Our Moral Sense.

THE MORAL SYSTEM (EXCERPT)

Having sufficiently shown that there is a distinction between moral and natural law, and that all men recognize it and act upon the fact, even if they do not admit it in theory, we have a question of great importance to propose.

None but the reckless and unthinking can pass it by without giving it attention. The candid must admit that it is one of great interest. It is this:

Will these aspirations for the right, this innate sense of justice, to which we have referred, ever be gratified?

That they are not, that they cannot be gratified in the present state, scarcely needs further notice. Is my moral nature, my sense of right and justice, satisfied to see virtue trodden under foot? to see the libertine mocking over the grave of blighted hopes and a broken heart? to see the priceless treasure of virtuous purity, around which cluster the fondest hopes of earth, sported with as a mere toy of little worth? to see honest toil sink unrequited, and hide itself in squalid poverty and a pauper’s grave? to see the vain rolling in wealth accumulated by fraud and oppression? to see vice exalted to the pinnacle of fame? to hear the praises of him whose very presence is loathsome by reason of the filthiness of his iniquities? And when words fail to express the horrors of such and kindred evils, must I smile complacently and say, This is right? in this my soul delights? But this is but a mere glance at the facts as they exist, as they have existed, and are likely to exist in this present state.

Is it possible that these aspirations, these discriminations of right and wrong, were placed within our breasts to be mocked—to look and long in vain? Is it possible that the Supreme One, who has so nicely arranged the material world, and subjected it to certain laws, has placed moral balances in our hands to no purpose? that we are to long for, but never see, a vindication of the great principles of justice?

Is it not rather reasonable to conclude that he has a moral Government, and that our moral sense is evidence that we are within the limits of a moral system? Are not our convictions of wrong proof to ourselves of our amenability to such a system?

- 17 - J. H. Waggoner

The very fact that we discriminate between moral and natural laws, as we have seen that all men do, and that all pronounce upon the right or wrong of the actions of mankind, is proof of the general recognition of the existence of a moral Government. And so to look above nature, to acknowledge God as a moral Governor, is necessary, to be true to our own natures, to the convictions planted in every breast.

In this great truth our aspirations find rest. Here our sense of justice takes refuge; for a Government is a system of laws maintained, and the very idea of a moral Government leads us to look forward to a vindication of the right principles or laws now trampled upon. Why should we pronounce upon the merit or demerit of human actions, if there is no accountability for those actions? Our feelings of responsibility (the movings of conscience) are but the expectation of a great assize, in or by which injustice, fraud, and every wrong, will be requited, and down-trodden virtue and injured innocence be exalted and vindicated. This is, indeed, but a legitimate deduction from the propositions established, and in this we find a sure vindication of the divine Government in regard to the anomalies of the present state.

It must, however, be admitted that there are some who deny the existence of moral wrong, and, of course, of accountability for our actions. But their denial or our admission does not weaken our argument, for the denial is only in profession, not in practice. The denial is based on the alleged inability of man to act except in a given line. Man (say they) is a creature of circumstances; the motives which impel him to action are outside of his own will; he is led of necessity to do just as he does, and he cannot do otherwise. Therefore he is not responsible for his actions. But we affirm that this is only their professed belief; not their actual belief. For in practice we find them uniformly false to their theory. They will, as readily as others, sit in judgment upon, and condemn, the actions of their fellow-men. They will blame any for encroaching on their rights. But it were surely the height of folly, the grossest injustice, to blame one for doing that which  he cannot avoid. And how unreasonable to think that God bestows a moral sense, and plants within us the monitor of conscience, to lead us to do right, and yet compels us to do wrong. We count the man immoral and degraded who disregards the

The Atonement - 18

distinctions of right and wrong; what contempt, then, is thrown upon the originator of the present system by the theory which admits that these distinctions exist; that of right they should be preserved, yet affirms that they cannot be preserved to any extent whatever.

Admitting the existence of a God (and we now speak to the consciences of some), what shall we, what must we, think of a God who would frame a system wherein these distinctions could not be preserved?

And yet such is the case, if man has no freedom to act. We all acknowledge the difference between right and wrong, as principles; that it is right to regard our neighbor’s life and property; and hence, he that disregards them does wrong. And all are conscious that the wrong we do is of ourselves; and no one ever seeks to throw it back to any other cause until his moral sense is perverted by selfishness and false reasoning. Akin to the above position—at least in its unreasonableness—is the theory which admits the existence of God the moral Governor (though this admission is not essential to the theory), and admits that man is responsible for his actions, and admits that all violations of law are certainly punished, and yet denies a future judgment.

This is intimately connected with, or is the out-growth of the error that there are penalties to natural laws; and that all penalties are inflicted immediately upon the violation. Thus (they say), if a man puts his hand in the fire he violates a law of his being; and he does not want to an indefinite future time for judgment and punishment; he suffers immediately and certainly; and for the violation there is no atonement or forgiveness. This, to some, appears to be truth, for they advance it; to us it seems like a puerility. We repeat, the suffering from contact with fire is not a judicial infliction to serve the ends of justice, as penalty is; it is but a consequence of the violation of natural law; and that it falls as certainly and as severely on the innocent as the guilty. The innocent and unconscious babe suffers by the fire as readily, as certainly, as the willful man. And we can go further in the illustration: the man in cruel malice may hold the hand of the child in the fire; the child does not offend against law, for it did not put its hand in the fire, and it vigorously tries to withdraw it. Here the man does all the wrong, and the child suffers all the penalty! Such is the wisdom, such the justice of this theory. The truth is, that the

- 19 - J. H. Waggoner

child suffers as a consequence of the man’s wrongdoing. He deserves punishment (the infliction of a penalty) for the action; and if justice is ever vindicated, he will be punished, according to his intention and his commission of a great moral wrong.

The admission that all sin will be punished makes necessary the admission of a future judgment; for without that, justice will never be vindicated, and our aspirations for the right will never be satisfied.

But one more fallacy of this character we will notice. It is found in the oft-repeated idea that God is so loving, so kind, that he will not mark to condemn our aberrations from  duty.

It is not necessary to say that this is  a denial of the Scriptures in regard to the character of God. But, laying the Bible aside, where is the evidence that God so loves his creatures that he will not mark their faults or maintain the justice of his government? Surely it is not learned from nature that love is the sole attribute of Deity. How came any by the idea that the Deity must possess that degree of love supposed in the statement? Whence do they derive their conceptions of such love, and of its necessity in the divine character? Can any tell?

They may reply that these conceptions are intuitive; that they are evolved from their own consciousness; that they have an innate knowledge of the moral fitness of things, and according to this, they clothe Deity with such attributes as their moral sense determines to be fitting to such a Being. Our reply to this is twofold.

1. We deny that such ideas are developed by intuition. The intelligent skeptics of this land and in this age do not derive their knowledge of right, and of the abundance of love in the character of Deity, from the light of nature. They derive this from their surroundings; from the prevalence of Christian influences and Christian literature. To show just what man can learn from nature and by mere intuition, we must take him entirely separated from the influence of the Bible and Christianity. And we hazard nothing in saying that, where Christian example and the teachings of the Bible were entirely unknown, man never developed an exalted idea of Deity. To the contrary, where men have trusted to the light of nature and to the power of human reason, their conceptions of Deity were low and base, generally vile; and this was the case even where there was considerable proficiency

The Atonement - 20 

in philosophy and the arts. Many deny the Scriptures who are indebted to them and to their influence for very much of the knowledge of which they are proud.

2. In thus exalting love in the divine character at the expense of other attributes, they are only partially true to their higher nature; partially just to their own consciousness. Our consciousness, our self-judgment of the moral fitness of things, gives us as definite and clear conceptions of justice as of love. All the propositions established in this argument tend to this point. We are apt to lose sight of justice, and to exalt love.

This is quite natural with all who have any sense of wrong (and who has not?), for we feel the need of love or mercy, and are ever willing or anxious to screen ourselves from justice. But in this, as before remarked, we do violence to our moral sense, to gratify our selfish feelings. Can any one dispassionately reason and reflect on this subject, and accept the idea of a God of even partial justice?

The idea is alike repugnant to reason and to reverence. God must be strictly, infinitely just. Who would not choose to be annihilated rather than to possess immortal existence in a universe governed or controlled by a being of almighty power, but lacking justice?

Many professed believers in the Bible manifest the same tendency, to exalt the love of God above his justice. It is a great perversion of the gospel. God is infinite in every perfection. His love cannot be more than infinite. If his justice were less than infinite he would be an imperfect or finite being.

The gospel plan was not devised, and Christ did not die, to exalt his love above his justice, but to make it possible to manifest his infinite love toward the penitent sinner, without disparagement to his infinite justice; “that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” Rom. 3:23-26.

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 

Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 

Rom 3:25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 

Rom 3:26  To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 

But this will be examined when we come to the Biblical argument. Perhaps there never was a time when the idea expressed by Pope, “Whatever is, is right,” was so distorted and carried to an absurd extreme; as it is at the present. Some say that every action, whatever its nature, is acceptable to God, because it is performed under his overruling hand. One well-known “reformer” says that such a thing as “sin, in the common acceptation of the term, does not exist.” It is

- 21 - J. H. Waggoner

affirmed that sin cannot exist; that “there is no room in the universe for wrong to exist.” We heard a somewhat popular speaker declare that “what men call crimes are most valuable experiences in the march of human progress.” And these statements are not made by wild fanatics alone; they are argued in their most plausible forms by men, and women, also, who pass in their communities for staid and sober people. But on examination we find that the propagators of these theories get them up to relieve the mind of a sense of responsibility.

This class of moral philosophers always frame their theories to throw the blame of wrong, if any wrong exists, upon God, the Creator, and never to leave it upon themselves! We trust the reader will pardon the relation of “a true story” which contains an argument in itself worthy of consideration.

Two men, machinists, working in a railroad shop, were conversing on this subject. One contended that if he did wrong he was not responsible for the wrong, for, said he, “I act out the disposition that was given me. If I make a locomotive and it will not work, you do not blame the locomotive, you blame me for my faulty workmanship. Even so, if I do not answer the end of my being, it is not my fault. The blame attaches to my Maker, who made me what I am.”

His friend replied: “Your illustration is just and forcible, provided you insist that your Maker gave you no more brains than you put into a locomotive!”

The truth is that the possession of brains and will-power brings responsibility; and this responsibility necessarily attaches to creatures on our plane of being. If they who deny the existence of moral wrong would reflect a moment, they could not fail to perceive that their theory is really degrading to themselves. They are irresponsible if they are mere machines or unreasoning animals. But if they have the power to reason, to will, to choose, and have moral consciousness, a sense of right and wrong, responsibility must necessarily attend the use of these powers. And every one feels this responsibility; his conscience will not permit him to deny it, until he has seared his conscience, and blunted his moral sensibilities; that is to say, he has, in a greater or less degree, brutalized himself, and degraded his manhood, either by pernicious and false reasoning, or by an immoral life.

The Atonement - 22

And now, looking over the whole field of argument on this subject, we ask: Is it not a humiliating thought that a word is necessary to prove to any one that moral wrong exists?

Must I stop to reason with a man, a human being, with all his faculties in exercise, to prove to him that it is wrong to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery? To argue the subject, nay, to admit that it is a debatable question, is an insult to the sense of mankind. The real question at issue is, How shall we dispose of the evil which exists? or, How shall criminals be rescued from the awful consequences of their violations of the law of Him who is infinitely just?

We do not ask the reader, or our doubting friend, to consider the question as to whether the guilty might not be suffered to escape by overruling or suspending justice, or how they might stand before a finite being, or a judge who is comparatively just. The real question is, How shall they stand before the judgment seat where justice is maintained and vindicated on the scale of infinity? where every evil thought and intention is counted as an overt act of iniquity and rebellion against a righteous Government? This, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea of a Supreme Being, an Infinite One who is a moral Governor, whose perfections demand that He shall take cognizance of every offense against His authority; every invasion of the rights of His subjects.

These are solemn questions, and demand our candid consideration. If God is infinitely just—and can he be otherwise?—if he will bring every work into judgment, and we shall have to meet our life records there, how shall we stand in His presence? It certainly becomes us to deal candidly with ourselves, and to understand, if possible, those principles of justice which must prevail in a wise and righteous government.

Sin is everywhere, and in our own hearts. What shall be done in regard to it? We may indeed flatter ourselves that our sins have not been very great; we may persuade ourselves to believe that, compared to those of others, our lives have been quite creditable. But we must remember that wrong never appears odious to the habitual wrong-doer; therefore no one is competent to judge in his own case.

The decision will not be made upon our actions as they look to us, but as they look to the Infinite Lawgiver and Judge. We will not be

- 23 - J. H. Waggoner

compared with our neighbor, in the Judgment, but with the law which is holy, and just, and good. The spirituality of that law we cannot comprehend, even as we cannot fathom the mind of its Author. We must stand in the light of Heaven’s purity and glory.

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

To be continued….

Natural Law and Moral Law

COMPARISON OF NATURE AND MORALITY

(continued…)

Other theories

- 13 - J. H. Waggoner

are projected to prove that God does not exist. This is complaisant—it is accommodating; it does not deny His existence; its object is only to prove that he is not needed! that everything existed by chance; it acts by chance; and the interference of an all-wise, supreme, personal God, could only destroy the harmony of the work!

Great is the philosophy of the nineteenth century, and modest and reverent as it is great! We think there is but one reasonable and allowable construction that can be put upon the phrase, namely: They are the laws which the Supreme Being made for the government of nature. The Infinite Creator, He who made nature, subjected her to the operations of those laws, under which she is held in control. And, of course, those laws are within the power and under the direction of their Maker.

That which we term a miracle is but a temporary suspension of, or change in, the operations of those laws. And this can require no greater exercise of power on the part of the Almighty than to set, and to keep, these laws in operation. It is truly strange that men, of ability and intelligence in other respects, will deny that there are any but natural laws, or laws of nature. They ignore the distinction between natural and moral laws. But when judged in such a light the laws of nature are found to be imperfect and incomplete. In what respect? In this, that they present no standard of right, and are therefore no sufficient guides for human action. We cannot shape our conduct after such a model with reference to the rights of our fellow-men. As lovers of the most expansive benevolence, we may strive to imitate nature when she spreads abroad her bounties: her precious fruits and golden grain. But again she withholds these, and famine is the dire result. Shall we imitate nature in the desolations of the whirlwind, the earthquake, and the pestilence? Shall we indiscriminately spread ruin and destruction around us, involving alike the innocent and the guilty, the gray-headed and the prattling child? All answer, No. But each hand that is raised to check such a mad career practically acknowledges that nature, which is so blindly worshiped by many, presents to us no example worthy of our imitation.

The Atonement - 14

Thus in fact the laws of nature do not and cannot satisfy the aspirations of man; no one can accept them as a standard of action, no matter what his theory may be, because they are destitute of the element of morality.

We cannot trace a single moral element in their frame-work or their execution. He who studies them intelligently must be convinced that they are designed solely for a natural system,—not at all for a moral system.

And this being so, it follows that they have no penalties, but only consequences.

On this point many well-meaning men err, who recognize the distinction of moral and natural law; they speak of the penalties of the laws of nature, when no such penalties exist. The violations of natural laws are attended with consequences, uniform in operation, so that in nature we see an unbroken series of causes and effects, the results being the same whether issuing upon a responsible or an irresponsible object, regarding no distinctions of moral good or evil.

That the laws of nature have no penalties must be apparent to all if we consider the fact that they are never accepted as, or considered, a judicial system. In executing penalties there must be a consideration of the just desert of the crimes committed. But there is no such consideration, there is no discrimination whatever in the case of a consequence of the violation of natural law. In this respect the operations of natural law are as blind and unreasoning as nature itself.

There is implanted in man a sense of justice, or convictions of right, to which he finds no counterpart in the operations of nature.

These convictions are entirely on a moral basis.

This sense of justice is erected in the human mind as a tribunal, a judgment seat, whereat we determine the nature and desert of actions. And mark this truth: before this tribunal we always arraign the actions of intelligent agents, but never the operations of natural law. And in this, what is true of one is true of all; and it shows that all, whatever their theories may be, do in fact and in practice make a proper distinction between moral and natural laws. This should be well and carefully considered.

The prime distinction between moral and natural laws is this: the first has respect to intention—the other has not.

Fire will burn us, and water will drown us, whether we fall into them accidentally or rush

- 15 - J. H. Waggoner

into them madly. The little child, who is yet unconscious of any intention of good or ill, suffers as certainly and as keenly on putting its hand into the fire, as the man of mature mind who presumptuously does the same thing. And should the man willfully and maliciously set fire to his neighbor’s house, and the child, playfully and without intention of wrong, do the same thing, all would blame the one and not the other.

And were a judge, in the administration of law, to visit the same penalty upon the man and the child, because the actions and results were the same, all would detest such a perversion of justice. Thus we not only find men acting upon the difference between moral and natural laws, but we find them also with great unanimity judging of the actions of moral agents according to their intentions.

But the operations of natural law cannot thus be judged, and its consequences, often miscalled penalties, have no regard whatever for the claims of justice. As before said, the child is burned in the fire as certainly as the man; the good suffer under a violation of nature’s laws as severely as the most hardened and brutal.

The idea cannot be too strongly impressed upon the mind that, confined in our reasoning to the present state, to observation without a written revelation, justice cannot be attained unto nor vindicated. A moral system is necessary, and the idea of probation must be accepted, in order to meet the requirements of justice.

Another point should be noticed. When the demands of a moral law and a natural law conflict, as they often do in this mixed state of good and evil, men always give preference to the former, unless their sensibilities are blunted. And they are often false to the theories which they have adopted to be true to this fact. We sometimes meet with men who deny these distinctions; who assert that there are no laws aside from the laws of nature; yet they act in harmony with the propositions herein set forth. Should one refuse to attempt to rescue his fellow-man from impending destruction by fire, and plead in extenuation that it would have involved the violation of law, as he must have been somewhat burned in the effort, they would, as readily as others, abhor his selfishness.

Here they recognize the distinction claimed, and place the moral duty of assisting our neighbor above conformity to natural law.

(to be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Intelligent Design and Morals.

The Atonement (Excerpt)

PART FIRST:

AN ATONEMENT CONSISTENT WITH REASON

CHAPTER I.

COMPARISON OF NATURE AND MORALITY

The psalmist well says: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Ps. 19:7. The works of the material creation are wonderful. When we look at the countless globes in the heavens, and consider the inconceivable distances which separate them, and consider that they move in exact and harmonious order, compared with which the working of the most perfect machinery that man ever made is rough and jarring, we may somewhat appreciate the words of the psalmist; and we cannot wonder that Dr. Young said: “The un-devout astronomer is mad.”

Every well-executed work of design speaks the praise of the designer. And wherever we see arrangement, order, harmony, especially in mechanism, in movements, we know that there is a designer. We cannot be persuaded that any successful piece of machinery is an accident; we cannot by any effort bring our minds to believe that the works of a watch, or anything similar to them, came by chance, or happened so. They need no voice to speak to us to assure us that they had their origin in power and intelligence, or in mind.

So said David of the material heavens: “There is no speech nor language; without these their voice is heard.” Or as Addison beautifully expressed it:— “What though no real voice nor sound, Amid their radiant orbs be found; In reason’s ear they all rejoice, And utter forth a glorious voice, Forever singing as they shine— The hand that made us is divine!”

- 9 - J. H. Waggoner

But, while the works of nature may arouse us to devotional feelings, they cannot guide our devotions. They but give evidence of the existence of an almighty Designer, but they cannot reveal him to us.

Man himself is “fearfully and wonderfully made;” and he may stand in awe at the thought of his Maker; he may feel a sense of responsibility and of accountability to his Creator; but if left to the voice of nature alone, the highest shrine at which he will bow will be that of “The Unknown God.” He may even recognize the voice of conscience within him reproving him of the wrongs which he is conscious that he commits; but nature does not reveal to him the manner of service which would be pleasing to his Creator and Preserver, nor the means of freeing him from the guilt and consequences of his wrongs.

The psalmist, no doubt, had this train of thought passing through his mind, for, after ascribing to the creation all that it can do to incite us to devotion, he abruptly turned his subject, saying: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandments of the Lord are pure, enlightening the eyes.” (Ps 19:7,8)

Man is highly exalted as to his capacities; there are wonderful possibilities in his being. Yet left altogether to himself he is helpless, especially in the understanding of morals. And this is not at all surprising; for no one is expected to understand the will of a governor, or the laws of the Government under which he lives, unless they are revealed to him.

The psalmist, as quoted in this paragraph, ascribes to the law of the Lord an office which it is not possible for creation or nature to fill. The commandments of the Lord impart instruction, important and necessary instruction, which we cannot learn by observation, nor by the study of the material universe. No proof ought to be required on this point. The most powerful telescope or microscope can never reveal a single moral duty, or point out a remedy for a single moral wrong.

Now we attach no blame to nature because it does not perform the office of a written revelation. No such purpose was embraced in its design. We do not learn the laws of our Government by walking

The Atonement - 10

through the fields, by studying her dimensions and natural advantages, nor by noting her public improvements. When we have learned all that we can possibly learn from nature, we find beyond that an absolute necessity for direct revelation.

Opposers of the Bible are often men who declare that the doctrines of Christianity are contrary to reason; contrary to the conclusions legitimately drawn from our study of nature, of the deepest researches of science. Especially has the doctrine of the Atonement been made the subject of strong opposition, some affirming that it is immoral in its tendency, and is based on principles which are not in conformity with justice. But we think the whole objection is founded on misapprehension; and the object of this present argument is to show that reason is not opposed to the idea of atonement, but rather leads to it; that a coincidence of strict justice and mercy demands it; and that it vindicates the majesty of law, and therefore honors the Government. It is also our object to show that a written revelation is but the supply of an acknowledged want; that the gift of such a revelation is but a conformity to the plainest, simplest principles of government, principles which are universally recognized. And, therefore, consistency requires that such a revelation, when given, should be universally received and accepted.

The present is a mixed state, of good and evil.

It is not our purpose now to inquire why it is so; we are viewing it as we find it—as it is; not as we might wish it were.

And confined in our views to the present state, and to observation alone, or merely to reason without a written revelation, it is impossible to vindicate the justice of the controlling power, whether that power be called God or nature. Virtue is often trampled in the dust, and ignominiously perishes in its representatives. Vice is exalted on high, triumphs over justice and right, and its very grave is decorated with flowers, and honored with a monument. In the operations of nature, there is no discrimination manifested, and without discrimination there can be no conformity to justice.

True, we see many exhibitions of benevolence, but we see also many things which cannot be reconciled with it. The righteous and the wicked, the just and the unjust, the innocent and the guilty, the aged and the little child, alike share the bounties of Providence,

- 11 - J. H. Waggoner

and together fall by the pestilence, or sink beneath some sweeping destruction.

These facts have troubled the minds of philosophers, and caused the short-sighted philanthropist to be faint of heart. Many, reflecting on these things, and judging in the light of their own unassisted reason, have doubted that the world was ruled in wisdom and justice, and even denied the existence of a supreme, intelligent Being.

It seems singular that they who discard the idea of an intelligent Cause, of a personal supreme Being, generally invest nature with the attributes of such a Being, and ascribe to it all the wisdom of design and the merit of virtue. They talk of the laws of nature, of their beauty, their harmony, their excellency, as if nature were the sole guide of correct action, and the proper arbiter of destinies. They lavish encomiums on her operations as if she never tortured an innocent person nor permitted the guilty to escape.

As before remarked, we find no fault with nature; but we do find fault with the unreasonable position assumed by her devotees. The laws of nature answer well their purposes. But this class of philosophers endeavors to make them answer a purpose for which they never were designed, and which they cannot fulfill. And we think that by correct reasoning it will be easy to show that their ideas are mere fallacies.

We would raise the inquiry, When they who deny the work of a supreme, personal Creator, speak of “the laws of nature,” what do they mean by the expression? It cannot mean the laws made by nature, as we speak of the laws of man, or of the laws of God; for nature never made any laws. Nature never knew enough to make a law. She could not deliberate; she could not plan; she did not have a knowledge of the future, whereby she could judge what was suitable, and devise means adapted to the end. Or, if she made the laws, she must have existed before she made them. How, then, were her operations regulated before laws existed? Is there a man living who will claim this for nature? Not one.

We have been thus particular in our queries on this point because we wish to notice another phase of this subject. It has been said by some that they do not deny the existence of the God of the Bible—of

The Atonement - 12

a personal, supreme Being; but yet they believe in the eternity of matter; that there never was done such a work as that of creating, in the sense of causing things to exist. And that matter, or nature itself, being eternal, the laws of nature must be eternal also, because they inhere in matter. Thus, they say, you cannot imagine that matter could exist and gravitation not exist. And so of all the laws of matter.

But, we reply, this leads to the same result which we have been examining. If the laws in here in matter, they are essential to the very existence of matter; and it follows that, to suspend or reverse these laws would be to suspend the existence of matter, that is, to destroy it. In this view a miracle is an impossibility. Thus: Matter is not dependent on any power in the universe for its existence. But its existing laws are necessary to its existence. Therefore the laws of matter, or of nature, are beyond and independent of any power in the universe.

Against this theory we have objections to bring. It is not a part of our present purpose to argue against it from the Bible, as we shall try first to establish principles, natural and legal, outside of Bible proof. It is possible to present an argument which must be conclusive to believers of the Bible, besides the direct declarations of that book in favor of the existence of miracles, such as causing iron to swim upon the water, raising the dead, etc. But we waive this, and affirm that, in admitting the existence of God, these have not changed the issue before examined. This theory is open to all the difficulties which we find in the hypothetical theory of nature making her own laws.

We have, then, harmony of movement without intelligence; mechanism without a mechanic; a design without a designer; a result in marvelous wisdom without plan or deliberation. To avoid the unscientific fact of a miracle, they have presented before us the greatest miracle which could be imagined! And David was mistaken when he said “the heavens declare the glory of God;” for if nature, and its laws, and its harmonies, and its almost infinitely varied operations attendant upon them, existed from eternity, and not by the creative power and act of God, then we ask, with an earnest desire for information, What did God ever do? What can He do? Why does He exist? And would not nature and its laws “move and have their being,” as they did from eternity, if God did not exist?

(to be continued)

The Atonement.

THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

(EXCERPT)

PREFACE

By all who have faith in the efficacy of the blood of Christ to cleanse from sin, the Atonement is confessed to be the great central doctrine of the gospel. On this they agree, however much they may differ on other doctrines, or on the relations of this. And yet the number of books on this subject is not large, compared with the number on many others, not held to be as fundamental in the Christian system as this. In developing the argument we have tried to follow the Scriptures in their plain, literal reading, without regard to the positions of others who have written before us. It would be a pleasure to us to agree with all who are considered evangelical, and we have differed with them only because our regard for the truths of the Bible compelled us to do so. With those who consider it necessary to apologize for the Bible, the writer has little sympathy. It is a noticeable fact that of all the writers and speakers whose words are recorded in the Bible, no one ever undertook a defense of the sacred word. “The Scriptures” were appealed to as final authority by both Christ and his apostles; and if any denied their authority, they were considered beyond the reach of proof—they would not believe though one should rise from the dead. Luke 16:31. And when men of a certain class denied a Scripture truth, the Son of God did not meet them with philosophy or science, but settled the question by an appeal to the word itself, answering: “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Matt. 22:29. The reader may then question why we have departed from the beaten track in laying the foundation of an atonement by an appeal to principles of reason and of law. It was because we believe that something is due to those who have received erroneous ideas of the doctrine from those who stood as religious teacher. Many have assailed the Atonement because of the unwise teachings of its professed advocates. They affirm that it is a doctrine which leads to license and immorality; and they are confirmed in their opinion by the positions of learned theologians who deny that justice underlies the Atonement, virtually, and often openly, declaring that the gospel does not establish and vindicate the law of God. We do not believe that outside of “theology” a soul could be found who would insist that pardon of a crime absolved the criminal from obligation to the law which condemned him for the commission of the crime! The power to pardon should be used with prudence, and is always committed to those who are sworn to maintain the authority of the law. In the Government of God, as in all Governments, law is the basis upon which everything is made to rest. The very idea of probation enforces the Bible declaration that to fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man. The “golden rule” is the embodiment of “the law and the prophets, “Matt. 7:12, and the love of God, the very object and essence of the gospel, is the keeping of his commandments. I John 5:3. Our positions in “Part First” have been examined by eminent jurists and declared to be well and safely taken; and we appeal to every reader that if the doctrine of the Atonement did conflict with these principles, then the skeptic would have solid reasons for rejecting it. This part of our argument was the result of long-continued and careful examination of the ground, and it has been a delightful task to trace the harmony between these principles and the word of revelation. The more we examine it the stronger are our impressions that no language can do justice to the subject of the Atonement of Christ. The mind of man, in this present state, cannot realize its greatness and its glory. It is the prayer of the author that the reading of this book may arouse in others the desire which the writing has strengthened in his own heart, to enter that immortal state where we may, through ceaseless ages and with enlarged powers, contemplate and admire “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”    J.  H. W. Oakland, Cal., August, 1884.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. 

Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matt. 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 

I John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 

(To be continued…)

The Sabbath and The Cross - Pt 2 -Yield to God.

When is the Sabbath first mentioned in the Bible?

Gen 2:1  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 

Gen 2:2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 

Gen 2:3  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 

No, mention of the word Sabbath? Let God speak for Himself-

Exo 16:27  And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 

Exo 16:28  And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 

Exo 16:29  See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. 

Exo 16:30  So the people rested on the seventh day. 

BEFORE the law was given at Mount Sinai on two tablets of stone, written by the finger of God Himself- God said…"HOW long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?"    What commandment was that? What law? They had yet to receive the moral law just mentioned. Yet God said otherwise.

The LORD has given you the SABBATH.

Most pointedly God was reminding His newly freed people that it was important to listen to Him. In the very beginning of creation God rested- He BLESSED and SANCTIFIED a day. 

A day was given a blessing. A day was made holy. When? After creation!

Directly after creation!

No sooner was creation completed then the creation of a blessed holy day was given.  Leaving no doubt that this day was blessed and made holy- God reiterated its existence before He even made it one of the ten moral laws. 

Had God blessed any other day? Had God made any other day holy? God never took that blessing away, never. He never unsanctified the seventh day. We live in a world of weeks- SEVEN DAY weeks.

Note: 'A continuous seven-day cycle that runs throughout history paying no attention whatsoever to the phases of the moon was first practised in Judaism, dated to the 6th century BC at the latest.'

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History>

Now lest you believe the children of Israel newly freed from slavery were keeping all the moral laws already before they were given we know they were not. They we well versed in the worshipping of idols because one of the very first things they demanded of Aaron after determining Moses had abandoned them was that he make them a golden calf to worship. If they'd known nothing of idol worship they most certainly would not have asked for an idol to worship. These people were estranged from their unwritten moral laws.  Did they believe murder was wrong? Yes, taught from the Egyptians as well, murder was wrong. Stealing a crime? Yes. The moral law was not plucked out of non-existence to suddenly appear. Abraham taught Isaac, Isaac taught Jacob and Esau, Jacob taught Joseph, and all eleven offspring besides and all their family. When Joseph rescued his father, Jacob and all his family they were God's people. Read this--

Gen 46:1  And Israel took his journey with all that he had, and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac. 

Gen 46:2  And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I. 

Gen 46:3  And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation: 

Gen 46:4  I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes. 

Gen 46:5  And Jacob rose up from Beersheba: and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. 

Gen 46:6  And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him: 

Gen 46:7  His sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt. 

Gen 46:26  All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; 

Gen 46:27  And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. 

Seventy children of Israel (Jacob) not including the wives. And Israel consulted God before ever going to Egypt- they had a relationship, and God was leading them as His.  Joseph had been sold into slavery for the express purpose of ultimately saving his family.

Were the children of Abraham taught to worship idols. No. Were they taught to make sacrifices to God. Yes. These children were not Godless. Remember this--

Exo 2:23  And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. 

Exo 2:24  And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 

Exo 2:25  And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. 

Exo 3:4  And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 

Exo 3:5  And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 

Exo 3:6  Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. 

Exo 3:7  And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 

Exo 3:8  And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 

Exo 3:9  Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. 

Exo 3:10  Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt. 

Exo 3:14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 

Exo 3:15  And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 

Exo 3:16  Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: 

Exo 3:17  And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. 

Exo 4:28  And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him. 

Exo 4:29  And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: 

Exo 4:30  And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. 

Exo 4:31  And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. 

Exo 5:3  And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword. 

Exo 5:4  And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens. 

Exo 5:5  And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens. 

MOSES made the children REST.

Here we are God instructing Moses, going to the people descendent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). God heard the cries of His people and answered them. These people were raised knowing they were not of Egyptian descent but rather people whose Fathers were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They knew their own history- they were not allowed to forget their history.

When they left Egypt God determined to test and try, and teach His chosen children. God would remind them of all He asked of them.  He began the lessons by again pointedly revealing the REST He instituted. They needed food and God supplied that food from heaven. The supply was conditional.  Six days they were to gather it up and on that sixth day only were they to get double the normal portion, why? So they didn't have to go out gathering their food on the day that God had blessed and made holy upon Creation. The seventh day they would rest and already have their provisions for the day. And God said this…

Exo 16:28  And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 

Exo 16:29  See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. 

Exo 16:30  So the people rested on the seventh day. 

Commandment-Law- Sabbath- even before it was written in stone among the ten moral laws.  Just how amazingly important is the Sabbath to God? The Sabbath is a seal of His Creatorship. Truly it is. The Sabbath was all a part of the plan of salvation, of redemption yet people are blind to this, blinded because they serve self.

Exo 31:16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 

Exo 31:17  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 

Read the following written by E.J. Waggoner-

'The cross conveys to us the knowledge of God, because it shows us His power as Creator.

Through the cross we are crucified unto the world, and the world unto us; that is, by the cross we are sanctified.

But sanctification is the work of God, not of man. Only His divine power can accomplish the great work.

In the beginning God sanctified the Sabbath, as the crown of His creative work--the evidence that His work was finished, the seal of perfection, and therefore He says, "Moreover also I gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." Eze.20:12.

So we see that the Sabbath--the seventh day--is the true sign of the cross.

It is the memorial of creation, and redemption is creation,--creation through the cross.

In the cross we find the complete and perfect works of God, and are clothed with them.

Crucified with Christ means the utter giving up of self, acknowledging that we are nothing, and trusting absolutely in Christ. In Him we rest; in Him we find the Sabbath.

The cross takes us back to the beginning, into "that which was from the beginning." The resting upon the seventh day of the week is but the sign of the fact that in the perfect work of God, as seen in creation,--in the cross,--we find rest from sin.'   Taken from Glad Tidings by E.J. Waggoner

Now recall these verses from the beginning of this particular study--

2Ti_1:9  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

NOT according to our works! We are to do NO work on the Sabbath. Is it mere coincidence that we are commanded to do no work on the day our God made holy and blessed, AND the fact that we can do NO work to save ourselves, that salvation has to come solely from our Creator, our Redeemer? Our Savior, our Sabbath.

Before the world was created….our Savior was prepared to redeem us should we sin. All of it was a part of CREATION.  

We are made HOLY by our SAVIOR'S sacrifice…

The Sabbath was made HOLY by God.   If we believe in the SANCTIFICATION of our SAVIOR to make us holy, we have to believe in the SANCTIFICATION of the seventh day Sabbath, that day was made holy upon CREATION. That day was reiterated as HOLY by God over and over again.  How dare we not believe that the Sabbath- a memorial to our CREATOR- not be a memorial to the CREATOR to our REDEEMER, our REDEMPTION. Who makes things holy? Our God, our Creator, Our Savior.   Creation and the Cross.

We cannot save ourselves- FACT.

We cannot make anything holy- FACT.

God can save us- FACT.

God can make us holy- FACT.

To remind us- we are given a WEEKLY SABBATH.

To remind us- we are to do NO work on one day of the week.

To remind us- we are TOLD to remember.

To remind us- we should NEVER forget.

Christ Alone can save us- We can do NO work to save ourselves.

Christ Alone can make us holy- We can do NO work to make ourselves holy.

As we honor the Sabbath we are to remember-

GOD is the Creator- NOT US.

GOD sanctifies- NOT US.

GOD is in control- NOT US.

GOD has the power over all- NOT US.

GOD is to be obeyed- NOT US.

GOD is all in all- NOT US.

We are NOTHING without God.

We need constant reminding of our status in existence.

We need constant reminding of our dependence.

We need constant reminding of pure love undefiled.

If we refuse to yield up our self-absorption in all ways and give our all in all to God for one day in every seven, can we yield ourselves for eternity? Truly we are to give our all to God- always, every day of our lives. He commands us to set aside one day in seven to live in HIM wholly right here, right now outwardly declaring HIM and the creation and salvation power He has over us.

For six days making a living can take over a lot of our lives, but SET ASIDE the SEVENTH day for GOD - not allowing ANYTHING to take over our lives but HIM on this day and HIS WILL.

Christ will make us able to yield, we must let Him.

Christ will remind us that HE ALONE can save us.

Christ will remind us of our dependence upon Him.

Christ will remind us of pure love undefiled.

Christ will sanctify us, Christ will make us holy, we are blessed in Christ.

The Cross and Creation.

The Cross and The Sabbath. Pt. 1

The Cross and the Sabbath.

Tit_1:2  In hope of eternal life, (((The Cross)))) which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

2Ti_1:9  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace(((The Cross)))), which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

1Co_2:7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery(((The Cross)))), even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory

Rev 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain(((The Cross)))) from the foundation of the world. 

1Pe 1:19  But with the precious blood of Christ(((The Cross)))), as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 

1Pe 1:20  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Eph 1:4  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love (((The Cross))))

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel(((The Cross)))). 

Obviously (((The Cross)))) are words supplied by me in the verses above. Yet note them carefully.  Before the WORLD BEGAN there was a SALVATION plan in place. I know I've talked about this before and I may talk about it a thousand more times. We sin corrupted humans with our self-involved dominant brains can comprehend the idea of formulating plans before undertaken any huge, gigantic, enormous, colossal, stupendous….(you get the idea) task. We can't comprehend anyone building a huge skyscraper without plans. Would we expect an ocean liner to be built plan-less How about our automobiles, air planes, trains, would we desire to have anything to do with those sans great planning so that even minor details are worked out so that these things are able to function to the utmost perfect possible? Our lives hang in the balance for most of those things, right? Everyone knows how not following plans can lead to disasters. Leaving out a few spare parts on a chair, or shelf, or something simple may not result in too much harm, but leaving out some spare parts for an air plane and the next thing you know…boom and crash! Who am I kidding, you really can get hurt quite severely from a chair falling apart underneath you and a shelf falling on your head.  The idea here is that planning is necessary, and those who do not rely on planning anything at all is an instant liar.  The moment they feel hunger there is a plan to feed that hunger if at all possible. When thirst causes their throats to dry, their mouths to seek a bit too hard for some saliva, they sure plan to find something to drink. A nudge down in the bladder has us planning a bathroom visit. Those are NOT long drawn out plans by no means but the thought comes into play initiating the action to plan on taken as a result. Plans, it's all about plans. So why would any of us planners find it so hard to believe that our Creator planned our existence and in doing so planned for deviations from the desired planned outcome? People make contingency plans all the time right along with their initial plan. IF this happens then….   If…then…  familiar enough words to us.

The plan of salvation (the Cross) was in place before the world was created. Why? Because on our own level of human existence we are allowed to fathom that if we undertake something as miraculous as life giving, we aren't simply going to destroy that life if down the road a ways that life turns out to be unlike anything we hoped or wanted it to be.  (NO ABORTION TALK IN THIS METAPHOR- that's a whole other thing)  I'm talking about those who PLAN to have a family and do so. Their children are born and raised and let's say a long about teenage years we begin to suspect our children are not turning out like we hoped, like we planned. We want them to be potential adults able to function in the world around them successfully so that they are content, productive, and able to continue on the species in their own eventual family way.  So if we watch our children show nothing of interest at all in being functioning in the world on their own, we begin to suspect our plan for their existence has gone awry.  Are we then to wipe them out of existence and try again maybe? NO! A thousand, million times NO! Most parents allow for a lot of disappointment in their children while continuing to love them deeply.  So, why, TELL ME WHY, do we even hint at expecting something different from our Creator?

We ARE HIS CHILDREN!  He created us, hoping for the best possible outcome, all the while planning for the worst possible outcome- His LOVE would demand NO LESS than that. Obviously then we shouldn't be too shocked to realize that our Salvation was planned for- even before we were created.

I can sit back and just imagine a financially well off parent setting aside some special trust fund for their child, even as they cut that child off at some point wanting them to make it on their own. If ultimately they aren't able to make it on their own, that parent would want the peace of mind for their child that at least they wouldn't end up hurting from their inability to make it by themselves. And sure, there are a lot of flaws in that plan many would kindly point out to me, but that's our stained humanity- flaw filled.

So, onto the next topic that will eventually join the above topic- The Cross.