The American Sentinel 10
June 20, 1895
“The Sabbath and the Sufficiency of Scripture” American Sentinel 10, 25, pp. 193, 194.
DOES the Bible contain all things necessary to salvation? AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.1
The consistent Protestant says, yes; the consistent Roman Catholic says, no. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.2
It is around this point that the battle between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism has always been waged, and always will be waged, until the end of time. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.3
When the papacy yields on this point, it yields all. It cannot exist as a system a moment after it surrenders this point. On the other hand, when Protestantism compromises itself on this point, it has compromised its very existence, and must perish. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.4
It therefore follows that when Protestantism harbors an unscriptural doctrine it harbors a deadly foe. It gives aid and comfort to its life-long enemy, and commits treason against the cause it professes to serve. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.5
Protestantism is harboring such an enemy in the Sunday-Sabbath, and Roman Catholics are using this fact to silence the voice of Protestantism. The Romanizing High-Church party in the Protestant Episcopal Church use it to silence the voice of their protesting brethren; Methodists use it to silence the Baptists’ plea for scriptural baptism. In fact, the greatest foe to a faithful return to scriptural doctrine and practice, is found in the Sunday-Sabbath. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.6
To illustrate: Every Roman Catholic work which discusses the doctrine of the church, attempts to prove that the Bible does not contain all that is necessary to salvation. And every such work appeals to the Sunday-Sabbath, which all the popular Protestant churches observe, as proof of its claim. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.7
Here are a few of the many examples:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.8
Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.... We must therefore conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith.... because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation. 1 AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.9
The Protestants have no scripture for the measure of their day of rest,—that they abolish the observance of Saturday without warrant of Scripture,—that they substitute Sunday in its place without scriptural authority,—consequently, that for all this, they have only traditional authority. Yet Protestants would look upon a man who would do profane work after five o’clock on Sunday, or keep the Saturday and profane the first day, as a victim of perdition. Hence we must conclude, that the Scripture, which does not teach these things clearly, does not contain all necessary truths, and consequently, cannot be the only rule of faith. 2 AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.10
The keeping holy of Sunday is a thing absolutely necessary to salvation; and yet this is nowhere put down in the Bible; on the contrary, the Bible says: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), which is Saturday, and not Sunday; therefore the Bible does not contain all things necessary to salvation, and consequently, cannot be a sufficient rule of faith. 3 AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.11
Not only is the Sunday-Sabbath used by Roman Catholics against the general by Roman Catholics against the general position of Protestantism on the sufficiency of Scripture, but it is used to justify every unscriptural doctrine and practice of their church. Every time a Sunday-keeping Protestant declares a certain Roman Catholic doctrine to be unscriptural, the Catholic kills the force of the protest by replying that Sunday-keeping is without scriptural warrant also. In fact, Roman Catholic children are taught in parochial schools to use this argument against the Protestant who protests against the multitude of fast days enjoined by that church. Here is an illustration from “A Doctrinal Catechism,” page 181:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.12
Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences? AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.13
A. Asks him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or abstain. If he replies that the Scripture orders him to keep Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting or abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week. If then he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient church so ordained? AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.14
And now we instance an illustration of how effectively this argument is used. The New York Observer, of January 24, 1895, assailed the Roman Catholic mass, as follows:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.15
There is not, in all the Word of God, a passage that can be quoted in favor of an early and fasting communion. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.16
To this the Catholic Union and Times, of Buffalo, promptly replied:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.17
Neither is there a single text of scripture to authorize you to change the Lord’s day from the seventh to the first day of the week. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.18
This shot from the Roman Catholic editor effectually silenced the Observer; not a word has been ventured in reply. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.19
Not only do Roman Catholics use the Sunday-Sabbath tradition to silence Sunday-keeping Protestants, but Sunday-keeping Protestants use it against each other. Recently, the Examiner National Baptist and Christian Inquirer published the statement that the Roman custom of christening bells “is authorized by the very next verse to the one which commands the christening of babies.” AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.20
To this the New York Christian Advocate (Methodist), in its issue of April 25, quickly responded thus:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.21
Our Baptist friends would find great difficulty in finding a positive text in support of some of their beliefs. Without doubt there is no text commanding the christening of babies; now is there any commanding the substitution of the Lord’s day for the Sabbath. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.22
As the short from the Catholic Union and Times silenced the Observer, so this shot from the Advocate silenced the Examiner. And thus it is seen how the Sunday-Sabbath dogma stands for tradition as against the sufficiency of Scripture, and is a shield in the hands of Roman Catholics to parry the scriptural blow of the Sunday-keeping Protestant; and in the hands of one Sunday-keeping Protestant his more scriptural Protestant neighbor. In short, the greatest barrier to-day to a return to primitive Bible truth is the inconsistent Protestant practice of hallowing the unhallowed Sunday institution and of the decorating the God-hallowed Sabbath-day. AMS June 20, 1895, page 193.23
There are those who charge Seventh-day Adventists with exaggerating a non-essential, in faithfully observing the “Sabbath day according to the commandment.” But it is not a non-essential; it is a vital question. Upon it turns, as we have seen, the question of whether the Word of God contains the truth necessary to salvation or whether it does not; whether the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that tradition is essential to salvation is true or not; whether we will take the Bible, with the Saviour of the Bible, and his salvation which saves to the uttermost, or the tradition of the papacy with its traditional saviour which cannot save without the intervention of Mary, the saints, and the priests, and “millions of years” in the purifying flames of purgatory? AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.1
This is what Seventh-day Adventists are standing for; this is what they are suffering in prisons for; and this is what, God helping them, they are wiling to die to maintain. AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.2
“Clerical Juggling” American Sentinel 10, 25, p. 194.
A LARGE majority of those who observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh day, attempt to use the fourth commandment to justify their practice. However, this use of the fourth commandment is a modern invention. Fifteen hundred years of Christian history and ecclesiastical controversy passed before any church became so reckless as to attempt to steal the livery of the fourth commandment with which to clothe the Sunday-Sabbath. AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.1
To show how the commandment is wrested in the attempt to furnish scriptural authority for the unscriptural dogma of Sunday-sacredness, we will quote the commandment, with the juggling necessary to make it applicable:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.2
“Remember the Sabbath day [formerly the seventh, but now the first day] to keep it holy. Six days [which formerly excluded the seventh, but now includes it] shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the first day [formerly the seventh day] is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed” one day in seven, but no day in particular, and hallowed one day in seven, but no day in particular; and then authorized the clergy from the sixteenth century and onward to determine which day of the seven is holy, and to force that decision on all other men with the aid of the civil authority. AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.3
Although this rendering of the commandment is ridiculous, it is the rendering absolutely necessary to cover the position taken by ninety-nine out of every one hundred Sunday-keeping Protestants. Is it any wonder that thinking men should become disgusted with this jugglery with words and retort in the language of the Chicago Inter-Ocean editorial, of April 23, thus: “Once for all this clerical juggling with words should cease: Sunday is not the Sabbath, and every preacher knows it is not”? AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.4
Every Protestant who wrests the scripture in this manner vitiates the divine Word and silences his voice against papal perversions of scripture. If the Sunday-keeping Protestant can do violence to the fourth commandment as illustrated above, then the Roman Catholic can wrest the following precious text, thus:— AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.5
“If we confess our sin [to the priest], he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” [in the flames of purgatory]. AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.6
The Sunday-keeping Protestant protests against this rendering of the text, but his protest if nullified by the fact that he is guilty of doing equal violence to another text to justify his practice. Thus it is seen that the Sabbath controversy involves the integrity of the Scriptures, and with it the simplicity and purity of the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. And in contending for the integrity of the Sabbath command, Seventh-day Adventists are contending for the integrity of scriptures which contain the good news of salvation through faith in Christ, instead of through faith in priests, popes and purgatory. AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.7
“Clashing Voices” American Sentinel 10, 25, p. 194.
A COPY of the Evangel and Sabbath Outlook, containing an account of the conviction AMS June 20, 1895, page 194.1