A Written Discussion ... Upon the Sabbath

ELDER J. H. WAGGONER’S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE

8. That men are proved sinners by the law, and are of course under condemnation as long as they disregard it, is farther shown by Paul in Romans 7:7, “I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” By this it will be seen that “primary law” does have its part in the work of conversion; it convinces of sin, without which there can be no genuine repentance, and of course, no genuine conversion. Hence Paul taught “repentance toward God”—whose law has been transgressed—“and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” who takes away the carnal mind which “is not subject to the law of God,” and brings back the straying into harmony with the will and government of heaven. If Eld. V. has any other means than the law to prove men guilty in the sight of God, let him produce the text, or cease his vain speculations. Psalm 19:7, cannot be referred to the law of types of the O. T. without contradicting the New; for that law by which animal sacrifices were offered was “unprofitable and made nothing perfect.” His error is that he makes no distinction between types and shadows, and the law defining moral obligation, forbidding theft, adultery, etc. His illustration by the duty of giving is entirely defective. To show a distinction between precept and morality he says the statutory duty of giving a tenth is abolished, leaving the duty of giving on a moral basis. But the requirements to give a tenth is no more explicitly stated in the O.T. than is the precept to give in the New. And he can only prove the existence of the duty to give by express statements to that effect. The distinction he claims is a fallacy. WDUS 76.2

We read in the Scriptures that men cannot be justified by the law because they are sinners-they have all transgressed the law-and of course are condemned by it. His insinuation that we seek justification by the law is as unworthy as it is unjust, for he knows better. Condemnation and justification each have their place in the experience of a sinner redeemed, and condemnation must precede pardon. And here I will notice another fallacy which underlies his whole system. He says the law was abolished, but the principles were not. This is the rankest antinomianism, and leaves every one to follow his own inclinations; for if men are left to judge of the application of principles without precepts a revelation is a nullity. I repeat, he opens the door for just such liberty as the carnal mind will greatly enjoy. Romans 8:7. And his position will not bear the test of Scripture. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Will Eld. Vogel show that the knowledge of sin is by principles and not by the law? Again, “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Will he prove his position by showing that sin is imputed on principles without the law? Every reader of the Bible knows that he cannot. Paul was not convinced of sin by abstract principles, but by what “the law said.” Will Eld. Vogel confess to an experience like that of Paul? If not, whose “mouth” should be “stopped”—mine or his? WDUS 76.3

9. The purity and perfection of the law is as clearly stated in the New Testament as in the Old. “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12. There is no necessity for mutilating Psalm 19:7, as Eld. V. does to make it read, “The law of the Lord was perfect,” for Paul confirms it just as it stands. All that has been said of the necessary relation of law and character will here apply. If the law is holy it is designed to form a holy character, and would therefore justify the doer; and this is also the reason why it witnesses to the righteousness of God; Romans 3:21. And its perfection is shown by all those Scriptures which declare that it will not justify sin, or the sinner. It condemns sin as a good law must; for if it justified the sinner in his sin it would be a bad law. WDUS 76.4

On this subject I may notice a most singular position taken by Eld. Vogel. He pronounces my argument a “sophism,” and says a man may be “perfect and holy as measured by that law, whether the law itself be perfect or imperfect.” I am not surprised at his making this declaration; it is according to his crude notions of law and morality. A man would not be blamed or condemned by an imperfect law if he kept it; but he would not therefore be perfect. If we have any means of determining that a law is imperfect the same means will determine that a character must be imperfect that is conformed to that law. His assertion is equivalent to saying that a certain thing is straight because it is so like a crooked stick, or that a given angle may be properly called a right angle because it bears comparison with an obtuse angle! The crudity of his notions of law and perfection of character would appear only humorous were not the subject one of solemn importance, and did not errors in regard to it lead to fatal results. WDUS 77.1

10. “For we know that the law is spiritual.” Romans 7:14. Of course obedience to it is pure spiritual worship of God. And this fully justifies that other statement of Paul, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Spirituality and carnality cannot coalesce; there must be antagonism between them. Hence, wherever there is opposition or insubordination to the law, there is carnality. As before stated, in such cases, there can be no genuine conversion-no true repentance. They may cry “Lord, Lord” to Jesus, but as they do not the will of his Father, they are workers of iniquity-law-breakers. The reader will remember that Eld. Vogel very conveniently passed over the evidence I gave on Romans 2., that the will of God is the law, and that he is dishonored by the breaking of the law, and that the Gentile is accepted of God if he keeps the law. Romans 2:17-29. WDUS 77.2

Now if the law is spiritual it is moral. And this text opens the way to expose another instance of false reasoning on the part of Eld. Vogel. To say that I am surprised at the use he makes of Webster’s definition of statute does not not half express my feelings, because he knows as well as I do that in that definition Webster has no reference to the theological distinction of positive and moral. Webster’s third definition of positive is, that which is explicitly stated, as opposed to implied. The fifth definition has regard to the theological distinction. Now according to the third definition the Decalogue is positive, that is, explicitly stated; but not according to the fifth definition, that is, in distinction from moral. For Webster says, “The moral law is summarily contained in the Decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone.” Had not Webster expressly contradicted his use of the word positive there might be some excuse for his course; now there is none. I repeat, his position subverts all morality by subverting the moral law. WDUS 77.3

11. Hebrews 9:15. This text says that Christ “is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal in heritance.” WDUS 77.4

(1.) As Jesus mediates in behalf of transgressors under the first testament, his mediation takes hold of that law which they transgressed; for their transgressions were real-not of a typical system, but-violations of God’s moral law, written on the tables of stone. Of course that law is not abolished, but stands to appear against them in the judgment, if Jesus does not blot out their sins. WDUS 77.5

(2.) The transgressions of that law stand between them and the eternal inheritance, which they could not do if, as Eld. Vogel asserts, it looked only to temporal benefits. If it was given to them as a civil law only they could have broken every precept of the decalogue without incurring moral guilt, or being therefore subject to a future judgment. But every Scripture which speaks of its holiness, perfection, spirituality, as a rule of life, of justification, etc. is a direct contradiction of that assertion. Was any moral law binding on the Jews except that which God revealed to them? If there was, by what Scriptures do we learn that fact? A little consideration of these queries will convince any one of the groundlessness of Eid. V.’s assertion. WDUS 77.6

12. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law.” Romans 3:31. This is the necessary conclusion from the apostle’s argument in this and the preceding chapter. And this confirms the view I have presented on the two laws-the moral and the ceremonial or positive. The moral law is established by faith, because condemnation must precede justification of a sinner; and pardon supposes the justice of the condemnation; that is, it recognizes the claims of the violated law. Pardon in the absence of law is a nullity. And the idea of abolishing the law and pardoning the transgressor also is absurd. But we know that the types or positive laws of the O. T. are not established by faith; they are made void. The moral law-the Decalogue (Webster) is confirmed and established (magnified,extolled, honored, Isaiah 13:21) by the gospel. The ceremonial law was blotted out, abolished or made void, nailed to the cross. This text settles absolutely the controversy relative to the abolition of the law. WDUS 77.7

I re-affirm my position on this chapter: that it refers to the moral law of the O. T., and it condemns both Jew and Gentile. It needs but a few words to expose the fallacy of Eld. V.’s view. He affirms that the law in this chapter includes the Mosaic ritual of types, and that it cannot refer to the Gentiles. Notice: once in this chapter the apostle refers to the Judgment of the world in arguing the perpetuity of “the oracles of God” which were given to Israel. Twice he speaks of both Jew and Gentile. Twice says that all have sinned or gone as tray, which he applies to both Jew and Gentile. Once He says that all the world are guilty before God. Now if nothing more definite could be produced this would prove Eld. Vogel’s assertion illogical and unjust. But notice the connection and relation upon which the apostle makes his application. “We have before proved both Jew and Gentiles that they are all under sin, as it is written, there is none righteous, no not one,” and thus he proceeds to sustain his charge against Jews and Gentiles by quotations from Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah. If this is not proving the Gentiles sinners by the Old Testament I know not what would be proving them such. Reader, what think you? Verses 19, 20 contain the logical conclusion from this statement; all the world are guilty before God, and no flesh is exempt from this condemnation. And the inference of Eld. V. that Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah are “the law” referred to is groundless. These quotations are the evidence that Jews and Gentiles are all sinners; but these quotations are not the law nor any part of the law which they violated in sinning I Not a position that he has taken in his last negative will stand the test of examination. WDUS 78.1

And therefore, again, the law here referred to does not include the “Mosaic ritual,” for the Gentiles were not so related to that law, nor was that law to point out sin; it was remedial in its nature, based in its operation on the existence of sin. But the moral law, which is spiritual, perfect, and holy, reaches all the world; and “all the world” must be used in this extended sense, when both Jews and Gentiles were so distinctly specified. WDUS 78.2

I have quoted literally the Authorized Version of Romans 3. Eld. Vogel says the article should be omitted in verse 20. He has before hinted at the difference of “law” and “the law” in the N. T. If that difference exists let him show it. If he wishes to make the issue on the Greek article the way is open. I deny his claim and promise to meet it whenever he offers anything to sustain it. WDUS 78.3

13. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace.” Romans 6:14. Our position on this text is no novelty. We hold that “under the law” expresses the condition of one under condemnation-not merely under obligation; for our redemption is from the curse (Galatians 3:13-14), not from the duty. And this expression-under the law-describes the condition of all who are not justified. The contrast is plain between “under the law” and “under grace;” it is exactly the contrast between condemnation and justification. But the Scriptures never present a contrast between obedience or obligation, and justification. On the contrary Paul says “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Here justification is joined to doing the law, but justification is never joined to breaking the law under any circumstances. Selah. All are by nature under the law; or otherwise, if the law is abolished, then none are under the law, but all are under grace, and no condemnation exists. This is the inevitable result of abolishing the law, and is very comforting to Universalists. Are “the children of wrath” under grace? No. Where, then, are they? Under the law-under condemnation; in sin. Shall we sin, or transgress the law, that grace may abound? “God forbid.” He that sins is the servant of sin, not the servant of God. There was a time when each one who is now a Christian was not under grace, but under condemnation. This relation was only changed by being “redeemed from the curse of the law;” but the curse comes by transgression-not otherwise. Therefore the curse continues as long as the transgression continues, for “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Christ came “to put away sin;” not his own, for he had none, but ours, which is not done if we continue in sin. It is easy to be seen that the apostle’s argument is based upon the existence of the law, and that Eld. Vogel, in quoting Scriptures which may and do prove the abolition of the typical law is “beating the air,” and subverting morality by applying them to moral law. WDUS 78.4

14. But Eld, V, hit upon one important truth, and I will adopt it as a point in my argument. I wish that his intention had been such that we could give him credit for it. He says, “The decalogue is the Constitution of the Mosaic laws, i. e., it sustains the same relation to the laws that the constitution of the United States sustains to our laws.” Exactly so; and those laws, as our laws, could be abolished without abolishing the Constitution or destroying the government. But that was the Constitution of a moral government, being a moral law, and it must remain as long as moral obligation remains, without regard to the abolition of laws of a different nature, not fundamental. When the Constitution is abolished all is overthrown. But Jesus never professed the intention to destroy the government of his Father and to erect another in its stead. He came to reconcile rebels to his Father. His position as “mediator” also attests this. The theory which abolishes God’s Constitution, has Jesus Christ coming to earth and finding a rebellion against his Father; and on which side does he array himself? On the side of the rebellion, and against his Father’s government, totally subverting it by abolishing its Constitution I Verily, if that be so, he was the worst rebel of the whole. They had the disposition to overthrow the government of God, and he carried it but for them! Lord those who thus make “Christ the minister of sin.” WDUS 79.1

But farther: Eld. V. says, “The law was the only bond of union in the commonwealth of Israel,” and he thinks therefore it was only political. But in this he jumps from the truth to his conclusion. Of course the Constitution only is the bond of union, even as our laws might be abolished without destroying the union if the Constitution remained. His reference is Ephesians 2., which we will examine. Paul is therein speaking to the Gentile converts to Christianity. He says that before their conversion they were “aliens from the common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” A bad condition, truly. Does Paul farther say as Eld. V. argues, that the ‘commonwealth of Israel’ is destroyed, its ‘Constitution’ abolished, and their ‘hope’ built upon its ruins? No; he says ‘the middle wall of partition’ is broken down, those shadowy laws which were peculiar to a natural seed, and now, through the gospel, the great plan of naturalization, those Gentiles by nature ‘are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God,’ And so in Romans 11.; ‘the root’ is not dug up and destroyed, but the natural branches were broken off and unnatural branches, Gentiles, ‘graffed in.’ The Gentiles may be saved if they embrace the covenant made with Judah and Israel, Hebrews 8,, and are ‘graffed in,’ so as to be of ‘the Israel of God;’ Galatians 6:16; and are no more strangers and foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel. But if Israel was but a political body and that commonwealth only a ‘civil compact,’ as Eld. V. teaches, why is it that the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, has its gates named after ‘the twelve tribes of Israel?’ Revelation 21:12. Perhaps Eld, Vogel has not yet learned that ‘salvation is of the Jews;’ his system of theology may need remodeling to embrace” The fullness of Scripture truth. None but ‘Israelites indeed’ will enter those gates; therefore a blessing pronounced upon them ‘that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, arid may enter in through the gates into the city.’ Revelation 22:14. The commandments are the ‘Constitution’ of ‘the commonwealth of Israel,’ and it is not necessary to argue that when Gentiles are no more strangers and foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel they are in duty bound to obey the ‘Constitution’ of that commonwealth. And this they will do if they are good citizens. But if they will not do this, they disfranchise themselves. See Romans 6:14-16. If Eld. Vogel acknowledges that he and his brethren are a part of ‘the Israel of God’ they must come to this. But of this I will speak farther when I examine the subject of the covenants. WDUS 79.2