God Alone Can Discern the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart.

CHAPTER III.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORAL SYSTEM  

The administration of government is a simple, easy, yes, a pleasant matter, where all the subjects are perfectly obedient. No such Government now exists on this earth; but every one can picture to himself how happy the State would be where there was no sin; no violation of the law; no invasion of rights; no denial or disregard of authority; no discord, but each seeking the peace and happiness of the other. Who would not pray, “Thy kingdom come,” if its coming will introduce such a state of things?

(((I (the blog/study/excerpt poster) need to interject here for a moment. When I read the above I could imagine A LOT of people do NOT want a perfect, harmonious world. So many people thrive on chaos and disorder. We've altered the perception of what would constitute a perfect world and changed it greatly from a 'government' with at 'happy State', without sin, without violation of law, etc. We've made that kind of world seem dictatorship ruled, communistic, authoritative. The mere thought of such a world scarcely brings longing to anyone anymore because it is associated with oppression by the ONE(s) in charge. The RULER(s) who dictates to people, and such a ruler is deemed evil to force PEACE upon others. Satan has worked his evil so thoroughly that beyond doubt- evil is called good and good is called evil. While people may mouth the words of peace for all mankind, inwardly they want a different kind of existence where they have little or no boundaries set upon them by anyone. To them freedom from oppression is freedom from morality. (End of my interjection) ))))

But when sin enters, everything is changed. New and strange relations are introduced. New interests spring up. New duties devolve upon both the Government and the criminal. The governor must then take steps to maintain the integrity of the law, the honor of the State, and thereby to protect the subjects from the consequences of wrong-doing. For every violation of the law is an invasion upon the rights and liberties of the citizens. As we shall notice more particularly hereafter, two parties then arise; one, pitying the criminal, pleading for mercy; the other, fearing for the safety of the State and the welfare of its subjects, pleading for justice. And such are the realities now before us. With such an unfortunate state of things we have to deal. Such difficulties and diverse interests are found everywhere upon the face of the earth. While we consider the requirements of a moral system in such a state of things, we must bear in mind that there is no moral Government on earth. That is to say, there is no Government on earth entirely of moral principles, or administered solely upon a moral basis. And, from the very nature of things, it is impossible that there shall be in the present state. No human Government is administered with regard to the intentions of the subjects aside from their actions. No governor, no judge, no jury, has been able to “discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Secret things are not, and cannot here, be brought into judgement. A moral system, or a moral Government, can be administered by God alone. All that we have

- 25 - J. H. Waggoner

said or shall say respecting a moral system, we say in reference to the rule and authority of  God, who only  can  defend moral principles, and bring into judgment the violators of the spirit of law as well as the violators of its letter. But the principles of justice and of government we may understand, and are able to discern in regard to their requirements under various circumstances. According to the measure of our ability, we are under obligation to maintain these principles; and though we cannot discern the intents of the hearts of others, we are required to guard our own hearts, and to respect these principles in our lives. And however much we might shrink from the strict enforcement of these principles, we must bear in mind that law not only binds us, but it protects us; and we would have every reason to dread the results of a failure to uphold and enforce law. We deprecate tyranny, but it is seldom as blindly cruel as anarchy. We will now proceed, as briefly as possible, to examine some of the well-known and well-accepted claims and requirements of government.

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

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Heb_4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

To be continued….

*******

(((Including a "Watchman, What of the Night?" Thought  Paper - Seventh-Day Adventists who seek only truth would be wise to read it. I'm not saying those seeking PERFECTION, all of us have sinned some greater sins than others. God has used sinners to be His prophets, His preachers, His teachers, simply because all humans fight the spiritual battle, the moral battle and there are NONE who are perfect - except our Savior, Jesus Christ.))))

1979 May -- A QUESTION TO CONSIDER -- 

Jesus asked a question - "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

There are two things of interest in regard to this question which Jesus propounded. Both are revealed in the Greek text. In the Greek sentence is an untranslatable particle - ara - which marks an inferential question to which a negative answer is expected. However, it is the second aspect of this question that I would have you consider. The question literally reads - "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find the faith on the earth?"

Jesus was not suggesting when He comes, the world will be devoid of religion, theology, or doctrine. He had stated in the Sermon on the Mount that in the final day of judgment, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" (Matt. 7:22) Paul tells us "the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (I Tim. 4:1) In fact the whole of the final picture in the Book of Revelation indicates that there will be a deep interest in religious activities. Men will worship - but it will be the beast, and its image! (Rev. 13:15; 14:9) The world of religion - symbolized by the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet - will have a great spiritual revival - "spirits of devils, working miracles." (Rev. 16:14) The question Jesus asked was simply - Would He find THE faith on the earth? - the faith which He left in trust to His followers.

There will be a group of people who will "keep. . . the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12); but compared to the vast throngs of humanity who will deny this faith for "the doctrines of devils" it will seem that the genuine faith will be nonexistent. The question thus comes to each professor of truth - "Am I in THE faith?"

But this is not all of our responsibility. Jude wrote - "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (vs. 3) In an hour when every wind of doctrine is blowing, we dare not sit idly by thinking that because we are in THE faith, that is all that will be required. We must earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

When God raised up this Movement in 1844 - and let us keep this fact distinct from church "organization" which did not come till 1863 - He gave to the small company "who after the passing of time in 1844, searched for truth as for hidden

p 2 -- treasure" light which enabled them "to understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood." It was a "line of truth" that would extend from that date till we should enter the city of God. (Special Testimonies Series B, No. 2, pp. 56-57)

On this sure platform of truth, we are to stand, and for this truth we are to contend. We read:      As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time has not lessened their value. It is the constant effort of the enemy to remove these truths from their setting, and to put in their place spurious theories. He will bring in everything that he possibly can to carry out his deceptive designs. But the Lord will raise up men of keen perception, who will give these truths their proper place in the plan of God.(Ibid., P. 51)

Not only is it the constant work of the enemy to remove these truths from their setting, but God in His mercy has told us when we will have reached the most critical time in that attempt on the part of the devil and his human mouthpieces. Of this we read:       After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused. . .

Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith. R&H, Dec. 13, 1892 (7BC:985)

We have limited the scope of our thinking to conclude that when the Sabbath truth has been proclaimed to all nations (The Greek can be also translated - "Gentiles") the end that would come would be the very event of the second coming of Christ in the clouds of glory. (Matt. 24:14) But the servant of the Lord, says that the "end" has a much larger meaning than we have previously supposed. It will be the "end time" in which "the devil is come down having great wrath" (Rev. 12:10) as he seeks to prepare the world for his appearance as Christ. "Every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation." "Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith" - the faith delivered to us in 1844.

The Lord has not left us in ignorance concerning when this time will be. It is now! When the truth of the Sabbath - see context of statement in 7BC:985 - has been proclaimed as a witness to the Gentiles or nations, their time is up - it is then the "end-time." The prophecy of warning given by Jesus reads - "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, till the times of the Gentiles [nations] be fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) This event was fulfilled in 1967. Thus God has signaled to those who desire truth that we have indeed reached the "end-time" when the enemy is seeking to tear down the pillars of our faith. Sadly the vast majority of the professed people of God are letting this be done without raising a voice in protest, or to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

p 3 -- Some who seem to be upholding "the faith" deny the fulfillment of this prophecy and declare they see no significance in it. Thus they are putting out the eyesight of the very saints they are professing to be helping to understand the message of righteousness by faith. What a tragedy!

This tragedy is being compounded in that this very tearing down of the pillars of our faith is being done not from without, but from within with the full approval and blessing of the hierarchy. The leadership appears to be giving lip service to the historic faith through the pages of the Adventist Review, but they continue to permit professors from our schools to have full rein to disseminate their deadly heresies upon the laity of the church. And these same teachers of religion are placing in the minds of the future ministers of the church, these same deadly heresies. Well may we cry with the Psalmist - "Help Lord, for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." (Ps. 12:1)

Somehow, we seem to have overlooked the prophecy which reads:      Many (not just a few) will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan. If doubts and unbelief are cherished, the faithful ministers will be removed from the people who think they know so much. "If thou hadst known," said Christ, "even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes." Luke 19:42  (TM, pp. 409-410)

Keep in mind that today no one can get into the pulpit of our organizational Seventh-day Adventist Church unless he holds valid, up-to-date credentials from the hierarchy. (The only exceptions are Catholic priests, and Apostate Protestant clergy.) Thus this prophecy tells us that the hierarchy will be responsible for the "false prophecy" which will be pressed upon the laity from the pulpits of the church they thought was keeping the faith. The "faithful ministers" will be removed and many of them have been this is a matter of record.

Today, not only is Dr. Desmond Ford being given free access to the pulpits of our churches in many conferences, but he is instructing ministers at Worker's Meetings, and teaching future ministerial students in one of our schools - Pacific Union College. Further his damnable heresy of prophetic futurism - which came out of Jesuitism - is being lauded from the Southern Publishing Association which has published his book - Daniel. This publication is being hailed as the greatest work on prophecy in the church since Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Daniel. But Ford is not alone; he has cohorts in apostasy in the area of Justification by Faith and the Incarnation, such as Heppenstall, and others, both active and retired. Remember the servant of the Lord said this "false prophecy" would come right from the pulpits of the Church!

Thank God, the Movement is in His hands, and the firm platform is still solid for the feet of the saints. May God help the laity to see the difference between the church organized in 1863, and the Movement of God founded in 1844. Are you in THE faith? Are you contending for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints? When the Son of man cometh, He will come to take "the saints" who " keep. . . the faith of Jesus."

p 4 -- TRUTH UPHELD IN AUSTRALIA -- Two veteran ministers of the Adventist Church in Australia Elders J. W. Kent and George Burnside 1 - have published a small tract entitled: - Dr. D. Ford Versus E. G. White on the Vital Subject of the Man of Sin. (Short title -The Man of Sin) The position of Dr. Desmond Ford is taken from his doctoral dissertation at Manchester University in 1972, a copy of which is in the Avondale College Library. The comparison is headed by a statement from Testimonies to Ministers which reads - "The Lord has called His people. . . to expose the wickedness of the man of sin." (p. 118) The following references are quoted from the Spirit of Prophecy:       God's Estimate of the Papal Power - By the treatment of His Word the popes have exalted themselves above the God of heaven. This is the reason that in prophecy the papal power is specified as the "man of sin." Satan is the originator of sin. The power that he causes to alter any one of God's holy precepts, is the man of sin. Under Satan's special direction the papal power has done this very work.(7BC:911)

The Representative of Satan - There is one pointed out in prophecy as the man of sin. He is the representative of Satan. Taking the suggestions of Satan concerning the law of God, which is as unchangeable as His throne, this man of sin comes in and represents to the world that he has changed the law, and that the first day of the week instead of the seventh is now the Sabbath. Professing infallibility, he claims the right to change the law of God to suit his own purposes. By so doing, he exalts himself above God. (7BC:910)

The special characteristic of the beast. . . is the breaking of God's commandments. Says Daniel of the little horn, the papacy, "He shall think to change the times and the law." And Paul styled the same power the ''man of sin," who was to exalt himself above God. One prophecy is a compliment of the other. Only by changing God's law could the papacy exalt itself above God; . . . (GC, p. 446)

. . . the beast itself, - - the papacy. (GC, p. 443) . . . the representative of Satan, - - the bishop of Rome. (GC, P. 50) The "man of sin," which is also styled the "mystery of iniquity," the "son of perdition," and "that wicked," represents the papacy, which as foretold in prophecy, was to maintain its supremacy for 1260 years. This period ended in 1798. The coming of Christ could not take place before that time. Paul covers with his caution the whole of the Christian dispensation down to the year 1798. It is this side of that time that the message of Christ's second coming is to be proclaimed. (GC, p. 356)

1 Elder George Burnside before retirement served as Evangelist and Ministerial Secretary of the Australian Division.

p 5 -- Opposite the quotations which we have copied on page 4, are given these from Dr. Desmond Ford's dissertation:      We have also noticed that many things can be said with certainty regarding what the Antichrist is not. He is not any past personage. He belongs to the future and not to history. (p. 246)

In a bygone polemical era Protestants assumed this usage in 2 Thessalonians and thereby found an effective club to batter the papal antichrist. This view, however, ignored not only the eschatological setting of 2 Thess 2, but also the truth that the Christian church must cease to be such once the Antichrist becomes its tenant. (pp. 248-49)

We have noticed also that the lawless one appears only at the end of' time. (p. 242)

In the setting of 2 Thess 2, Antichrist is an individual to be manifested at the end of time. His parousia is a sign that the end has come. Therefore, any interpretation which applies this passage to an individual of past history, or to a succession of such, misses the mark.(p. 238)

Then the conclusion is drawn by Elders Kent and Burnside as follows:      The above statements speak for themselves. Dr. Ford says the opposite to God's inspired penman.

Dr. Ford not merely refuses to follow this instruction, but joins with the enemies of Truth. To him the man of sin is not in "past history" but "appears only at the end of time." He joins with the futurists the most bitter opponents of God's Threefold Message. A careful reading of Dr. Ford's thesis has failed to find one indication that the papacy is the man of sin. His series of articles in the Signs of the Times is likewise silent on this vital truth.

Dr. Ford's strong emphasis on a future antichrist who is to "appear only at the end of time," who "belongs to the future and not to history" is a blunt denial and rebuttal to all that has been clearly stated in Great Controversy, Daniel and Revelation and scores of our other books, as well as Adventist preaching and teaching for over 130 years.

It is apparent that Dr. Ford has gone to the ranks of our opponents. It shows how far on this road he has drifted when F. F. Bruce, a Plymouth Brethren, will write a foreword to Dr. Ford's book and have his name in clear print on the cover. [See Daniel by Dr. Ford published by Southern Publishing Association.]

May God give every lover of the Advent Message grace to continually lift voice, pen, means and influence in combating this enemy of truth.      "If God abhors one sin above another of which His people are guilty, it is

p 6 -- doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality is regarded of God as a grievous crime, and in a religious crisis equal to the very worst type of hostility against God." (3T:281)

Because Elders Kent and Burnside sought to warn the professed people of God concerning "the hellish torch of false prophecy" kindled in the class rooms of Avondale College, published by the Southern Publishing Association, they were barred from the pulpits of The Greater Sydney Conference of the church in Australia. See the letter reproduced on p. 7. As you read this letter, you will observe that the Conference President, Elder K. J. Bullock, accused these ministers as producing an "unscholarly, unethical" document which "seriously misrepresents Dr. Desmond Ford." An evaluation of this tract has been made by Dr. Colin D. Standish, formerly president of Columbia Union College, and now Academic Dean of Weimar Institute in California. In a signed statement, he wrote:      I have carefully examined the section of Dr. Desmond Ford's thesis presented to Manchester University, 1972, dealing with the man of sin. As one who has served on graduate theses' committees, it is my opinion that the authors of "Dr. D. Ford verses E. G. White on the vital subject of the Man of Sin" have used their sources accurately and in context. I discovered three punctuational errors from the thesis which have no significance to contextual meaning. Two are abbreviation stops and one is a missing comma. There is also a capitalisation and a paging mistake and slight wording error in the references from Ellen G. White. This involves the reference from Great Controversy given as page 442, which in fact is page 443.

In my evaluation there is a very careful effort by the author of the thesis to make his point that the man of sin is not identifiable with the Papacy of the past, and it is my view that, not only are the conclusions to this effect in the paper referred to above, consistent with the thesis material, they are the only possible conclusions than can be made. Dr. Ford's views, as expressed in his thesis are diametrically opposed to, and irreconcilable with, the inspired writings of Ellen G. White on this topic of the man of sin.

p 7 -- THE GREATER SYDNEY CONFERENCE OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH           84 THE BOULEVARDE. STRATHFIELD. N.S.W. 2135. TELEPHONE: 747-6465

December 18, 1978.

Dear Brethren:       Considerable anguish has been caused in the Conference by the circulation of an anonymous document entitled "The Man of Sin."

Pastor J. W. Kent claims that he and Pastor Burnside are responsible for the document. It has apparently been placed in the hands of some retired ministers and possibly some laymen at Cooranbong who have assisted in its circulation.

The document is unscholarly, unethical and seriously misrepresents Dr. Desmond Ford. The conclusions drawn in the document are totally invalid and the spirit of it is certainly not good.

We consider that while this document is in circulation Pastors W. Kent and G. Burnside should not occupy the pulpit in our Conference churches and we are therefore asking you not to list them for preaching appointments.

With very best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

K. J. Bullock, PRESIDENT.

p 8 -- THE PROBLEM -- The concerned brethren in Australia are seeking to contend for the faith which has been committed to us as a people against the inroad of apostasy as represented in the teachings of Dr. Desmond Ford now of Pacific Union College. But these brethren have failed to reckon with the "new" official position of the hierarchy of the Church as stated in the Briefs submitted to the United States District Court of Northern California in the case of EEOC vs PPPA. In a Brief filed with the Court on March 3, 1975 by the lawyers for the Pacific Press, it is stated in a footnote:      Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term "hierarchy" was used in a perjorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the Church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery among conservative protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned. (p. 4, #2)

The question now arises, how can the officials of the Church and the Brief quoted above was submitted with their full approval - take sides against Dr. Desmond Ford, who is merely articulating these same concepts from a slightly different viewpoint? What the brethren in Australia fail to realize is how deep and dark the apostasy actually is within the Church. They see only Dr. Desmond Ford, and do not see that he has cohorts in apostasy within and without the hierarchy of the Church. Word has come to this desk that the new president of the General Conference - Elder Neal C. Wilson - is planning to rein in Dr. Ford. But how can he challenge Dr.. Ford on his position in regard to the "Man of Sin" when soon after his elevation to the chair of "first minister" he sought to pay a "courtesy visit" on a Catholic cardinal? You can read about it in the Adventist Review. Here is the report:      Church leaders in Britain made contacts with the Archbishop of

Canterbury, Donald Coggan, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Basil (Cardinal) Hume, with a view to Elder Wilson's paying courtesy visits. Unfortunately, the Adventists were not able to give these religious dignitaries sufficient notice for dialoguesto materialize on this occasion; however, both archbishops sent greetings and best wishes to the new General Conference president on his assuming office. (March 22, 1979, p. 19)

We dare not forget - "It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy." (Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894)

"AND LET IT BE REMEMBERED, IT IS THE BOAST OF ROME THAT SHE NEVER CHANGES." Great Controversy, p. 581

"At a mass officiated by the Pope at the Palafoxian seminary [during his Mexican tour], the official guide stated that John Paul II 'fills the place of Christ, is the greatest human mediator between God and man, and is assisted by the Holy Spirit and cannot err.' During his appearance in Oaxaca, a priest who later received a papal blessing led the crowd in shouting, 'For those who have sight, you, John Paul II, are for us, Christ."'Christianity Today, March 2, 1979, "News"

++++++

p 9 -- DR. D. FORD'S DANGEROUS DOCTRINES -- This is the title of, a 20 page booklet published in Australia by the Watchman Press (P. 0. Box 18, Beecroft, NSW 2119) which covers not only the teaching of Dr. Ford in regard to the "Man of Sin," but also other doctrines which are at variance with the historic faith of the Advent Movement. Elder J. W. Kent in the "Preface" writes:      In the early 1970's the senior ministers, and especially the evangelists in our Australian division faced a serious problem. They found themselves having wide doctrinal differences with the young interns fresh from Avondale College coming to work with them. This very different theology was traced back to the Bible Department, then headed by Dr. D. Ford.

In their perplexity the senior men, some active and some retired talked amongst themselves, and ultimately formed a study group to investigate the new theology. Having studied the new theology, we found it did not harmonize with the foundation Adventist teaching we had been and were still preaching. As a group we have consistently opposed the new theology. To date we have endeavored to confine our approach to the president and officers of the division. Now we are widening our approach to include senior ministers and elders.

The next page carries the names of eight ministers in the Australian Division:   J. W. Kent, Herbert White, A. W. Knight, R. N. Heggie, J. E. Cormack, George Burnside, J. B. Keith, and W. G. Ferris. Over these names, it is written concerning this publication:      This is the voice of concerned men. As is well known we have given our lives in the preaching of the Everlasting Gospel - The Three Angels' Messages of Rev. 14:6-12. This is God's last appeal to a sin-doomed world, reaching from 1844 to the coming of our Saviour as King of kings. This message is a line of truth that stretches from 1844 to the End. Not a pin or a pillar is to be removed. This is the instruction of Inspiration. We gladly write in its defense.

Every Adventist who is awakened from his Laodicean nap can say "Amen" to the concern of these men. In the booklet they list the dangerous doctrines of Dr. Desmond Ford as follows:

1)   Dr. D. Ford denies there is a Two Apartment Sanctuary in Heaven.

2)   Dr. Ford claims that Heaven Is the Sanctuary.

3)   Denies the Papacy is the Man of Sin.

4)   The Bible is not unerring. [The Bible contains errors.]

5)   The Age of the Earth is much older than the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy indicates.

6)   The Apostle Paul did not write the Book of Hebrews. (Also held at Andrews University.)

p 10 -- 7)   Christ expected the END in His generation

8)   The four methods of prophetic interpretation Historicism, Preterism, Futurism, and Idealism - all contain aspects of truth. [The same thing is taught in his book - Daniel - published by SPA. See pp. 68-69. Preterism and Futurism were methods invented by Jesuits.]

9)   Dr. Ford teaches "The Finished Work of Christ" on the Cross. (So also Dr. Heppenstall, and the books, Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny.)

10)   Dr. Ford down-grades the imparted righteousness of Christ.

These men are to be commended on the stand they are now taking. However, there remains some gnawing questions. Where were these men some twenty-five plus years ago when all of this apostasy started in the Church? Are they so naive as to believe this all began with Dr. Desmond Ford? What stand did these men take when the book - Questions on Doctrine - was published? How did they respond to Elder Andreasen's Letters to the Churches? Where were they when the book - Movement of Destiny - was presented to the Church with Pierson's and Wilson's imprimatur? Both - Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny teach some of the same doctrines these men now consider dangerous. Were their voices raised then to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints?

This booklet contains another major problem in regard to the truth. No where in its 20 pages does it score Dr. Desmond Ford in regard to his false theory concerning the Incarnation. On this subject there is a strange silence. Yet, Dr. Ford through his wife, Gillian, presented an unequivocal challenge that what one believed in regard to the Incarnation effected what one believed in regard to Righteousness by Faith. (See The Soteriological Implications of the Human Nature of Christ, p. 2) While these venerable men challenge Ford in the area of the imparted righteousness of Christ (See point #10 above), they say nothing in regard to the Incarnation, and the historic position of the Church on this subject. We need to keep in mind that the recent Sabbath School lessons on this topic received open opposition at high levels in Australia. Where did these men stand at that time?

Since these brethren are now "widening" their approach "to include senior ministers and elders" let us pray that they will not only give truth, but the whole truth as it is in Jesus. And when they write - "On these truths we dare not compromise" (p. 18), may they have the courage to include "the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven - the incarnation of the Son of God." (Ms. 76, 1903: 7BC:904)

WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER BEING MORTGAGED? -- On the next page is a copy of an advertising letter received by a Catholic family in Wisconsin, -- who turned it over to his Adventist neighbor who did not receive one. All underscoring in the reproduced letter was done by the B. C. Ziegler and Company. With the letter was a colored sheet picturing the $8,000,000 White Memorial Medical Center. This sheet notes that "holders of the bonds due March 1 , 1994 have the option to have such bonds mature on March 1, 1989." 

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.