SABBATH OBSERVANCE

Southland Times, Issue 20791, 4 June 1929, Page 5

SABBATH OBSERVANCE

THE CASE AGAINST THE SEVENTH DAY. [ XVII. To the Editor. Sir, —Before dealing with another vital error of Seventh Day Adventism relating to the Atonement of Christ I will again quote from the book I have mentioned. Statement 1: “By accepting Christ and the gospel we have passed out from under the condemnation of the law and are free men and | women in Christ Jesus.” Comment: This is I ambiguous. Is the gospel an addition to Christ ? The Scripture teaches that Christ in His fulness is the gospel, namely, justification by faith only in Christ’s sacrifice of , Himself and sanctification by the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit. Apparently Christ plus Sabbath-keeping constitutes the Seventh Day Adventist gospel. Statement 2: | "This does not mean as many seem to think, that we are free to break the law. | Not at all. The man who breaks the law is not under grace, but under the law. It is the man who is under grace who keeps | the law, and he remains under grace only as long as he keeps the law. When he breaks the law he is no longer under grace, but goes back under the law. This can be shown clearly by a simple illustration.” Comment: By the time readers have reached the end of this extract they will be inclined to say as one who had read the book said ■j to me: “I cannot understand it, it is beyond me. First under law, then under grace;.back ■ under law, again under grace; again under law, back under grace. Where are we?” .' Yes, where indeed? And now the simple ■ illustration. Statement 3: “A certain man • commits murder. For the purposes of this • illustration we will say he lives next door ! to you. You know him well. The police- ■ man comes for him. The officer goes into ■ his house, lays his hand on the murderer’s : shoulder, and marches him off to the police ■ station. lie is now in the hands of the law. ■ He is under the law. But why? Because : he has broken it. Why does not the officer : i come into your home and get you, and ; j take you to the police station ? Solely be-

~ cause you are keeping the law. Why is it = you are free from the law and the mur- - derer is under it? Because he has broken ~ it and you have not. It is clear then that - those who have broken the law are under ” the law, and those who are free from the - law arc those who are keeping the law. = Now the murderer Is tried convicted and 5 sentenced to life imprisonment. He is under x the law because he has broken it. After = serving ten years of his sentence the Gov- : ernor of the State pardons him. The warden : comes to his cell one morning and says: - ‘John I have a pardon for you and to-day Z you are a free man.’ He leads him out of x the prison, out to the gate, that leads to ; the street, opens it, and John walks out a ; free man. He is now free from the law. : He is now no longer under the law, but ; under grace, the grace of the governor who : pardoneel him.” Comment: It is no won- ; der that readers of such teaching are con- : fused. The illustration quoted does not. : satisfy the rules of sound reasoning. The ; term "under the law” in the illustration re- ‘ fers to the law of the land or State. The : term "under the law” in the Scripture re- ■ fers to the Mosaic law. The term “grace j of the governor” in the illustration refers : to a prerogative of mercy which sets aside ; the law of the State. The term "grace” in ; the Scripture refers to the voluntary death : of Christ realizing to the full the condemn- : ation of the broken law of God. The gover- ’■ nor pardons murderer John by stopping the 3 operation of the law of the State. God : pardons the sinner because He has allowed ; His law to work itself out on Christ as ; the representative of sinful man. No wonder : I was asked the question “Where are we?” : Statement. 4 “He (murderer John) is now ; in the same position as the sinner when : Christ pardons him. He has been for- : given, the condemnation of the law has ■ been taken away, he is no longer in bond- • age to sin, and he is free from the law, ; no longer under the law but. under the 1 grace of Christ.” Comment. Murderer John is not by an means in the same position as the pardoned sinner. The pardoned sinner is justified, that is, God sees him in Christ as though he had never sinned. In the case of murderer John the record remains on the State books. The remainder of his sentence was remitted, that is all. It is true that a man cannot be punished twice for the same offence, but it is also true that when a man comes again into the clutches of the law, his previous record

can be turned up and examined. But. the pardoned sinner’s black record is wiped out by the atonement of Christ. Statement 5. “Does this mean, however that John who is now free from the law can go out and break the law? Does his being under grace mean that he has license to transgress the law? Can he now go out and kill another man because he is no longer under the law but under grace? It will be plain (!!!) to all that John will remain under grace only as long as he keeps the law. If he should again transgress the law, if he should kill another man, then he would be under the law again, and would necessarily suffer the infliction of another sentence. Just so is the case of the Christian. The pardoning of our sins does not afford us a license to commit additional sin. It frees us from the condemnation of the law and puts us under grace, but we remain under grace only so long as we keep the law. When we break the law, when we break any of its commandments, the Sabbath commandment or any other, then we are back under the law again and no longer under grace.” Comment —Again under the law, back under grace; back under the law, again under grace. No wonder we are bewildered in solving the puzzle of law and grace. But Seventh Day Adventism bids us we find “rest” in the Sabbath siding, for we are told in Statement 6 “Therefore those who keep the Sabbath are not under the law, but rather those who break the Sabbath.” Comment: This is an impossible conclusion drawn from a series of statements containing undefined and unrelated terms. The whole illustration is a splendid example of fallacious reasoning. Let Seventh Day Adventism learn the meaning of the terms “law,” “justification,” “sanctification,” “grace,” etc. In the extract quoted Seventh Day Adventism fails to understand the term “grace,” which has no fewer than five meanings. I will consider, the term as it particularly concerns us here. It is

styled “the grace of Christ” in that through pity for sinful men Christ left His state of blessedness with God in heaven, and voluntarily underwent the hardships and miseries of human life, and by his sufferings and death procured salvation for mankind. Grace as a divine method is constantly set in “contrast” to law and law-works, so that salvation through grace absolutely excludes law from all its processes. Neither in justification nor in sanctification is any place left, for the law. The two-fold error against which the Spirit by Paul delivered the message of Galatians is the notion that (a), the sinner’s justification is helped by law-works (Gal. 2.16, 21) and (b) that the believer is under the law as an aid to holy living (Gal. 3. 1-25. Gal. 4. 21-31. Rom. 6.14). This is that “other gospel which is not another.” —for there could not be two gospels—into which the Galatian Christians had been led from the gospel of pure grace (Gal. 1. 6,7) and upon the preaching of which the awful anathema of God rests, unrepealed (Gal 1.8, 9). —I am, etc,, FRANK SAMPSON. Record of letters: Feb. 19, Feb. 23, Feb. 28, Mar. 6, Mar. 13, Mar. 19, Mar. 25, Ap. 3, Ap. 11, Ap. 19, Ap. 29, May 6, May 9, May 22, May 27, Jun. 3.