THE SPIRIT OF GOD:–
ITS – OFFICES AND MANIFESTATIONS, TO THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.
BY ELD. J. H.
WAGGONER. 1877
CHAPTER V.
THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY
+
Continued…
The evidence on the relation of the law of God
and the gifts of the Spirit we have given only in part. It deserves further
examination. According to Rev. 12:17, war will be made with the remnant who
keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. This shows both
the perfect agreement between keeping the law and having the power of the
Spirit, and the opposition which will exist, and already exists to a great
extent, against the law and the testimony. It is a truth well known that the
indignation of the world and a worldly church is quickly aroused against those
who keep all the commandments of God in all things, just as they were written and
spoken by the Lord. But nothing seems so readily to arouse the prejudice, yes,
the hatred and malice, of the carnal mind, as the manifestation of the Spirit
of prophecy. The world bestows its incredulous smile as if it pitied the folly
of those who could embrace the promise of God as a reality; that incredulous
smile often proving more cutting than the severest language; while a proud and
worldly church cannot restrain its feelings of scorn or abhorrence of those who
humbly and reverently claim “the promise of the
59
Spirit” according to the words of both Christ
and his apostles. Surely the fulfillment of the prophecy, Rev. 12:17, is no
mystery to those who are intently watching the signs of the times, and have
noted the feelings of popular religionists toward those who dare to reprove the
lukewarmness of the present age in which so many have “the form of godliness,
but deny the power thereof.”
This connection between the law and the means
and benefits of the gospel is logically deduced from the preaching of the
apostle on the day of Pentecost. That the law was not abolished at the
crucifixion is proved in this, that not a sermon was preached, not a duty made
known, between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost; and the first duties
enjoined on that day were those of repentance for sin, and of baptism for the
remission of sin. Now it is plain to see that if the law was previously
abolished, and if men were to look to the apostles for the proclamation of a
new code, then the whole transaction was a failure, inasmuch as “where no law
is there is no transgression,” and of course no call for repentance. Again,
“sin is not imputed when there is no law,” and therefore to preach baptism for
remission of sin when no law existed would be a sheer absurdity. If the law
which had existed were abolished at the cross, no one could be convicted under
it, and as no law for the new dispensation had yet been given by the apostles,
it would follow necessarily that no one was at that time bound by any law; sin
could not be imputed to them at all. Therefore, according to this antinomian
notion the preaching of repentance and baptism at that time was a nullity—
60
mere sound without sense. Thus it is easily
shown that the doctrine of the antinomians—the no-law theorists— more than perverts the gospel; it subverts it; it saps its very foundations,
leaving it destitute of life and power. It is virtually a rejection of the
gospel both in its facts and in its promises.
It has been remarked that baptism has not only
its form, but also its order and relations.
It is often urged that if its form be changed—if it be no longer immersion or a burial,
as the word signifies and the illustrations of Scripture indicate—it ceases to
be the baptism of the gospel; and when administered under such change it is not
valid. But let us consider its necessary relations. We learn that baptism is
for remission of sin; also that sin is the transgression of the law, and that
sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore if no law existed from the
cross to the day of Pentecost, as must have been the case if the law was
abolished at the cross, then there could be no sin imputed at that time, of
which to repent or for which to be baptized. Now as baptism stands related to
sin, and sin is related to an existing law, it follows that the law did exist,
for sin was imputed to them.
Thus it is shown that Peter’s preaching would
have been groundless and of no force if the law had been abolished. Even so
now, all who preach the abolition of the law, preach a gospel (so-called)
without any basis; it is a nullity. As it is a nullity, and not the gospel in fact, not being a system of
salvation from the transgression of the law, the baptism enjoined in such
preaching is not truly gospel baptism; it is deprived of its relations and of
its significance, and, therefore, of its
61
efficacy. And all who administer baptism under
such teachings are offenders against the gospel.
This conclusion is logical; it is unavoidable,
and is not drawn from this text alone. In Rom. 6:1-6, baptism is called a
burial, and, of course, should be subsequent to death, for all must admit that
it is wrong to bury before death. But the death which precedes baptism is death
to sin, to the transgression of the law. It is expressly said in verse 2 that
we cannot be dead to sin and live in it; but we do live in it as long as we
continue to transgress the law. We do not die to sin until we cease to transgress
the law, and therefore baptism or burial cannot properly take place while we
continue to transgress the law. We are to be buried in the order or likeness of
Christ’s death, which is thus stated:—
“For I delivered unto you first of all, that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day,
according to the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. 15:3, 4.
Now if ceasing to transgress the law is dying
to sin, as all must admit, then no one can be planted in the likeness of
Christ’s death who has not ceased to transgress the law, from the evident truth
that Christ died before he was buried. There is no mistaking this point. He
that transgresses the law lives in sin: if he lives in sin he has not died to
it; if he has not died to it he is not prepared to be buried; and if he is so
buried he is buried alive, that is, without a death to sin, and hence not buried
in the likeness of the Saviour’s death. Such baptism is not in the order of the
gospel—it is only a perversion of gospel baptism.
62
And this is still further shown in Rom. 7:1-6.
This scripture says the law holds a man as long as he lives, and the woman who
marries a second husband before the death of the first is guilty of adultery.
In the application of this fact Paul says to his brethren:—
“Ye also are become dead to the law by the body
of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from
the dead.” Rom. 7:4.
The wages of sin is death. There would be no
death if there were no sin. Thus we see that Paul is arguing concerning man in
his sinful condition. The law would not thus hold man unto death if he had not
sinned—if his life was not forfeited. The death here referred to is on account
of sin; the same that is spoken of in chap. 6—there called a death to sin. But
without this death they cannot “be married to another,” even to Christ.
Marriage to another without such death would be spiritual
adultery. This is the force and intent of this scripture. The old man
must be crucified, the body of sin destroyed—chap. 6:6; and every effort to
unite this body of sin to Christ must meet with his decided disapproval. On
this subject it is said in another text:—
“For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27.
As union with Christ is represented by the
figure of being married to him, so baptism is the ordinance by which that
marriage is said to be consummated. The marriage ceremony does not unite the
hearts of the parties; if there is no previously existing union of hearts the
marriage ceremony is but mockery. So baptism does not
63
in spirit unite us to Christ, but it is the
legal rite by which that union is acknowledged and ratified. It is an
established rule in all governments that he makes himself guilty who solemnizes
the rite of marriage without legal authority, or where there are impediments
and disabilities which forbid the marriage, while the parties suffer the shame
of an illegal union. This is exactly the position of the parties where baptism
is administered before the candidate has died to sin; while he is yet living in
transgression of the law. The rite is illegally administered; the marriage is a
nullity, and the administrator is liable to indictment.
The arguing of this point is not a digression
from our subject. Its bearing on “the promise” of Acts 2:38, 39, is easily
seen. “The gift of the Holy Ghost” is promised to those who repent of sin, and
who are baptized for the remission of sin. But it is proved that antinomianism
ignores genuine repentance and the burial of him who is dead to the
transgression of the law, by ignoring the law itself, by which is the knowledge
of sin. Therefore it has no just claim to “the promise,” not being the legal
fulfillment of the condition. Thus it is shown that antinomianism, or a denial
of the perpetuity of the law of God, shuts out the Spirit of God and
neutralizes the promise of the gospel.” Where there is no vision, the people
perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”
Here we will state an interesting fact and
notice an objection. In a work on the relation of different church doctrines to
moral obligations, we recently read the following words:—
64
“The Methodist conference under Wesley in 1770,
declared that the universal immorality then prevailing was because of the
wide-spread opinion that Christ had annulled the moral law, and that
evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments.”
“Wesley’s Notes” on this conference drew forth
upon him and upon the work of the Methodists severe criticisms from certain
dignitaries of the established church. And these in turn brought out
“Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism;” a work worthy of the careful reading of
every searcher for Bible truth. This is an interesting item of ecclesiastical
history, and it serves to prove the statement we have made, that antinomianism
has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. But an objection has
been raised upon it which well deserves notice. It has been said that while the
Methodists condemned the no-law theory, and advocated the ten commandments as
God’s great rule of morality, they did not themselves keep the law, for the law
says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not
do any work,” but they called the first day the Sabbath and kept it instead of
the day indicated in the law; and that they therefore really occupied a ground
similar to that of those whom they reproved.
Admitting the correctness of the statement
concerning the teaching of the law, to argue which is not our present purpose,
the reply is thus made: There is a very wide difference of position between
those who acknowledge the authority of the law, who make it the avowed and
actual intention of their lives to keep the law, even though they are mistaken
in some
65
points
of duty enjoined therein, and those who deny the authority of the law, who
declare it to be the object of their lives to repudiate and to disregard its
claims. The position of the former is that of loyal citizens laboring under
certain mistakes in regard to duty; while the latter are disloyal, virtually
denying the constitutional authority of the government. If the ideas of the
latter could be carried out to their legitimate results, the government would
be entirely overthrown.
On this consideration we readily vindicate the
early Methodists and all others who recognize the existence and the claims of
the law of God, from the reproach which must fall upon those who repudiate the
law and deny its authority. And the providence of God has justified our
position in regard to this, for he has often blessed with his Spirit the
former, while he has as generally withheld it from the latter.
But this vindication must not be abused, and
made to favor selfishness in religion. When God in his providence calls our
attention to any truth of his word, and gives us light thereon, there can be no
excuse for rejecting or neglecting it, however sincere our former lives may
have been, or however unpopular that truth may be, or to whatever extent it may
cross our feelings or clash with our worldly interests.
Among those who have a form of godliness, but
deny the power thereof in the last days, are said to be “false accusers.” One
false accusation raised against those who plead for the power of godliness and
for the divinely appointed means of Christian unity is, that to claim to be led
by the Spirit, or to possess gifts of the Spirit, is to
66
claim infallibility. If any should make such a
claim, or try to avail themselves of the benefits of such a claim, they would
abuse the promises, and forfeit the favor, of God. The accusation might lie
against such persons, but not against those who hold and rightly use the truth
on the subject. God never inspired any one so as to make him infallible. To do
this would be to take away his individuality or his freedom of will, and
consequently to remove him from probation. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas were all
highly gifted of the Spirit, and yet they all erred. Of the gifts of the first
two there will be no question. Of Barnabas the record says: “He was a good man
and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” Yet he and Paul so differed in
judgment that they had a sharp contention and as a consequence separated in
their labors. This was wrong, it was contrary to what Paul wrote by
inspiration. Peter seriously erred and was rebuked by Paul. And thus it is
shown that they who were most highly gifted were not always under the immediate
influence of the Spirit so as to be preserved from erring. They were fallible
and dependent upon Heaven for help and strength which they received only
through faith and prayer.
When the apostles were first sent forth with
power over unclean spirits, they could not cast a demon out of a certain child;
and the Saviour said it was because of their unbelief. Paul said they
prophesied “according to the proportion of faith.” Rom 12:6. God never endowed
any one so that he could live at ease, or in carelessness, without constant
zeal, and yet be in possession of supernatural power, which he could exercise
67
according to his own will. It is God that
doeth the work, and he will work to his own glory, and through such only as are
humble enough to seek his glory. When “holy men of old spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost,” their speaking was the speaking of the Holy Spirit, and it
must be infallible, even as God is true. But the men themselves were not
infallible.
It is far from being true that the recognition
of the manifestations of the Spirit leads to a claim of infallibility. They who
take opposite ground are really the egotists. For that is egotism and
self-esteem which leads any to profess ability within themselves to do all that
God requires, to perfect holiness and to glorify him, without his aid, or
independent of the means which he has ordained and set forth in the gospel.
Without Christ we can do nothing; and we are strong only when strong in the
might of God. “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.”
The accusation is as unreasonable as it is unjust.
If
we can do nothing without the aid of the Spirit of God, shall we therefore be
content to do nothing, and so neglect to glorify him in our lives? Or if he
answers our prayers and gives us his Spirit according to his promise, shall we
deny the grace, and affect to work in our own strength, while God by his Spirit
is directly aiding us? What is this but denying God, and robbing him of his
glory? We repeat, that a denial of the gifts of the Spirit “for the perfecting
of the saints,” leads to egotism and self-righteousness.
To
be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment