are Christians at any rate endeavor to keep a conscience void of offense on this point." - Pages 46-50.
The next quotation is from the closing chapter, entitled "The Handwriting Blotted Out."
"We have now considered the Ten Commandments, and the question for each one of us is, Are we keeping them? If God should weigh us by them, would we be found wanting or not wanting? Do we keep the law, the whole law? Are we obeying God with all our heart? Do we render Him a full and willing obedience?
"These Ten Commandments are not ten different laws; they are one law. If I am being held up in the air by a chain with ten links and I break one of them, down I come, just as surely as if 1 break the whole ten. If I am forbidden to go out of an enclosure, it makes no difference at what point I break through the fence. 'Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.' 'The golden chain of obedience is broken if one link is missing.'...
"For fifteen hundred years man was under the law, and no one was equal to it. Christ came and showed that the commandments went beyond the mere letter; and can any one since say that he has been able to keep them in his own strength? ...
"I can imagine that you are saying to yourself, 'If we are to be judged by these laws, how are we going to be saved? Nearly every one of them has been broken by us, in spirit, if not in letter.' I almost hear you say: 'I wonder if Mr. Moody is ready to he weighed. Would he like to put those tests to himself?'
"With all humility I reply that if God commanded me to step into the scales now, I am ready. "'What!' you say, 'haven't you broken the law?'
"Yes, I have. I was a sinner before God the same as you; but forty years ago I pleaded guilty at His bar. I cried for mercy, and He forgave me. If I step into the scales, the Son of God has
promised to be with me. I would not dare to step in without Him. If I did, how quickly the scales would fly up!
"Christ kept the law. If He had ever broken it, He would have had to die for Himself; but because He was a Lamb without spot or blemish, His atoning death is efficacious for you and me. He had no sin of His own to atone for, and so God accepted His sacrifice. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. We are righteous in God's sight because the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe....
"If the love of God is shed abroad in your heart, you will be able to fulfill the law." - Pages 119-124.
To all this Adventists respond fervently and without reservation: Amen, Brother Moody.
Note: For further testimony concerning the moral law, and the difference between it and the ceremonial law, see the following chapter.
6. Are Adventists Legalists?
The Charge is repeatedly and militantly brought against us as Seventh day Adventists that we are legalists. In other words, that we depend on a keeping of the law instead of on the keeping power of Christ, and thus point men to the law rather than to Christ.
Now, this is a grave charge indeed. If it be true that we substitute law for grace and our own frail powers for the divine power promised by Christ, then we are entitled only to condemnation by all who love our Lord and Savior. In fact, if we substitute the law for Christ we are not really Christians
Do we plead guilty to such charge? We do not. With all the vehemence at our command we declare the charge to be false and unfounded. We insist that no fair reading of our teachings on the law warrants any indictment of us as legalists. The only way that an appearance of a case against Adventists has been produced is by taking stray passages here and there from the rather numerous denominational works and giving to them an interpretation wholly unwarranted and alien to the general tenor of Adventist writings on the subject.
What our critics do not seem to realize is that by such a method of presenting evidence the Bible writers may also be proved legalists. James declares, "By works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24. What a dreadful legalist was James! If Adventists belong outside the pale of Christendom, then where does James belong? In all our history we have never written anything quite so vigorous as this in behalf of good works. Or what shall we say of the answer that our Lord gave to the rich young man who asked of Him the way to life eternal: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"? Matt. 19:17.
But let us take the possibilities of stray passages a little further. By picking out the desired texts our critics could prove various Bible writers to be not only legalists but opponents of all sound religion. Does not Paul make reference to being baptized for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29)? And have
not his words been plausibly used by those who believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead? Does not Isaiah attribute to God the declaration, "I make peace, and create evil"? Isa. 45:7. And have not skeptics pointed to Isaiah's statement in scorn? Again, what shall we say of our Lord's word to His apostles: 'Who so ever sins you remit, they are remitted"? John 20:23. Do not Roman Catholics quote this text with great plausibility and persuasiveness in behalf of the doctrine of priestly absolution?
Now, in their zeal to ferret out false doctrine, do our critics indict these Bible authors? For illustration, do they indict James? Why let him escape the denunciation that ought to come upon the head of all legalists? Luther did not. The great Reformer, who was dazzled by the light of the doctrine of justification by faith, could see in the epistle of James only a contradiction of that doctrine and wished to dismiss the letter as "an epistle of straw." Hence, our critics would have good Protestant precedent for their attack on James.
Inconsistent Critics
But they are not consistent. They refuse to attack any Bible writer in regard to particular passages that might seem to contradict the main tenor of Scripture and the beliefs of Christians. When skeptics point to apparently questionable texts and alleged contradictions, our critics, who generally belong to the conservative wing of Christendom, are the most vehement in crying out against what they declare are the unfair tactics of skeptics in lifting stray passages out of their context. They insist that a particular text in question shall be understood in the setting of all the Scriptures, and that other and clearer texts shall be the guide for interpreting a text that seems obscure or contradictory to the main teachings of the Bible.
No Attack on James
Specifically, our critics refuse to indict James. They do not think that he wrote an epistle of straw. They would not thus attack a part of the canon of Holy Scripture. They would be horrified at the thought. If anything, they would attack Luther, or perhaps we should say they would explain away Luther's remark on the ground that he was just coming out of the darkness of Catholicism. And had not yet discovered the higher harmony that exists between apparently contradictory Scriptures on the important subject of faith and good works.
And of course our critics would be right in taking that position with regard to the Scriptures in general and the Epistle of James in particular. Picking out stray passages in the Bible is no proper way to discover the true teachings of the Bible. And the person who does this and who goes on from this to pit one text against another, is rightly open to grave suspicion that he is approaching the Scriptures from a prejudiced viewpoint, seeking to make out a case against them.
If all this be true as regards the writings of the Scriptures, and it is then why is it not also true as regards other writings? It is. Including even the writings of Seventh day Adventists? Why not? But evidently our critics are not willing to concede this principle in relation to Adventist writings. If they did they would immediately have to withdraw all the charges they have made against us as legalists.
Let us Examine the Record
With no irreverence to the Bible writers, it may he stated as a simple matter of fact that it would be much easier for Seventh day Adventists to prove, in terms of their writings, that they believe wholly and only in the unmerited grace of Christ for their salvation, than for James to do so from his writings. And why? Because it probably never occurred to James, after he had written his most helpful, practical epistle, to follow it with any general statement of belief, particularly on the matter of law and grace, in order to escape misunderstanding. He took for granted that the Christian believers, to whom had been preached the grace of Christ, would interpret his epistle aright. God gave him words to say in the epistle regarding the place of works, and he let the matter stand at that.
Seventh day Adventists have not done this. We have taken care to place ourselves on record in a formal way regarding our belief as to law and grace, along with our belief on other doctrines. Besides, different Adventist authors have written whole books devoted to the theme. Those books set forth the truth that the Christian is wholly dependent on Christ. These works are easily available to all. Surely our critics must have found them, for they give evidence of having combed Adventist works with sedulous care in order to come up with a stray phrase here and there from them.
Surely they must have seen the book Steps to Christ, by Mrs. E. G. White, a book that has had probably a larger circulation than almost any other of our works. And it is Mrs. White that our critics desire, if possible, to quote, because they know that we view her as speaking with authority for us. How anyone could frame more clearly the doctrine of complete dependence upon Christ for forgiveness of past sins and for strength to lead a godly life until the day of our Lord's return than Mrs. White has framed in that book, we know not. This much we do know; our critics, in all their writings, have never outdone this book in ascribing to Christ all honor, all power, as the only source of the sinner's deliverance from sin and the Christian's growth in grace.
Mrs. White's Life of Christ
Or take, for illustration, another book by Mrs. E. G. White, The Desire of Ages. In which she tells the story of our Lord's life on earth, of His dying for our sins, of His being raised again for our justification, and of His ascending to heaven above to minister on our behalf at the right hand of God. Have any of our critics written a work that raises Christ to greater heights or makes Him more indispensable to the sinner and to the saint in the plan of salvation than has this work? The answer is No. We say this, not out of any disparagement of the writings of our critics, but out of a calm conviction that they simply have not attained unto the heights of exultant declaration of Christ's place in the plan of salvation that Mrs. White has attained.
But Mrs. White is not the only Adventist writer on this subject. Many of our authors have written on it. And numerous times they have taken occasion to refute the false charges that we are legalists. They have been explicit in their declarations that we rely wholly and only on Christ for our salvation. It would take altogether too much space to cite the array of references that could here be given, and surely there is no need, for again we say, our critics could not have failed to find at least a portion of these writings and these explicit statements in combing our works. However, in order to keep the record straight, here are a few typical statements from Adventist authors who have also been leaders in the denomination, and thus may rightly be viewed as reflecting the theological views of the denomination.
Testimony of Various Leaders
These statements might be viewed in the form of testimony offered by witnesses on a question at issue. The question is, What do Adventists believe to be the means of salvation? A. G. Daniells, who served as president of the General Conference for twenty-one years, will be the first to testify. He wrote a book entitled Christ Our Righteousness. Following are typical sentences:
"It is through faith in the blood of Christ that all the sins of the believer are canceled and the righteousness of God is put in their place to the believer's account. ... He yields, repents, confesses, and by faith claims Christ as his Savior. The instant that is done, he is accepted as a child of God. His sins are all forgiven, his guilt is canceled, he is accounted righteous, and stands approved, justified, before the divine law. And this amazing, miraculous change may take place in one short hour. This is righteousness by faith." - Pages 22, 23.
Next is the testimony of William A. Spicer, who, first as secretary and then as president of the General Conference, served in key places in the church for many, many years. Speaking of the white raiment mentioned in the book of the Revelation, he says:
"This white raiment is the righteousness of Christ, received by faith. Not by any works that we can do to cleanse ourselves from sin, but by His own grace He cleanses us, and clothes us with His own righteousness." - Beacon Lights of Prophecy, p. 193.
Take now the testimony of Charles H. Watson, who was president of the General Conference for six years:
"He [Paul] also makes clear that a man, upon repentance and faith in Christ, pleading the Savior's blood for the remission of his sins, and before he has wrought a single act of obedience to the law, is justified by his faith. ...
"This righteousness is a-gift. We cannot earn it. We cannot claim it by any natural right that we have, but, thank God, we can accept it in all its blessed fullness by faith in the atoning blood of Jesus. There is absolutely no doubt that the blood of the atonement is the means by which faith secures justification." - The Atoning Work of Christ, pp. 46-48.
Here is the testimony of William H. Branson, who has long held key administrative positions in the denomination and who is now its president:
"We are not asked to try to win salvation by some effort on our part but to accept it as a gift from God. We are not saved by anything we may do for God but by what He does for us. Jesus saves, and apart from Him there is no salvation." - How Men Are Saved, p. 27.
And here is the testimony of Francis M. Wilcox, for more than thirty years editor of The Review and Herald, which is the general church paper of Seventh day Adventists:
"To justify is to make righteous, to make equal to the divine standard. As the penitent confesses his sins and lays hold of Christ's atoning sacrifice in his behalf, there is imputed to him. For all his past life, the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that when God looks upon the past
years of unrighteousness, He sees no longer a life filled with crime and iniquity. But He sees the spotless life of the Son of God that has been put in the place of the life of the believer. Thus the man stands in God's sight as though he had never committed iniquity." - Review and Herald, Centennial Issue, Oct. 19, 1944, pp. 15, 16.
For good measure here is one further quotation. This from Harold M. S. Richards, radio preacher of the Voice of Prophecy program, a nationwide broadcast that has been conducted for years under the sponsorship of the Seventh day Adventist denomination:
"Christ died for us; Christ lives in us by His Spirit. So we belong to Him, and our salvation depends upon Him-wholly and entirely. Our obedience to God's law, then, is not to be saved, but because we are saved. It is not of our doing, but of His doing. 'Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God bath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Eph. 2:9, 10." - Radio Script, "The Law and the Gospel," p. 3, broadcast Dec. 9, 1945, over Mutual network.
These testimonies hardly call for comment, unless it be the inquiry: Who is better qualified to state what Adventists believe these witnesses or our critics?
Official Statement of Belief
But there is even more impressive and if possible more unequivocal testimony that can be presented than that of these individual leaders and spokesmen for Seventh day Adventists. There is the Statement of Belief that appears in the official Yearbook of the denomination. Adventists have never sought to formulate a creed in the historic meaning of that word. We have hesitated to crystallize in too rigid a form our understanding of the Scriptures, lest we fall into the error of refusing to go beyond our first formulated creed to any better, clearer, or more correct understanding of the Scriptures.
But we have on occasions set forth what we describe as a Statement of Belief. There have been at least two such prepared during the history of this denomination. They are in no essential point contrary one to the other. They differ rather in phrasing and thus in length. The latter one, which has appeared in the official Yearbook for a number of years, and which is found unchanged in the latest edition, for all to read, devotes sections 3-8 to the subject of Christ and the sinner, the law and grace. As those sections state, we believe -
"3. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on the earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our Example the principles of righteousness. Attested His relationship to God by many mighty miracles, died for our sins on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father, where He ever lives to make intercession for us. John 1: 1,14; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1,2; 4:14-16; 7:25.
"4. That every person in order to obtain salvation must experience the new birth; that this comprises an entire transformation of life and character by the re-creative power of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. John 3:16; Matt. 18:3; Acts 2:37-39.
"5. That baptism is an ordinance of the Christian church and should follow repentance and forgiveness of sins. By its observance faith is shown in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That the proper form of baptism is by immersion. Rom. 6:1-6; Acts 16:30-33.
"6. That the will of God as it relates to moral conduct is comprehended in His law of Ten Commandments; that these are great moral, unchangeable precepts, binding upon all men, in every age. Ex. 20:1-17.
"7. That the fourth commandment of this unchangeable law requires the observance of the seventh day Sabbath. This holy institution is at the same time a memorial of creation and a sign of sanctification, a sign of the believer's rest from his own works of sin, and his entrance into the rest of soul which Jesus promises to those who come to Him. Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; 31:12-17; Heb. 4:1-10.
'8. That the law of Ten Commandments points out sin, the penalty of which is death. The law cannot save the transgressor from his sin, nor impart power to keep him from sinning. In infinite love and mercy, God provides a way whereby this may be done. He furnishes a substitute, even Christ the Righteous One, to die in man's stead, making 'Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.' 2 Cor. 5:21. That one is justified, not by obedience to the law, but by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God, justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of sin by His indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes 'the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes.' Rom. 1:16. This experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to. the Sin-Bearer, inducting the believer into the new-covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ, his life is brought into conformity to the divine precepts. The honor and merit of this wonderful transformation belong wholly to Christ. 1 John 2:1,2; 3:4; Rom. 3:20; 5:8-10; 7:7; Eph. 2:8-10; 3:17; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 8:8-12." - Yearbook of the Seventh day Adventist Denomination, 1946, p. 4.
The Crux of the Matter
Here, then, is what we believe on the subject of law and grace, Christ and the sinner, as set forth in the writings of various of our leaders and in our Statement of Belief. In the latter we have set forth, even as other churches have set forth in their creeds, our view on this doctrine of the law in the most explicit and the most authoritative way that it is possible for us to do. And ought we not to be credited with knowing what we believe? That is finally the crux of the matter. That is the heart of the controversy that we have with our critics who accuse us of legalism.
We are certain that our critics would rise up in wrath if we charged that they really did not know what they believed, that they could not safely be allowed to interpret their own writings and resolve apparent contradictions in them. Or that a statement of belief they might formulate should not be taken at face value but should be ignored in favor of stray passages in the writings of different members of their religious persuasion. If we made such a charge against them they would consider it an insult to their intelligence, an indictment of their honesty, an accusation of duplicity and hypocrisy. And well they might.
But we bring no such charge against them. We believe that our critics are able to state what their beliefs are. We grant that they should be allowed to harmonize any apparent contradictions in other of their writings with the formal, carefully phrased words in their official statement of doctrine. We would do this for any critic, any opponent. We know that the limitations of language are such that it is easily possible to create apparent contradictions where no real contradictions exist, and to make an emphasis on one doctrine appear to be a denial of another.
When we want to know what any religious body believes, we seek first to discover whether they have prepared a formal statement of belief, and if so we take that as being their official belief on doctrine. And why not? What would be the point to any religious body's formulating a creed unless it would be accepted by those who read it as being a correct statement of the doctrinal views of that religious body?
Now what we concede to others, our critics included, we claim also for ourselves. Why not? Are we less able to express our thoughts in a formal statement of belief than are all other Christian people? Do we, in contrast to all other Christian bodies, not really know what we believe and hence use words with no true meaning? Or is it possible that our critics would claim that they need not concede to us what we willingly concede to them and to all others, namely that their official statements of belief are the honest expression of their doctrines. Unless they are prepared to set forth and support the charge that we employ duplicity in words, they have no defense whatever for the tactics they follow in ignoring our Statement of Belief and citing stray passages here and there in our writings to prove a case against us.
But the charge that either we do not know what we mean by what we say or we conceal our meanings, would be a new argument indeed. We hardly think that at this late date our critics will seek to prove true such a monstrous charge as this. If the star of Adventism had appeared in the religious sky only yesterday, bursting suddenly on the vision of men with blinding light, our critics might plausibly say that Adventism was not really what it appeared to be. That the statements of its spokesmen needed to be tested against time and the outworking of the beliefs. But Adventism did not burst suddenly upon the sight of men just yesterday. Instead, it rose slowly from the New England horizon, casting ever longer rays as the years have rolled on, until today the light of Advent teachings shines in every land. We have been preaching, writing, conducting church services, in an increasing number of languages for a century. The real meaning of our teachings has been revealed in our religions services week by week, and in the lives of our members day by day, for three generations.
And what do these years reveal? Do they reveal instances of Seventh day Adventist ministers conducting revival services in the evangelistic sense of the word, calling on men to accept Christ? Yes. In our churches and in our annual camp meetings, year after year, appeals are made directly to the hearts of men and women, young and old, to accept Jesus Christ and to accept Him as their only Savior from sin and their only spiritual Sustainer and Source of life for the future. Strange that our critics never seem to be aware of these revival services we conduct. There is nothing secret about them. Public notices in the press invite all to come to our large camp meetings. If we conducted these revival services on a legalistic basis, if we failed to exalt Jesus Christ, is it reasonable to believe that our critics would have overlooked this contrast?
Adventist Pastoral Visitation
And what have Adventist pastors done through the years when visiting church members? Have they carried along a scroll of the Ten Commandments and consumed the time of the pastoral visit in asking the family whether they have kept the law, assuring them that if they will keep on trying they will probably succeed in keeping those commands, but that if they fail they will be in a very sad state? This question is not posed to provoke a smile from our Adventist readers. The matter is too serious for that.
Yes, what do Adventist pastors say or do when they visit the homes of their church members? Speaking personally, I have never taken a scroll of the law to any home, nor pleaded with parishioners to try harder to keep the law, nor warned them of the terrors of ultimate hell-fire if they failed. I rather took for granted that those who have accepted Christ have the law written in their hearts, which is the promise of the new covenant. Presuming this,
I spent my time in talking of the promises of God, the goodness of the Lord, His forgiving grace for sins confessed, His proffered power for victory in the future. And I ended each pastoral visit with a prayer to God through Jesus Christ, laying claim to all these promises, most particularly to the promise that Christ will dwell in our hearts by faith and live out through us all the principles of heaven, including all His divine laws.
And has there been anything unusual in my pastoral visitation? No. I have done simply what every other Adventist minister does. Would our critics suggest some other course for us to follow in order to be in harmony with good Christian practices and beliefs? I think not.
Our Attack on Enslaving Habits
And what do we say to someone who comes to us for freedom from slavery to an evil habit like drink or tobacco? Do we simply urge him to try to keep the law of God, adding that we trust he will secure victory over his evil habit, but that if he fails there is only damnation ahead for him? Is it possible that we say such a thing as this? Well, our critics charge that we are legalists; hence, this is what we should be expected to say. But do we really? No! We point the poor slave of evil habits to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To whom else could we point him? And we pray for his deliverance through Christ.
Now, it is a fact that tens of thousands of those who seek admittance to the Adventist Church are troubled with some such habit as tobacco or liquor. Yet they all secure victory over these habits, for no Seventh day Adventist smokes or drinks. Here, then, is an amazing fact. The habits of smoking and drinking have a fearful grip on most of their devotees, as many of them can testify. Yet those coming into the Adventist Church gain complete and generally rather sudden victory over these habits. Have Seventh day Adventists found an immediate and ever-dependable source of power that other Christian people through all the years have not known?
But why press this point further? Is it not evident that we have in this amazing phenomenon of a whole membership free from the enslaving habits of drink and tobacco, and even worse habits in heathen lands, the clearest proofs that Adventists rely on the one and only Source of help, Jesus Christ our Lord?
Why Not Take a Poll?
Here is a suggestion for you who are critics, a suggestion which, if followed out, could once and for all settle this question of whether Adventists are legalists or not. Here is a chance for you to put your charge to an honest test. Take a poll of a cross section of the rank and file of Seventh day Adventist laymen. Exclude all Adventist preachers, who according to you either do not know what they preach and teach or else have a conspiracy to conceal the meaning of their teachings. Go instead to the homes of humble laymen, who must seek to make religion work in their everyday lives, and whose sincerity and loyalty to Seventh day Adventist beliefs is evidenced by their amazing liberality, which is probably the highest in the religious world.
Go with your notebook in hand and ask those laymen: "Do you rely on the keeping of the law to save you?" "Do you turn your back on Christ as the one and only Savior from past sins and the only Source of power for holy living?" Or ask any variation of these questions in order to make sure that you are framing to your satisfaction your charge that Adventists are legalists.
It is clear what the answer would be. First, there would be a look of bewilderment, then amazement, then indignation, followed probably either by a vehement denial or else a vigorous inquiry as to how you ever came to ask such a question. This would be the response whether the question was asked of an Adventist layman in America, in China, in Africa, or in the islands of the sea.
Of course our critics may wish to challenge this statement, but we shall not listen to them until they have produced the findings from their poll of Adventist homes. We know they will not risk such a poll.
On the other hand, they will hardly attempt to minimize the force of this suggestion of a poll by declaring that Adventist laymen do not really know what their denomination teaches. It is no exaggeration to state that the average Seventh day Adventist probably has more of his church's literature in his home than members of any other Protestant body. And if our critics doubt whether he knows what Adventists believe, it must be because they have never given him an opportunity to set forth those beliefs!
Now, here is a singular phenomenon. The ordinary Adventist is layman who listens to his pastor week by week and who reads Adventist literature constantly, fails entirely to discover the allegedly Christ-denying character of Adventist theology. And hence he prays to God through Christ daily and relies on the saving grace of his Lord for holy living and victory over temptation. Truly a phenomenon!
Yes, We Magnify the Law
At this point our critics may say defensively: "But you Seventh day Adventists have to admit you preach the law. You weave it into your whole theology in such a way that the reader meets it repeatedly. You preach on it in your lectures to the public. You extol the law. You magnify it. You even say Christians should keep the law."
Strictly speaking, it is sufficient to say in reply that whatever we may write or preach about the law, our church members who listen to such preaching return home to rely wholly on Christ. Therefore our law preaching cannot be displacing Christ. Furthermore, what we weave into our
writings and sermons concerning the law is rightly to be understood in terms of our formal statement of belief.
But let us examine this statement of our critics a little further. Yes, we weave the law all through our theology. So does the Bible, from first to last. The Old Testament says much about the law and obedience to it. Everyone grants that. The New Testament also says much about obedience to the commandments of God. Indeed, the very last book of the Bible describes the company of those ready for the second coming of Christ as men and women who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev. 14:12. And in the version of the Bible which all of us have read from childhood, there is found in the last chapter, almost as a closing benediction to Scripture, this blessing. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22:14.
The Apostles Extolled the Law
Yes, we extol the law. We magnify it. But so did the holy apostles and so did our Lord. Paul declared, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. ... For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." Rom. 7:12, 14.
Wrote the apostle John: "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:2,3.
Of Christ the prophet Isaiah foretold:
"The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable." Isa. 42:21.
The fulfillment of this prophecy we find most clearly in Christ's sermon on the mount, in which He showed how comprehensive are the commandments against murder and adultery.
Yes, we extol the law, we magnify it, believing that we have every Scriptural precedent for so doing. Indeed, we would magnify it in the very words of Scripture. Nor have we been unique in this matter. We cannot claim any distinction by comparison with great Protestant bodies in this matter of exalting the law of God. The person who reads the creeds of the great Protestant bodies would almost conclude at times that Adventists have been outdone by them in this matter of vigorous declarations concerning the significance of the law of God. But our critics, in charging us with legalism, have clearly sought to imply, when they have not openly charged, that our belief on the law is an unorthodox one, alien to the belief held by the great body of Protestant Christians. But reference to the preceding chapter, "The Law of God in Church Creeds," will reveal that this is not so.
In What Way Do We Differ?
Will our critics please lay alongside the Protestant confessions of faith, the formal Adventist statement on law and grace that was quoted from the Adventist Yearbook, and tell us in what way
our statement differs from the classic creedal declarations of Protestantism? We are unable to discover any difference in spirit or in doctrine taught.
More than that, we are unable to discover any practical difference between our view of the law and that of present-day spokesmen for leading Protestant bodies. In the year 1932 the International Uniform Sunday School Lessons dealt with the subject of the Ten Commandments on the Sundays of August 7 and 14. Various church papers carried these lessons and offered their own comments on them. But those comments sound wholly alien to the statements made concerning the Ten Commandments by our critics, who declare that the law has been abolished, and the Adventists are legalists.
Sunday School Times Testifies
For example, here is what The Sunday School Times said in part in its comment on the Sunday school lessons on the Ten Commandments:
"To know God is to love God. The commandments were given that men might know Jehovah God, the God of love and the God of holiness. To love God is to obey Him. God's law is an expression of God's love. The fearful thunders and fire and shaking of Sinai', so dreadful that Moses said, 'I exceedingly fear and quake' (Heb. 12:21), were to reveal the greatness and glory of God, that they might truly fear and reverence Him.... The law is spiritual, and can be kept only in spirit and in truth. Israel 'continued not' in this covenant, and God made a new covenant, not changing the laws, but blotting out their sins, and writing these same laws on their heart. Heb. 8:8-13. To have faith in the God of mercy and love is to have the righteousness of Abraham, and of Moses, and the heart of love to God to keep these commandments, by His grace." - July 23, 1932.
Presbyterian Paper Speaks
In The Presbyterian is found this comment:
"The Ten Commandments are not only precepts of God, but also a description of the nature of God, and His desire for man, that man may be like God. The Lord Jehovah, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the kind of Deity described in these ten words, or oracles, or commandments. Behind them stands the Being of God, and preliminary to them stands the exodus, the Passover, the remembrance. Paul recognized the underlying connection between law and grace when he wrote: 'I beseech you therefore, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.' Rom. 12: 1. The word 'therefore' looks backward at the great chapters before the twelfth. The law is a paragraph in a covenant of grace. It is indeed a 'law of liberty.'" - July 28,1932.
The Watchman-Examiner, one of the most influential weeklies in the Baptist denomination, contains in its comments on the Sunday school lessons this statement:
- Christ taught His disciples, and all who followed His teachings, that we may have eternal life by keeping perfectly the law as given by God on Sinai, and by loving Him who is the embodiment and the fulfillment of that law." - August 4, 1932.
The Moody Monthly Testifies
Church papers contain many statements on the law, in addition to those quoted in connection with the Sunday school lessons. Take, for example, a series of articles that was printed in the Moody Bible Institute Monthly under the head "Are Christians Freed From the Law?" The series begins with various definitions of law and presents three distinct codes: "the civil law," "the ceremonial law,' and "the moral law." Focusing on the moral law, the writer of the series says in his first article, "Let us now see how the moral law is emphasized, enlarged, and enforced in all its details in the New Testament." He shows how Christ and the apostles dealt with it:
"So far from annulling any of the Ten Commandments, He [Christ] amplified their scope, teaching that an angry thought or bitter word violated the sixth, and a lustful look the seventh. ...
"The teaching of the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is even more emphatic and explicit concerning the scope and obligations of the moral law." - October, 1933.
Then follows a list of New Testament references to show how the apostles honored each of the Ten Commandments.
The second article deals with the "relationship between the law and the gospel," and "the Christian's true position with regard to the law of God as revealed on Sinai and his plain duty concerning it." The author explains immediately that "we must distinguish carefully and clearly between its two chief parts, the ceremonial and the moral law." A little further on he declares, "Christians are utterly to discard reliance on their observance of the moral law as any means of their justification." But he adds shortly:
"Christians are carefully to observe the moral law as the rule and method of their sanctification, and the guide of their new life.... The fact of their redemption does not do, away with the necessity of their obedience; it only makes the obligation stronger, and heightens their responsibility." - November, 1933.
Sunday School Times Again
An editorial in The Sunday School Times entitled "Are Christians Under the Law?" sets forth these clear distinctions between ceremonial and moral codes:
"Christ fulfilled and thereby canceled forever every jot and tittle of the Ceremonial Law. The Moral Law, which was given to Moses by God on the two tables of stone.... Christ found overlaid with traditional, legalistic rules and observances of merit-seeking. He rebuked the sham and corruption of this false system, and by His teaching and example canceled these 'commandments of men.'...
'Paul's argument against 'the law' was aimed at this rabbinical code; and at the continuance of the ceremonial law which Christ's redemptive work had canceled." - April 21, 1934.
Continuing the theme in the next week's issue, The Sunday School Times declares:
'While obedience without the impulsion of love is servility, love that does not issue in obedience is merely nominal. 'He that says, I know Him, and keeps not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him'(1 John 2:4).
"Love and obedience are interchangeable, and incontrovertible ground of our assurance: 'Hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.'" - April 28,1934.
Our One Distinctive View on the Law
There is really only one difference between us and Protestants in general regarding the law. We understand the fourth commandment differently. We believe that the phrase the seventh day means the seventh day of the weekly cycle. And so did everyone else, until the end of the sixteenth century, when Nicholas Bowncle developed the idea that the phrase meant simply one day in seven, and thus provided Puritan reformers with an apparent Scriptural support for Sunday keeping. (See chapter 7) If our critics wish to prefer charges against us for failure to adopt a relatively new interpretation of a Scriptural phrase, we are ready to answer the charge with this simple inquiry. Why should we he asked to accept a new interpretation when the holy prophets and the apostles all understood the words the seventh day to mean the seventh day of the week? The holy women who rested on the day between crucifixion Friday and resurrection Sunday "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56.
But even though our critics have to agree that our interpretation is anchored to history and the prophets, they seem still to be sure there must be something spiritually off-color, legalistic, in our keeping of the seventh day of the week. And particularly in our calling upon others to keep the seventh day Sabbath. We may make impassioned appeal to the licentious man to flee from the wrath to come upon the head of all who violate the seventh command. We may do the same in regard to the thief, the liar, the murderer, the covetous man, the parent-dishonoring child, the blasphemer, and the idolater. To each we may say that his life is a violation of the law of God, which is binding on all men in all ages. To each we may appeal to implore God for forgiveness and for a new heart on which is written the law by the miraculous work of the Divine Spirit. Have not all great evangelists done this? Did not Dwight L. Moody preach a whole series of revival sermons on the Ten Commandments? (Later printed under the title Weighed and Wanting.)
Yes, we may do all this and be considered orthodox in the matter of law and grace. But let us include in our appeal to men the fourth commandment, and a storm breaks around our heads. Moody included the fourth command in his fervent series on the Ten Commandments. But no storm broke over him. No one accused him of legalism, of setting up another standard for salvation than Jesus Christ. But then Moody did not call on men to keep the "Sabbath day according to the commandment"; he called on them to keep holy the first day of the week!
A Strange Situation
Here is a strange situation indeed. It is even more strange when viewed in the setting of the fact that legalism is often directly involved in the urge that is put on people to keep Sunday. Have not our critics heard of Sunday laws that have been put on the statute books by ardent preachers, and vigorously invoked by them? Just why we who invoke only the grace of God to enable man to
obey the command to keep holy the seventh day, should be charged as legalists, while the hosts of Sunday keeping ministers, who often invoke the strong arm of the law in order to compel men to rest on the first day of the week, should claim to be the exponents of grace, is surely a strange contradiction. Seventh day Adventists have ever been vigorous opponents of the idea of approaching Sabbath rest from the legal standpoint, whereas Sunday keeping preachers are the ones who have lobbied almost every legislative body in Christian lands into enacting strong laws to protect Sunday! We who are Seventh day Adventists must suffer the constant strictures of a large majority of the Sunday keeping ministry for our refusal to support their program of Sunday legislation. They declare that we are in league with the lawless element, who want an open Sunday. But whenever we urge the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath, and invoke the law of God, some of those same ministers cry out that we are legalists! Why the difference?
A Situation Still More Strange
To repeat the question asked earlier in this book, for it bears repeating. Just what is there about preaching first-day sacredness from the fourth commandment, as Protestant denominations in general have done through all the years, that transports such preachers to the balmy paradise of grace, whereas the preaching of seventh day sacredness from the same fourth commandment consigns such preachers to the chill limbo of legalism? We who preach seventh day sacredness certainly do not do so more sternly and rigorously than first-day preachers. Even a cursory acquaintance with Protestant history reveals that Sunday sacredness has quite frequently been proclaimed with a severity that frightened into conformity the majority and thrust into jail the remainder. If today there is a certain relaxation of this severity, it certainly does not reflect any fundamental difference of view toward the first day by religious leaders, for they bemoan the laxity that has crept in.
Perhaps some of our critics will say that they do not believe in this view of first-day sacredness. But that is surely not to the point. The charge of legalism is made by critics who represent a variety of Protestant bodies, which bodies have been parties to Sunday legislation. We therefore return to the question: Why is it a display of grace and faith to preach first-day sacredness from the Ten Commandments, but a non-Christian display of legalism to preach seventh day sacredness from the same law?
In substance, we are charged as being "heretical" because of our beliefs on the law in general and the fourth precept in particular. The question is: Wherein does the heresy lie? In our view of the law in general, that it is God's unchangeable code for all men in all ages? No, for we declare our complete harmony with the classic confessions of faith on this point. Is it because of our view of the fourth precept in particular? And if so, why, in view of the facts presented in the preceding paragraphs?
Some time ago I fell into conversation with a Baptist minister. He deplored the Modernist- Fundamentalist controversy that was shattering his denomination. He said he judged that every denomination was thus troubled, however. I replied that ours was not. He marveled. No marvel, I said; the explanation is simple. Seventh day Adventists could not possibly be evolutionists, for we keep the seventh day of the weekly cycle as a memorial of the completion of God's creative work in the first week of time. We keep this day holy because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, ... and rested the seventh day." When we rest on the seventh day, we think of Him who
rested on that day and blessed it. Ever remembering the Sabbath, we cannot forget creation. And ever believing in the Sabbath, we must ever believe in creation. We think rather of Eden than of Sinai when we keep the Sabbath.
The complete freedom from Modernism in the Seventh day Adventist denomination, even in its colleges, is an eloquent proof of the truth of what we here claim regarding the Sabbath. Yet, behold, this Sabbath doctrine, which is our strong bulwark against Modernism, proves to be part of the reason for a withering indictment of us by Fundamentalists, in whose ranks our critics are generally found.
How Valid is the Testimony of an Ex-Adventist?
Have our critics any further evidence they wish to present to support their charge that Adventists are legalists? Yes, one more bit of evidence, the testimony of certain men who have gone from us. A few men after leaving us have declared that they have been "delivered from Adventism," meaning most generally and most specifically that they have been delivered from a legalistic religion and are now rejoicing in the glorious liberty of the gospel.
Now, no testimony is accepted in any court without a cross examination of the witness. Here are some questions we, as Adventists, would like to ask an ex-Adventist witness testifying for our critics. Would you please tell us precisely what teaching of the Adventist Church in the matter of the law of God bound and fettered you, and what different view do you now hold on the law that gives you such glorious liberty? To what great Protestant creed or profession of faith do you point as containing your present view, or have you moved outside of all the historic creeds in order to find your present belief on the law?
If the witness answers that he was delivered from the Adventist teaching that the law of God is binding on all men in all ages as an expression of the great moral principles of God, then we would ask him to show us in what way this Adventist teaching is different from the Protestant creeds. This he could not do, for our teaching is identical with that of the great Protestant bodies. If the witness then declared that he had moved beyond these historic creeds, we would ask him, Who has departed from the faith? Who has turned his back on the Protestant teaching on the law- he, or Adventists?
If he answers that the Adventist teaching on the law had kept him from looking to Christ, we would ask him to be very specific in citing his proof. For reasons already stated we would not accept as valid evidence some stray phrases or sentences that appeared to support the charge of legalism that ran counter to the explicit words of the Adventist Statement of Belief and the whole tenor of our teachings. We would not do this for the same reason that we would not accept a stray statement from James or any other Bible writer that might be submitted by a Catholic in behalf of the doctrine of works. We would ask the witness whether he had ever been called upon by the Adventist Church to preach any other view of the law than that set down in our Statement of Belief. His answer would have to be No.
We would also consider it proper to call to his attention the statement lie made to his employing conference when he withdrew from the Adventist ministry. I do not recall during my years of ministry of any preacher who has gone out from us declaring, as he did so, that he was leaving in
order to be free from the shackles of legalism. Of course, there may have been such a case. I can only speak from memory. However, I need not strain my memory unduly, for only a few ministers have left the denomination. In most instances those who have left have done so at the request of their brethren and because of a moral fall. It is certainly disclosing no secret to say this. Adventists are still flesh and blood, and can fall before temptation the same as all others if they give ear to the tempter.
Of this sad, but fortunately very small, number who have had to leave our Adventist ministry under a cloud, I can recall two who took to preaching on their own or in some loose affiliation with another religious body, and who declared from the public platform that they had been delivered from the legalism of Adventism and now were rejoicing in the free grace of God!
This observation is made in no cynical vein and with no attempt merely to prove a case, but only to relate simple facts of history, current history that is known and can be verified. These facts are offered simply as proof that an ex-Adventist minister may not be giving the real reasons for his departure from the Adventist Church when he stands up to speak or sits down to write against us. Nothing could better illustrate the well-known fact that the reasons people offer for their actions are not necessarily the real reasons, and may, indeed, be the very opposite of the truth.
Would Our Critics Be Willing?
Would our critics, who often are spokesmen for other religious bodies, be willing to have their religious organizations and their doctrinal teachings evaluated in terms of the testimony offered by ministers who had left their denominations for one reason or another? Then why should Adventists be indicted because of statements made by ministers who leave us? In any organization there are always a few men who, for one reason or another, fall out of step. There are occasions, of course, when a man-yes, a minister may leave an organization because of a sincere difference of conviction. But in too many instances men leave with bitterness in their heart and thus with a distorted idea of the whole organization. The Adventist Church cannot hope to escape from this kind of personnel problem, a problem created sometimes by bad digestion, sometimes by bad nerves, and sometimes simply by a bad heart.
A Reprehensible Course
But if it is unfair to judge a denomination by the testimony of an ex-minister, how reprehensible to make capital of testimony offered on a denomination's theology by an ex-employee who was never ordained to the ministry! But let an ex-Adventist employee, printer, businessman, or what not, cry out that he was delivered from Adventist legalism, and how quickly certain of our critics joyfully rally round him. With straight face they describe him as a former Adventist leader who held positions of great trust and who is singularly qualified to speak with authority on what that denomination believes and teaches and what its broad policies have been.
Yet the man thus lauded may have been employed in some wholly non-ministerial activity, may never have attended an Adventist college or secondary school, to say nothing of a theological seminary, and thus be hardly as well qualified to speak on Adventist doctrine as the average Adventist layman. Yet somehow a lone man like this is taken as the last word on our theology. If it is a consensus of laymen's testimony that our critics sincerely desire, why do they not follow
the suggestions already offered as to taking a poll of our lay members? Or is it that they wish to hear only the testimony that pleases them, even if that testimony must be a lone voice?
Surely this is a strange procedure. Would our ministerial critics ever think of exalting a businessman in their church as a spokesman on their theology? Would they not ridicule the idea that a non-ministerial manager of one of their institutions, for example, should speak with authority concerning their denomination? Would they not consider it outrageous if the interpretation given to their doctrines by such a man, in opposition to that of all their authorized spokesmen, were accepted by critics as valid testimony against the teachings of their denomination? Yes, and would they not feel doubly outraged if such a man built his case against them on stray phrases from their various works, and critics promoted such an eclectic theological production as being unquestionably correct and authoritative? To ask that question is to answer it.
Those Early Records
This discussion can hardly be closed without a word regarding early Adventist history. Some critic may even think to search for evidence of legalism in the records of the early decades of our history when doctrinal views were being slowly crystallized. But surely no fair-minded person would be much impressed by such evidence. The student of church history may remember Philip Schaff s observation regarding the beginnings of Protestantism, when the Reformers were so dominated with the glorious truth of the liberty of the gospel that some in the movement tended to mistake license for liberty. Even Calvin was ready to assert his right to bowl on the green on Sunday to show his liberty in the gospel. But no one would therefore think of charging that Presbyterianism teaches such a view.
In the first few decades of the Seventh day Adventist Church some of its leaders were so solemnized with the truth that God's law is eternally binding that they were tempted to give it excessive and perhaps unwarranted emphasis in relation to other truths. Some of them even feared that the strong emphasis that other Adventists wished to place on righteousness by faith might blur the vital truth regarding God's law.
There is nothing mysterious about this. Good men in any developing religious movement require at least a few decades to stabilize their beliefs. Schaff provides a thoughtful sketch of how slowly there developed in Protestantism the proper realization of the doctrine of God's law. It seemed so alien at first to the idea of gospel liberty!
Only a live and growing organization meets opposition. And the kind of opposition is the measure of the strength of the case that opponents feel they can make out against us! Surely our critics, who are neither knaves nor dolts, must have quiet moments of misgivings when they ponder this whole matter of their attacks on Adventists. They know that stray phrases can prove anything and thus prove nothing, and they know that all our formal statements on the law parallel those of the Protestant creeds. They know that they could not risk taking the poll suggested. They know that the victories gained by Adventists over liquor and tobacco, for example, cannot fit into any picture of legalism.
Sabbath Kept Joyfully
What is more, our critics know that Adventists keep the fourth commandment-the Sabbath command-with a joyfulness and sincerity with which they (the critics) fain would have their communicants keep Sunday. They know that while they, or their fellow opponents of Adventism, seek laws to under gird Sunday, Adventists keep the Sabbath without the aid of any legal statutes by the state, and are indeed militantly opposed to any legal approach to the matter of Sabbath keeping.
Yes, and our critics, who are generally of the Fundamentalist ranks, know that Adventists are untainted by skeptical, evolutionist doctrines, and that they are ever protected from such heresy by their weekly keeping of the Sabbath in memory of God's having created the heavens and the earth.
Warm and Spontaneous Liberality
Our critics also know that Seventh day Adventists give gladly and with a liberality that far outdistances the giving of virtually all other churches in Christendom, and they know that such warm liberality could not spring from cold legalism.
Besides all this, our critics know that Adventists conduct a mission program out of all proportion to their size, that they go into the heart of Africa, the recesses of Asia, and the jungles of the South Seas, and that as a result of their preaching raw savages turn from devil worship, from filthy, enslaving habits, to live circumspect, happy Christian lives. Our critics know that legalism is powerless to do this. Have they not, as good Fundamentalists, often declared that Modernists lack either the urge to go as missionaries or the power to transform lives if they went?
All this and more must trouble the thinking of our critics in their quiet moments. We think it should!