Perfect God, Perfect Law

 The royal law, the ten commandments, the law written by the finger of God Himself, the law placed into the ark of the covenant, the law Jesus reiterated in His ministry, the commands that are never to be done away with- not a dot of an i, or a cross of a t, the moral law, unless we have this law there is no light in us, the love of this law converts our souls, the saints keep the commandments of God, commands Jesus witness as He was in the wilderness with God and the newly freed children of Israel.  

You want to know how important it is to recognize the full force of the ten commandments is still in effect today? 

There could be NO sin without the ten commandments being an integral part of our lives. You say, fine, do away with the ten commandments and there will be no more sin. I say, it's impossible to ever do away with the ten commandments. You may stop enforcing them in your life, but God never will, they are the representation of God Himself. We can never do away with them, never. Those ten commandments sum up love. 

It is Satan who instigated the very breaking of the ten commandments, even before they were written in stone and only known as God is known. Satan caused Eve to put another before God- the first sin, the first breaking of one of the ten commandments. All sin has its roots in the ten commandments because we are told sin is the transgression of the law. 

We know the ten commandments are unchangeable and when one would think to change the law… we know they are evil. God's perfect could never be less than perfect. Man could corrupt it and change it into something it isn't, but God would never change it, never. The epitome of evil is to think God would ever have to change, or that His perfect law would ever be less than perfect in any way. 

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER IV. SOME ONE-THOUSAND-DOLLAR REASONS FOR KEEPING THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK

Having now seen Mr. Waffle’s and the American Sunday-school Union’s, presentation of the reasons for disregarding and abandoning the plain precept to observe the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, there yet remains to be noticed the reason why the first day of the week is kept. Mr. Waffle tells us that the apostles “were led to observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and gradually to abandon the seventh, by a variety of occurrences which seemed to them to warrant the change, and which, when carefully studied, leave no doubt in our minds that they acted in accordance with the divine intention.” But how Mr. Waffle knows that these things seemed to the apostles to warrant the change, he nowhere tells us. And, as the apostles themselves have nowhere said a word on the subject, we have no confidence in Mr. Waffle’s imagination of motives which he attributes to them. 

Of these “occurrences” he says:— 

“The first of them was the resurrection of our Lord. Each of the evangelists mentions very particularly the fact that this took place upon the first day of the week, showing that they felt it important to mark the day.... But they might not have given the day the prominence they did if Christ had not distinguished it, by choosing it for most of his appearances to them and other disciples. On the same day on which he arose, he appeared no less than five times.... But the fact that Christ rose on that day and manifested himself so often to the disciples, would not necessarily imply a purpose on his part to honor it, had it not been for subsequent occurrences.”—Pp. 192-194. 

Here it is admitted that our knowledge of the purpose of Christ to honor the first day of the week depends upon occurrences other than his resurrection, and upon occurrences after those of that same day. Therefore, if these “subsequent occurrences” should not be what Mr. Waffle claims, then the fact stands confessed that we have nothing that implies a purpose of Christ to put honor on the first day of the week. Now the first of these subsequent occurrences he relates as follows:— 

“For six days he did not appear to them at all, so far as the record shows; but ‘on the eighth day, or as we should say, on the seventh day afterwards,’ he appeared to the eleven as they were gathered in a closed room.”—P. 194.

But there is no such record as that he appeared to his disciples “on the eighth day.” The reference here is, of course, to John 20:26, which reads: “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.” And when Inspiration has written “after eight days,” we should like to know by what right, or rule, it is that Mr. Waffle reads “on the eighth day,” and then, not satisfied with that, gives it another turn and reads, “as we should say on the seventh day afterward.” “On what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he is grown so great” that he can thus boldly manipulate the words of Inspiration? And what can a cause be worth that can be sustained only by resort to such unworthy shifts? It is true that Mr. Waffle quotes the clause from Canon Farrar, but we deny the right of Canon Farrar, or any other man, just as much as we deny the right of Mr. Waffle, to so manipulate the word of God. And it is one of the strongest evidences of the utter weakness of the Sunday cause that, to sustain it, such a consummate scholar as Canon Farrar is obliged to change the plain word of God. But someone may ask: Will not the Greek bear the construction that is thus given to the text? We say, emphatically, No. The words exactly as John wrote them, using English letters in place of Greek letters, are these, “Kai meth’ hemeras okto,” and is, word for word, in English, “And after days eight.” These are the very words that were penned by the beloved disciple, exactly as he penned them, by the Spirit of God; and when any man, we care not who he may be, changes them so as to make them read “on the eighth day,” or “on the seventh day afterward,” he is guilty of deliberately changing the word of God, as it was written by his own inspired apostle. And no cause can be the cause of God that is dependent for its support upon a change of the truth of God. 

The next occurrence is the claim that Pentecost was on the first day of the week. But even though it were admissible that Pentecost was on Sunday, the word of God is still silent about the first day of the week being thereby set apart and made the Sabbath. And so long as we have only the opinions of men, and these opinions only the fruit of their own wishes, and these wishes supported only by their own imaginations, that Sunday is the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, so long we have the right to deny the truth of it, and to stand upon the “plain precept” of God, which, as Mr. Waffle says, “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy. 

Again Mr. Waffle says:— 

“The Christians, at a very early date, were accustomed to hold their religious meetings on that day. The custom seems to have been begun a week from the day of the resurrection (John 20:26), though a single instance of the kind would not make this certain. But there can be no doubt concerning their habit at a later date. We read in Acts, ‘Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.’ The plain implication of these words is that it was the custom of Christians to meet on that day for the Lord’s Supper.”—Pp. 197, 198. 

Notice that he says of this “custom” that “a single instance of the kind would not make this certain.” Now it is a fact as clear as need be that the instance in John 20:26 was not on the first day of the week. It is likewise a fact that, so far as the word of God tells, the meeting recorded in Acts 20:7 is the only religious meeting ever held on the first day of the week. This, then, being the one single instance of the kind, and as “a single instance of the kind” would not make it certain that it was the custom, therefore it is plainly proved that there is nothing that would make it certain that it was the custom for the apostles to hold meetings on the first day of the week. Well, then, it seems to us that service having for its authority only a custom about which there is nothing certain, is most certainly an unsafe foundation upon which to rest the reason for disregarding the plain precept of Jehovah. Reader, we want something more substantial than that to stand upon when every work shall be brought into the Judgment. 

Next Mr. Waffle quotes 1 Corinthians 16:2: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store,” etc., and says:— 

“It is evident that Paul desires them to bring in their offerings week by week and leave them in the hands of the proper church officers.”

It is certainly evident that if that is what Paul desires he took the poorest kind of a way to tell it. Just think of it, Paul desires that Christians shall “bring in their offerings week by week and leave them in the hands of the proper church officers.” And so that his desires may be fulfilled, he tells them, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store.” That is, each one is to lay by him his offerings, by leaving them in the hands of somebody else! And such are the reasons for keeping Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the Lord! 

There is one more; he says:— 

“John speaks of this as ‘the Lord’s day.’ He says, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.’ If he had meant the Sabbath, he would have called it by that name. His expression is analogous to ‘the Sabbath of the Lord,’ which we find in the Old Testament; but it cannot mean the same day.”—P. 199. 

And why not, pray? “Analogous” means “correspondent; similar; like.” Now if the expression “the Lord’s day” is correspondent to; if it is similar to; if it is like the expression “the Sabbath of the Lord,” then why is it that it cannot mean the same day? Oh, Mr. Waffle’s prize essay says that it cannot, and isn’t that enough? Hardly. Christ said, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” The day of which Christ is Lord, and that day alone, is the Lord’s day. But the day of which he was speaking when he said those words is the seventh day. He had not the slightest reference to any other day. He was speaking of the day which the Pharisees regarded as the Sabbath, which everybody knows was the seventh day of the week. Therefore, when “he said unto them,” “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day,” it was with sole reference to the seventh day. God had said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord,” and now when, with sole reference to the seventh day, Christ says, “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath,” it shows that the seventh day, and that alone, is the Lord’s day. 

Here we shall present a series of syllogisms on the subject, which will make the point so plain that no person can fail to see it. (End Excerpt)

Knowing What Isn't In God's Word Is Important Too.

 Luk 12:11  And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 

Luk 12:12  For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. 

1Pe 3:15  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 

Joh_5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2Ti_3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Sometimes it is important to know what isn't in the Bible.

People might be shocked to realize what things they can't find in God's word, things God's had nothing to do with. Others want you to believe they are God's word and do all they can to pass them off as being of God, but they aren't.

Amo 3:7  Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Isa_8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

We are told this…

Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 

God's commands are all in His word to us. If we cannot find the truth in His word then it isn't truth.

May God give us open hearts and open eyes through the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to what is truth, so we are NOT deceived by the carefully cultivated lies of Satan. Satan twists the truth, and makes his lies so close to truth only God can help us discern the true from the lie. Please, God, help us to be convicted of YOUR truth and only Your truth! Let those cherished lies we've believed for years and years hold no weight with us any longer. Let Your revealed truth be our only standard, our only hope. All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, now and forever, in His peace and grace! 

Amen!

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER III. SOME ONE-THOUSAND-DOLLAR “REASONS” FOR DISREGARDING THE PLAIN PRECEPT OF JEHOVAH

We come now in this one-thousand-dollar-prize essay to the discussion of the change from the seventh to the first day of the week in the observance of the Sabbath. It is true that, as already shown, the author of this essay leaves no room for any change; nevertheless he insists that there has been a change, and insists on giving “reasons” for it. And as reasons to be worth $1,000 ought to be pretty good, we shall, as far as in us lies, give our readers the full benefit of them. To get a full and fair statement of the question before us we shall quote again a passage previously referred to, as follows:— 

“Accepting the conclusion that the fourth commandment is still in force, it may very properly be asked, Why then do not Christians obey it by keeping holy the seventh day of the week, as it directs? By what right is this plain precept disregarded and the first day of the week observed? This question is a natural one, and unless a satisfactory answer can be given, the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” 

Now we are prepared to hear what he proposes shall be the “satisfactory answer,” and which we have good reason to suppose the American Sunday-school Union considers “a satisfactory answer,” seeing they paid $1,000 for it. Mr. Waffle’s first effort at “a satisfactory answer” is the following:— 

“The fact that the observance of the first day of the week is so nearly universal and has been of such long continuance is very significant.”

That certainly is not a satisfactory answer. In fact, it is no answer at all. It is simply a begging of the question. But he says it is “very significant.” Significant of what? Why, this:— 

“It suggests that there must have been some good and sufficient reason for the change.”—P. 184. 

That is to say: The “plain precept” of God has been disregarded by nearly everybody for a long while; therefore there must be some good and sufficient reason for it. In other words: It must be right because nearly everybody does it. But he knows that such doctrine as that will never do, even in a one-thousand-dollar-prize essay, so he immediately adds this caution:— 

“Too much should not be made of this, for the church has sanctioned many false doctrines and been tainted by many corrupt practices.” 

That is the truth. And one of the falsest of her many false doctrines, and one of the most corrupt of her many corrupt practices, is the disregard for the “plain precept” of God as laid down in the fourth commandment, and the substitution for it of the observance of the heathen institution of Sunday, in defense of which Mr. A. E. Waffle writes, and the American Sunday-school Union prints, this essay, which was counted worth a thousand dollars. 

His next attempt at a satisfactory answer is this:— 

“We have taken the custom of keeping the Sabbath on the first day of the week as we found it; and while this does not exempt us from the duty of inquiry, it throws upon those who question our course ‘the burden of proof.’”—P. 185. 

Can anything be too absurd to find a place in a prize essay on the Sunday-sabbath? Here is a proposition that is contrary to the commonest king of common sense, as well as to the rules of logic and of evidence. Dr. Carson says: “It is self-evident that in every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative. An affirmation is of no authority without proof. It is as if it had not been affirmed. If I assert a doctrine, I must prove it; for until it is proved it can have no claim to reception. Strictly speaking, it exists only on its proof; and a mere affirmation of it is only an existence on affirmation. If I obstinately refuse proof, I leave my doctrine without foundation, and a simple denial of it is sufficient. No man can be called upon to disprove that which alleges no proof. It is a truth as clear as the light of the sun, that, in every instance, proof lies with the affirmative, or with the holders of the doctrine or rite. If presumption has the privilege of casting the burden of proof on the other side, then every man has a right to decline defending his own opinions, and to cast the burden of proof upon those who dispute them. Can anything be more monstrous?” Yet in this grand prize essay this monstrosity is just what is presented as “a satisfactory answer” to the question, “By what right is the plain precept of the fourth commandment disregarded and the first day of the week observed?”

One other statement he makes in this connection, which we wish to transcribe. He says:— 

“It is not claimed that the apostles began to keep the Sabbath on the first day of the week immediately after the death of Christ.”—P. 189. 

Then on what day did they keep the Sabbath immediately after the death of Christ? Did they keep it on the seventh day, or did they keep no Sabbath at all between the death of Christ and the time when it is claimed they began to keep the first day of the week? In either case, would there not be just as much apostolic example for not keeping the first day of the week as there would be for keeping it? 

After having begged the question of “a satisfactory answer” through more than five pages, he comes to the discussion of the question of reasons for the change. This he introduces with the question:— 

“Was there any reason for such a change?”—P. 190. 

And in answer to his own question he again begins at once to beg the question thus:— 

“If the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit when they made it, we need not ask for their reason.” 

This might be readily enough allowed if the apostles had anywhere told us that they did make the change. But when, as Mr. Waffle himself says, “so far as the record shows, they did not give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day;” and when men insist upon palming off upon us by the authority of the apostles something that the apostles knew nothing about, we insist that we do “need to ask for the reason.” 

But Mr. Waffle continues to beg his question. He says:— 

“But since the reality of the change is disputed, we may say that if good reasons for it can be discovered, they furnish presumptive proof that it really took place under divine direction.” 

But if reasons were discovered which should seem to us good, does it follow that these would be good reasons in the sight of God? Does it follow that these reasons will bear the test of the Judgment? And if, without any command of God, reasons should be discovered which seem to us good for the performance of what we deem religious duties, and we insist upon men’s performing these supposed duties, then what is that but to make human reason, instead of the word of God, the standard of human duty? And what is that but to usurp the prerogative of God? And what is that but to imitate the papacy? This is just what is done by Protestants when they insist upon the observance of Sunday, when, even as they admit, so far as the record of God shows, there is no command for it. Though they number to the one hundredth figure their so-called reasons for it, we care not. If there be no command of God for it, there can be no reason for it. 

At last, by the help of all this beating about, Mr. Waffle actually reaches the place where he introduces the “reasons” which he has begged so hard may be admitted. The first of these is this:— 

“One such reason can undoubtedly be found in the abuses which had gathered around the Jewish Sabbath. Christ would not burden his church with such a Sabbath as the rabbis had made; and the easiest way to get rid of these abuses was to change the day.”—P. 190. 

The second reason is:— 

“The Gentile churches would never have accepted the Sabbath of the Jews as they had come to observe it.”—Id. 

The third reason is:— 

“Christians were not to observe the Sabbath precisely as the Jews had kept it before these abuses arose and while they were acting in accordance with the divine law.”—P. 191. 

To take the space to refute such puerile “reasons” as these, seems to us an imposition upon the good sense and intelligence of our readers. As for the first, if there be any truth at all in it, we should be obliged to believe that Christ changed almost every precept of God; for there was scarcely one which the rabbis, the scribes, and Pharisees had not made void by their traditions and abuses. As for the second, it really has no place; for the great Author of Christianity never asked the Gentile churches, nor any other churches, to accept “the Sabbath of the Jews as they had come to observe it.” But he does ask all to accept the Sabbath of the Lord as he himself observed it, and as he taught that it should be observed. For this cause he swept away the traditions and abuses that the Jews had heaped upon it. As for the third, what is said there is, in fact, that “Christians were not to observe the Sabbath by acting in accordance with the divine law”(!), which is simply abominable. 

But such are the “reasons” for disregarding the plain precept of Jehovah. It was for such “reasons” as this that the American Sunday-school Union, “after a painstaking and protracted examination,” paid a prize of $1,000. There is, however, just one redeeming feature of this subject. That is, the author of these “reasons” relieves the apostles of all responsibility for them. He says:—

“We do not say that the apostles saw these reasons and were governed by them. We offer them in explanation of the fact that they were led by the Spirit to make the change, and as suggesting a probability that it would be made.”—P. 192. 

We think Mr. Waffle does well to relieve the apostles from the folly of any knowledge of these preposterous “reasons.” And we are certain that all will do well to remain just as far from seeing and being governed by these “reasons” as were the apostles. In this we have an instance of “apostolic example” that we can all safely follow. 

Right here we would insert another important consideration. It is this: Why should Mr. Waffle search for reasons, or for any example of the apostles for not keeping the seventh day? He had already written on pages 167-8 of his book (page 137 of this book) that:— 

“[Christ] not only maintained the sacredness of the Sabbath by his words, but he also kept it as an example for us.” 

The only day whose sacredness Christ ever maintained as the Sabbath was the seventh day. The only day which Christ ever kept as the Sabbath, “as an example for us” was the seventh day of the week. Then why does not Mr. Waffle follow that example? Why does he pass by the example of Christ and try to create and hold up before men an “example of the apostles” which differs from the example of Christ? The fact of the matter is, and this point conclusively proves it, that in refusing to keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord, Christians not only disregard the plain precept of Jehovah, but they also repudiate the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. (End Excerpt)

It's Coming- The Time of Trouble Such As Never Seen Before.

 We want the world to be redeemed. We want governments to be truly for the people. We want good to overrule evil. We want justice, and fairness, we want peace in our world. We live in such a fractured time, but I honestly believe that most people say that of the times they live in. We have a long, long history of chaos. In fact, some movies depict alien races reviewing our history and deciding we aren't worth saving, we are too violent as a rule, our leadership is so poor there has never been worldwide peace. Just like those fiction writers can make their characters see our world from an other worldly point of view, they do so with the other world having achieved peace. Of course as stories go, just for the sake of trying to redeem our human race the writers will have that other worldly race have its own problems- they make them have underlying evils that are just hidden by a façade of peace and so on and so forth.

We're a broken world, and we will remain a broken world until it is made new.

We have a history book that first of all tells us of past history, then it gives us prophetic history. The book has a perfect record of its prophetic word. So of course people who have studied this book want to know if it still contains prophetic history to yet be unfolded. It does. Having a perfect track record enables the people to realize that anything that is still in store for this world that has been written in this book will come to pass in the future, without a single doubt.

This book tells us that there will be chaos in our world until the world is redeemed. There is no prophecy for world peace prior to this redemption. We are told prophetically great evil is in store, evil that will rival any prior evil- right before the Redeemer returns. Trouble such as never was seen.

Dan_12:1  And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

That time of trouble is looming larger and larger to life. The thing is, many people are imagining how that time of trouble will come and their imagination is leading them astray. They are very confident that they are following all of God's truth, of His commandments, His royal law- but in truth they are following blindly the laws man has substituted for God's laws- and very convincingly so.  I've actually heard someone once say to me that if so many people believe it, then it has to be right. Like a knife to the gut those words hit me because that is a Satanic deception that has blinded the eyes of so many people. They read these words of God that mean this-- that broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go that way- and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few go that way-- and they still don't comprehend the truth. Their words of so many believing it has to be true are saying….the broad path to destruction is truth. Blind, wanting to remain blind, even as God's word cries out to be comprehended. Ultimately, God allows mankind to be blind knowing that is the choice of the mankind- God forces truth upon no one

God help us ALL! Open our eyes LORD, open our understanding! Let us see the truth and only the truth even if it means knowing the majority of people will NOT follow Your truth, but their cherished traditions and fables, all fabricated by Satan.

Save us, Lord! Save us from ourselves! We believe, help Thou our unbelief!!!!!!!

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, NOW and FOREVER! Amen. 

1Jn 5:19  And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 

1Jn 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 

1Jn 5:21  Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

The whole world lies in wickedness. 

Mat 7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 

Mat 7:14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 

Many go to destruction, few go to find life.

1Jn 4:4  Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 

1Jn 4:5  They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 

1Jn 4:6  We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 

Of the world, or of God.

Joh 15:18  If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 

Joh 15:19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 

Joh 15:20  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also

The world hates those chosen to be out of the world. We are not of the world.

Gal 1:4  Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father

He will deliver us from this present evil world.

Tit 3:3  For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 

Tit 3:4  But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 

Tit 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 

Tit 3:6  Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 

Tit 3:7  That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life

According to HIS MERCY.

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER II. “THE CHRISTIAN WORLD MUST STAND CONVICTED OF ERROR.”

Having shown that the Sabbath was given “at the beginning of human history,” “for the whole human race, and should be observed by every human being;” having shown that the law of the Sabbath not only has never been abrogated, but that it “can never be abrogated,” Mr. Waffle proceeds thus:— 

“Accepting the conclusion that the fourth commandment is still in force, it may very properly be asked, ‘Why then do not Christians obey it by keeping holy the seventh day of the week, as it directs? By what right is this plain precept disregarded and the first day of the week observed?’ This question is a natural one, and unless a satisfactory answer can be given, the Christian world must stand convicted of error.”—P. 184. 

Here are some important acknowledgments. It is acknowledged (1) that the fourth commandment “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy. This is important in this connection in view of the claim so often made nowadays by Sunday-keepers that the fourth commandment does not refer to any particular day. And (2) it is acknowledged that this “plain precept” is “disregarded” by Christians. We think he does well to state that “unless a satisfactory answer can be given” to the question as to why this is, “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” We are perfectly satisfied that the Christian world must stand convicted of error on this question. And to prove that this is so, we need nothing better than Mr. Waffle’s one-thousand-dollar-prize essay; and that is the use that we propose to make of it in this chapter. 

The fourth commandment, which Mr. Waffle here admits “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy, is the law of the Sabbath. Says Mr. Waffle, “The law of the Sabbath can never be abrogated.”—P. 157. Now as the law of the Sabbath directs that the seventh day of the week shall be kept holy, and as that law can never be abrogated, it is plainly proven that the “Christian world,” in disregarding “this plain precept,” must stand convicted of error. 

Again, Mr. Waffle says:— 

“Unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath, given at the creation, has been repealed by a new legislative act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it.”—P. 136. 

And:— 

“Up to the time of Christ’s death no change had been made in the day.” “The authority must be sought in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles.”—P. 186. 

Then he quotes Matthew 16:19, and John 20:23, and says:— 

“It is generally understood that these words gave to the apostles supreme authority in legislating for the church.... So far as the record shows, they did not, however, give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.”—P. 187. 

Now as “the law of the Sabbath” “is still binding upon all men who learn of it” “unless it has been repealed by a new legislative act of God;” as that law “directs” the observance of “the seventh day of the week;” as “up to the time of Christ’s death, no change had been made in the day;” as “the authority [for the change] must be sought in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles,” to whom (according to Mr. Waffle’s claim) was given “supreme authority in legislating for the church;” and as in the exercise of that legislative authority, “they did not give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week;” as, therefore, there has been no new legislative act of God—by Mr. Waffle’s own words it stands proven to a demonstration that the law of the Sabbath which enjoins the observance of “the seventh day of week” is still binding upon all men, and that in disregarding “this plain precept” “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” 

Again we read:— 

“If the law of the Sabbath, as it appeared in the ten commandments, has been abolished, it must have been done by some decree of Jehovah. Where have we the record of such a decree? Through what prophet or apostle was it spoken?” “We can find no words of Christ derogatory to this institution as it was originally established, or as it was intended to be observed.” “There is nothing in the writings of the apostles which, when fairly interpreted, implies the abrogation of the Sabbath.”—Pp. 160, 165, 183. 

The law of the Sabbath, “as it appeared in the ten commandments,” is the fourth commandment. And that commandment, by Mr. Waffle’s own interpretation, “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy. Now as the abolition of that commandment would require some decree of Jehovah; and as no such decree has ever been recorded, nor spoken, neither by prophet nor by apostle, the obligation of the fourth commandment still remains upon all men to keep holy “the seventh day of the week.” Therefore, in disregarding this “plain precept,” “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” 

We must recur to a sentence before quoted. It is this:— 

“The authority [for the change from the seventh to the first day of the week] must be sought in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles.” 

Now with that please read this:— 

“A law can be repealed only by the same authority that enacted it. It certainly cannot be done away by those who are subject to it.”—P. 160. 

Was the law of the Sabbath enacted by the authority of the words or the example of the inspired apostles? Was it enacted by the authority of inspired men of any class, or at any time? No. The very idea is preposterous. Then it can never be repealed by the authority of inspired men, be they apostles or what not. That law was enacted by the living God in person. And it can never be repealed except by the personal act of the Lord himself. Any attempt of an inspired man to nullify any portion of the moral law would vitiate his inspiration. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. This is also conveyed in Mr. Waffle’s argument: “It certainly cannot be done away by those who are subject to it.” The inspired apostles were subject to the law of the Sabbath, as well as to all the rest of the law of God. And to charge to their words or to their example, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, is to deny their inspiration, to declare that there is no light in them, and to place them beyond the pale of being men of God. This, too, is even admitted in Mr. Waffle’s argument. He says:— 

“There is nothing in the example of the apostles to oblige the most tender conscience to abstain from secular employment on the first day of the week, if there is no other authority for observing a weekly Sabbath.”—P. 160. 

Please bear in mind (1) that the aim of this one-thousand-dollar prize essay is to prove that the first day of the week is the true, genuine, and only weekly Sabbath; (2) that the author of the essay admits that the fourth commandment “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” is to be kept holy; (3) and that he likewise declares that the apostles, as supreme legislators for the church, “did not give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.” Then it is plain that all that remains to which he can appeal, and in fact the only thing to which he does appeal as authority for keeping the first day of the week, is the example of the apostles. Then when even this he sweeps away with the declaration that “there is nothing in the example of the apostles to oblige the most tender conscience to abstain from secular employment on the first day of the week,” his argument leaves not a vestige of authority upon which to rest the observance of the first day of the week. Thus, again, he demonstrates that in disregarding the “plain precept” of the fourth commandment, which “directs” the “keeping holy the seventh day of the week,” and which is “still in force,” “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” 

That is exactly what we have believed for years. It is just what we are constantly endeavoring to set before the “Christian world,” as well as before the world in general. And we are thankful that the American Sunday-school Union, by its one-thousand-dollar prize, has enabled us to lay before our readers such a conclusive demonstration of it. We are not prepared to say but what the Union has done a good work in awarding the one-thousand-dollar prize to the essay of Mr. A. E. Waffle, M. A., Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, etc., etc.; for we cannot see how it would be possible to put together an argument for the first day of the week which could more positively convict the Christian world of error in disregarding the plain precept to keep the seventh day. (End Excerpt) 

Death of Your Eternal Life.

 Killing Your Eternal Life.

2Ti 2:25  …those that oppose themselves

Opposing ourselves. Do you oppose yourself?  You might instantly say no, you might think you are all about loving yourself, but if you've dismissed eternal life, if you've dismissed God, if you've dismissed Jesus Christ, then you've missed salvation and ultimately you are your own enemy, you've dismissed your eternal life. 

Throwing away eternal life, who in their right mind would do such a thing?! If you were approached on the street by a stranger who offered you eternal life at no cost to you, you'd dismiss them instantly, right? They would have to be a looney. But let's suspend reality for a moment. Let's imagine this is a real thing, the person is the real deal. They hold out a card and tell you to just say the words on the card out loud seven times and poof, you have eternal life.

Would you do it? Would you want eternal life? Why wouldn't you? That's a good question isn't it? They are all good questions. 

But because eternal life is not found in a magical, mystical way. Because eternal life isn't given in an instant with you disappearing and going off and living happily ever after in that very moment, a lot of people simply dismiss it entirely.

Satan would have us believe we are very wise, very smart- smarter than the deceived fools who believe in a Creator, and a Redeemer.  Satan loves listening to men and women go on and on about how they don't believe, he revels in that kind of talk. Satan takes great pleasure in the millions of enlightened people who have believed his urging towards not believing in God or Jesus. Of course, those same enlightened people don't believe in him either and that is just fine with him. Satan could care less if you believe in him, he just doesn't want you believing in God and Jesus.

Are you against yourself? We've all heard about being our own worst enemies and you know what, it's often true. We can be our own worst enemies and the thing is, it can happen without our even recognizing it. How awful it is when we are so deceived we don't even know that we are mortally, eternally wounded. 

We oppose ourselves. We endanger our eternal life, why?

2Ti 2:25  In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 

2Ti 2:26  And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 

Please God, peradventure and give repentance to those who oppose themselves and are caught in the snare of the devil, captive by him. Please.

Thank you, Father, thank you.

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, now and forever.  Amen.

Bring All Things to Our Remembrance.

 I can remember believing that people have to retain so much knowledge, every doctor, lawyer, pilot, firefighter, nurse, police officer, etc etc…  they have to know so much. Just that thought is so daunting, especially for someone that has a poor memory. When thinking about careers the idea of having to know so much, remember so much, made it very difficult. What I didn't realize years ago- was that people don't have absolutely everything memorized for all time. As you use something you retain it, it becomes second hand because it's constantly used. All the extra stuff that goes along with education falls by the way side, so to speak. You end up in a position that lends itself towards your retaining the knowledge you need. There are many jobs that have yearly courses set up that people have to complete to keep them up to date with necessary information. I learned that even nurses and nurse practitioners and physician assistants have to constantly look things up, they have to refresh their memories. This day and age we have tablets, phones and such and knowledge is literally at our fingertips. 

Why am I talking about all this? Because in my studies I often wish I could retain so much more than I do. 

1Pe 3:15  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

I long to be able to do this always.

This is my hope-

Joh_14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

We need to study and restudy, and study yet again. We might go over the same things several times a year, but by the grace of God we are being led to do so. Hopefully we will put in our minds all that God needs to teach us so that it can be called to our remembrance. God says a lot to us in His word, we have to listen to Him.

All by the grace, the peace, the mercy, the love of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, now and forever!!!!!!!  Amen.

(Excerpt)

“THE LORD’S DAY”

CHAPTER I. THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH

Since we began the review of the foregoing prize essay, we have received another on the same subject, and with exactly the same design. This too is a prize essay. Not a five-hundred-dollar, but a one-thousand-dollar prize essay. It was written in 1884 by “A.E. Waffle, M. A., [then] Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in Lewisburg University, Lewisburg, Pa.” The prize of one thousand dollars was awarded “after a painstaking and protracted examination,” by the Committee of Publication of the American Sunday-school Union; the award was approved by the Board of the Union; and the essay was printed and copyrighted by the Union in 1885. It makes a book of 418 pages, and is printed under the title of “The Lord’s Day; Its Universal and Perpetual Obligation.” 

The author of this book treats the subject in three parts. Part I he devotes to proving the necessity of the Sabbath, by showing that it is necessary to man’s physical, his intellectual, his moral and religious, and his social welfare. In Part II he discusses the proposition that “the Sabbath of the Bible was made for all men.” In Part III he considers “the nature and importance of the Sabbath.” We shall not notice the work in detail because the ground has been mostly covered in our review of “The Abiding Sabbath.” About all that we shall do with this book will be to notice the reasons that are given for keeping Sunday, as we want the people to become thoroughly acquainted with the kind of reasoning that draws five-hundred-dollar prizes, and one-thousand-dollar prizes, in proof that Sunday is the Sabbath. We need to make no apology for following up this subject. For certainly a subject to which is devoted so much high-priced discussion, is worthy of notice to any extent to which that discussion may run; more especially when in it there are involved moral and religious principles upon which turn eternal destinies. 

The following is a synopsis of chapter 6, Mr. Waffle’s argument on the early institution of the Sabbath: 

“Our first argument is founded upon the fact that the Sabbath was instituted at the beginning of human history.... In the first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis, we read: ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 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. 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.’ ...The nature of this early Sabbath is hinted at in the words which record its institution. 

God rested from the work of creation. This is evidently meant to teach men that on the seventh day they are to cease from secular toil, and rest.... This idea is more fully developed in the statement that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day.... Sanctifying the day means that God set it apart as a day to be devoted to holy uses. It could have no higher use than to keep man near to his God and to cultivate his moral and religious nature.... It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that a Sabbath, on which men rested from secular toil and engaged in the worship of God, was instituted at the beginning of human history. Just as the law of marriage and the law of property are older than the decalogue, so the law of the Sabbath, having its origin in the needs of man and in the benevolence and wisdom of God, was given to the first man, and but repeated and emphasized on Sinai.... The bearing of this conclusion upon the general discussion will be readily perceived. If the Sabbath did have this early origin, it was given to the whole race, and should be observed by every human being.... The moral law itself is not done away in Christ; no more are the things before it which God made obligatory upon man. Unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath, given at the creation, has been repealed by a new legislative act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it. For, coming at this time, it was not given to one man or to one nation, but to the whole human family.” 

That is the exact truth, well stated. The Sabbath was instituted at the beginning of human history. The first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis are evidently meant to teach men that on the seventh day they are to cease from secular toil, and rest. And it is indeed true that, unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath given at creation, has been repealed by a new legislative act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it. And that it has not been repealed, that there has been no new legislative act of God, neither by himself, nor by Christ, nor by the apostles, Mr. Waffle shows conclusively. After proving the Sabbath to be a part of the moral law, he advances argument to show that “the law of the Sabbath has never been repealed,” from which we shall present a few passages, from chapter 8. He says:— 

“If the conclusions of the preceding chapter are just, the law of the Sabbath can never be abrogated. So far as it is a moral law it must remain binding upon all men while the world stands.... We assert that the law of the Sabbath, so far as it is a moral law, has never been annulled. A law can be repealed only by the same authority that enacted it. It certainly cannot be done away by those who are subject to it. If the law of the Sabbath, as it appeared in the ten commandments, has been abolished, it must have been done by some decree of Jehovah. Where have we the record of such a decree? Through what prophet or apostle was it spoken? .... We can find no words of Christ derogatory to this institution [the Sabbath] as it was originally established, or as it was intended to be observed. All his utterances on the subject were for the purpose of removing misapprehensions or of correcting abuses. It is strange that he should take so much pains to establish the Sabbath upon a proper foundation and promote right views of it, if he had any intention of doing away with the institution altogether.... The same is true of his actions. There is no record that he ever did anything upon the Sabbath not consistent with its purposes from the beginning. He healed the sick; but works of mercy on that day were never forbidden except in the rabbinical perversions of the Sabbath.... 

“It is fair to conclude that Christ never intended to abolish the Sabbath. The only conceivable ground for such a statement is the fact that he opposed the notions of it prevalent in his time. But his efforts to correct these furnish the best evidence that he was desirous of preserving the true Sabbath. He said that it became him to ‘fulfill all righteousness.’ He voluntarily placed himself under the law, including the law of the Sabbath. Thus he not only maintained the sacredness of the Sabbath by his words, but he also kept it as an example for us.... 

“But do the apostles teach that the fourth commandment is no longer in force; that it is not binding upon Christians? It is asserted by many that they do, and appeals are made to their epistles to maintain the assertion.... Paul says: ‘Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.’ How could he have given it higher praise? And this he says just after the declaration, ‘We are delivered from the law.’ Does he mean that we are delivered from that which is ‘holy, and just, and good,’ and that we are henceforth to disregard the things required in the law? Not at all. He simply means that we are freed from the penalty and the bondage of the law. Again he says: ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.’ Here his meaning obviously is that the law is not only honored by the redemption through Christ, but is established in the minds of those who through faith enjoy this redemption, faith giving ability to appreciate its excellence, and power joyfully to obey it. But he is even more specific. When he wants a summary of our duties to our fellowmen, he can do no better than to take the second table of the law. Romans 13:8-10.... Paul was hardly so inconsistent as to quote thus from a law which had been abrogated as a rule of life. 

“He is not alone in this practice. St. James says: ‘Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.’ What of it, if the law is annulled? It does not matter if we violate obsolete laws. But James would have said that these laws were still binding, and that no one of them could be violated with impunity. His main point is the integrity of the law—the impossibility of wrenching out one of its members without destroying all. The way in which Paul and James and Peter and John urge upon the Christians to whom they write abstinence from certain specific sins, and the performance of specific duties, shows that those who believe in Christ have need of law. This general view of the relation of Christians to the law will help us to understand what is said by Paul concerning the law of the Sabbath. It is plain that no part of the moral law is abolished. This is still recognized as of binding force upon all. The law of the Sabbath is a part of it, and any apostolic precepts which appear hostile to the Sabbath must be interpreted in the light of this fact.... 

“Our conclusion is that there is nothing in the writings of the apostles which, when fairly interpreted, implies the abrogation of the Sabbath.... They honored the moral law as the highest expression of God’s will, and say no word to indicate that the law of the Sabbath was not a part of it. Thus both Christ and his inspired apostles have given their sanction to this institution. They have not taken away this choice gift of God to men.” 

This is sound doctrine. It is true that in speaking of the law of the Sabbath he uses the qualifying phrase, “so far as it is a moral law;” but as the law of the Sabbath is moral to the fullest extent; as there is nothing about it that is not moral, his statement is literally sound. That is, the law of the Sabbath in its widest extent “must remain binding upon all men while the world stands;” and the law of the Sabbath being entirely moral, “has never been annulled.” There is more of it that might be quoted, but we have not the space for it. Besides, this is all-sufficient to show the universal and unchangeable obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. 

And now, in view of the fact that the seventh day is the day which God established as the Sabbath at creation; in view of the fact that the seventh day is the day named by God in the fourth commandment; in view of the fact that the law of the Sabbath “as it appeared in the ten commandments,” has never been repealed; in view of the fact that Christ kept, “as an example for us,” this identical day—the seventh day—named at creation and in the decalogue; in view of the fact that the apostles maintain that “no part of the moral law is abolished,” and that it is “of binding force upon all;” in view of the fact that God, and Christ, and his inspired apostles, have given their sanction to this institution, and that in all their words of sanction to the institution there is no reference to anything but the seventh day as the Sabbath; in view of all this, we ourselves would give a thousand dollars, if we had it, to any man who could show, by any process of legitimate reasoning, how Sunday, or any other day but the seventh day, can be the Sabbath. (End Excerpt)

We Need to Listen.

 What God says, this is what we are to listen to above all else.

It doesn't matter what I say. I could be the most eloquent speaker of all time, and it would mean absolutely nothing, unless I was using that gift to point to God's glory, to point to God's word, God's voice.

You could take many passages from the Bible out of context as a whole and use those passages to degrade all that God is. I've heard people do it. I've heard people say that God ordered the killing of children, and then they say something along the lines of what kind of God would do that?! Their words would effectively keep others from God, without ever giving them a chance to know any of the context with which that order was given. It wouldn't matter anyway, they'd say. There is no reason at all for such a horrific order, end of story. 

God's word tells us truth, and truthfully, no one was ever supposed to die, let alone die in horrible, horrible ways. We, not God, opened the door to our dying. And if you're about to say, well, God shouldn't have let us open that door, then you are saying God should have created robots, not human beings with free will to choose. 

God created all - giving the ability to choose.

Choosing evil, resulted in evil.

God did NOT have to create a plan of redemption.

God could have stopped at allowing us to live in an evil world without any hope whatsoever. Some would have us believe that is truly what happened. It's not, but it could have happened, and it would have happened if God were evil, He's not.

We can have hope if we choose.

We can take God's word -reading from beginning to end from the Holy Scriptures- scriptures HE allowed to come into being, the Holy Spirit guiding all who had a hand in their creation. We can read His word and if we are reading with a sincerity of heart to know truth, not support preconceived beliefs, then He will open our hearts to know Him, the reality of Him and of the truth. 

God help us to this end, to know truth and in knowing believe in Him, accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, now and forever!

All by His grace and mercy!

Amen.

(Excerpt)

'CHAPTER X. “THE CHANGE OF DAY.”

Under the title of “The Change of Day,” the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” devotes a chapter to the denial of the right of the seventh day to be considered the Sabbath; and he starts with the attempt to make a distinction between the Sabbath as an institution, and the Sabbath as the name of a day. He says:— 

“Let it be urged that the Sabbath as an institution, and the Sabbath as the name of a day, are entirely distinct.”—P. 201. 

This is a turn that is quite commonly taken by those who deny that the seventh day is the Sabbath, but we wish that some of those who think they see this distinction, would describe what they call the “institution.” We wish they would tell us what it is. We wish they would tell us how the “institution” was made, and how it can be observed distinct from the day. For says Mr. Elliott:— 

“The particular day is no essential part of the institution.”—P. 203. 

If, therefore, the day be no essential part of the institution, it follows that the institution can be observed without reference to the day; and so we say we should like for Mr. Elliott, or someone else who thinks the proposition correct, to tell us how that can be done. But Mr. Elliott does not believe the proposition, nor does anyone else whom we have ever known to state it. In his argument under this very proposition that, “The particular day is no essential part of the institution,” Mr. Elliott says:— 

“Without doubt, the spiritual intent of the Sabbath will fail of full realization except all men unite upon one day.”—Id. 

Then what his argument amounts to is just this: The particular day is no essential part of the institution, yet the institution will fail of proper realization unless all unite upon a particular day. In other words, the particular day is an essential part of the institution. And that is exactly where everyone lands who starts with this proposition. But it is not enough to say that the day is an essential part of the institution. The day is the institution, and the institution is the day. And if the particular day be taken away, the institution is destroyed. The commandment of God is not, Remember the Sabbath institution, to keep it holy. Nor is it merely, Remember the Sabbath, as though it were something indefinite. But it is plainly, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Exodus 20:8. The word of God is not that he blessed the Sabbath institution, and hallowed it. But the word is, “The Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:11. 

Nor is it left to men to select, and unite upon, some “one day” to be the Sabbath. The Lord not only commands men to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, but he also tells them, as plainly as language can tell, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” It is the seventh day that God blessed at creation. It is the seventh day that he then sanctified. It is the seventh day upon which he rested. Genesis 2:2, 3. It was the rest, the blessing, and the sanctification of the seventh day that made the institution of the Sabbath. And it is simply the record of a fact, when the Lord wrote on the table of stone, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Suppose the question should be asked, What is the Sabbath? As the word of God is true, the only true answer that can be given is, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Therefore it is as plain as words can make it, that apart from the seventh day there is no Sabbath; and that apart from the seventh day there is no Sabbath institution. 

Again, the word Sabbath means rest, and with this Mr. Elliott agrees; he says:— 

“The word ‘Sabbath’ is the one used in the fourth commandment; it means ‘rest,’ and it is the substantive form of the verb employed in Genesis 2:2, 3, also Exodus 31:17, to describe the divine resting after creation.”—P. 202. 

But God did not bless the rest, he blessed the rest day; he did not hallow the rest, he hallowed the rest day. That rest day was the seventh day, the last day of the week. “And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 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.” Did God rest any day of the week but the seventh day? Assuredly not. Then is not the seventh day the rest day of God? Most certainly. Then whenever anybody calls any day the Sabbath but the seventh day—the last day of the week—he not only contradicts the plain word of God but he also contradicts the very language in which he himself speaks, because he gives the title of “rest” to that which by no possibility can truthfully bear it. The word of God is the truth, and it says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” 

Yet in the face of his own reference to Genesis 2:2, 3, and Exodus 31:17, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” has the assurance to write the following:— 

“As a human monument the particular day has value, but it has no bearing on that divine ordinance of rest and worship which comes to us out of eternity and blends again with it at the end of time.”—P. 203. 

“As a human monument?” How did the particular day—the seventh day—in Genesis 2:2, 3 become a human monument? What human being had anything to do with the erection of that monument? It was God who set up that monument, and when an institution established by the Lord himself, can be called a human monument, we should like to know how much further a five-hundred-dollar prize would not justify a man in going. 

And again, “The particular day has no bearing upon that divine ordinance which comes to us out of eternity.” This, too, when the particular day is that divine ordinance. If the particular day has no bearing upon that divine ordinance of rest and worship which comes to us out of eternity, then what is the ordinance, and how can it be observed? This brings him again to the important concession that, “all men must unite upon one day,” or else the Sabbath will fail of its proper realization. But we would ask, Did not the Lord know that when he made the Sabbath? Did he not know that it is necessary that all men should unite upon one day? We are certain that he did, and that he made ample provision for it. He himself selected the day which should be the Sabbath. He rested a certain definite day, he blessed that day, and he set it apart from the other days of the week, and he commanded man—the human race—to remember that day, and to do no work therein. That day is the last day of the week, the seventh day, and not the first day of the week. But the day which the Lord has chosen to be the Sabbath; the day which he has put honor upon; the day which he has by his own divine words and acts set apart from all other days; the day which he by his own voice from Heaven has commanded to be kept holy; that day which he has called his own—is to be set aside by men as not essential, and a heathen institution, by the authority of a heathen commandment, exalted to the place of the Lord’s day, and as all-essential. But it is wickedness. 

Like the majority of people who keep Sunday, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” finds great difficulty in fixing the day, when the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day—is under discussion, but not the least difficulty when the first day of the week is to be pointed out. He inquires:— 

“When does the day commence and end? Shall we define, as in the first chapter of Genesis, that the ‘evening and morning’ make a day, and therefore reckon from sunset to sunset, as did the Puritans? or shall we keep the civil day, from midnight to midnight?”—P. 204. 

To those who regard the word of God as of any authority, we should think the day as defined in the first chapter of Genesis would be sufficient, and that therefore they would reckon the day as the Bible does, and as Mr. Elliott knows how to do, that is, “from sunset to sunset.” But those who choose a heathen institution—Sunday—instead of the institution of God—the Sabbath day—we should expect to find reckoning as the heathen did, that is, “from midnight to midnight.” And nothing more plainly marks the heathen origin of the Sunday institution, and the heathen authority for its observance, than does the fact that it is reckoned from midnight to midnight. If the religious observance of Sunday had been introduced by the apostles, or enjoined by any authority of God, it would have been observed and reckoned as the Bible gives the reckoning, from sunset to sunset. But instead of that, the Sunday institution bears Rome on its very face. Rome from her beginning reckoned the day from midnight to midnight. Sunday was the great heathen Roman day; and when by the working of the “mystery of iniquity,” and Constantine’s heathen edict, and his political, hypocritical conversion, this “wild solar holiday of all pagan times” was made the great papal Roman day, it was still essentially the same thing; and so it is yet. However much Protestants may dress it up, and call it the “Christian Sabbath,” and the “Lord’s day,” the fact still remains that the Lord never called it his day; that there is nothing about it either Sabbatic or Christian, for the Lord never rested on it, and Christ never gave any direction whatever in regard to it; and that it rests essentially upon human authority, and that of heathen origin. 

Now he says:— 

“As a concession to that human weakness which is troubled after eighteen centuries’ drill in spiritual religion, about the particular day of the week to be honored, the question will be fairly met.”—P. 205. 

Remember, he has promised that the question shall “be fairly met.” And the proposition with which he starts in fulfillment of that promise, is this:— 

“There is no possible means of fixing the day of the original Sabbath.”—Ib. 

Let us see. The Scripture says at the close of the six days employed in creation, that God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made;” that he “blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested.” Genesis 2:2, 3. In the fourth commandment, God spoke and wrote with direct reference to the day upon which he rested from creation, and pointed out that day as the one upon which the people should rest, saying: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.... For [because] in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Therefore nothing can be plainer than that God, in the fourth commandment, pointed out distinctly “the day of the original Sabbath.” The word of God says also that the day the Saviour lay in the grave certain persons “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. The Sabbath day according to the commandment, is the day of the original Sabbath. When those persons rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment, they rested the day of the original Sabbath. Therefore the day of the original Sabbath is fixed by the word of God to the day which followed the crucifixion of the Saviour. And that same word declares that the day which followed this day of the original Sabbath, was the first day of the week. Mr. Elliott finds no difficulty at all in fixing the first day of the week—the day of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the day of the original Sabbath is the day which immediately precedes the first day of the week. Therefore, as Mr. Elliott finds it not only possible but easy to fix the first day of the week, how can it be that he finds it impossible to fix the day of the original Sabbath, which immediately precedes the first day of the week? 

But our author proceeds to argue the proposition, and this is how he begins:— 

“Who can tell on what day of the week the first man was created?”—Ib. 

Shall we grant Mr. Elliott’s implied meaning, and conclude that he does not know on what day of the week the first man was created? Not at all; for within eight lines of this question, he begins to tell us of the day on which man first existed. He says:— 

“For the sake, however, of any literalists who still believe that the work of creation began on Sunday eve, and ended Friday at sunset, it may be suggested that the seventh day of creation was the first day of man’s existence.” 

There, reader, you have it. He himself knows what day of the week the first man was created. For as “the seventh day of creation was man’s first day of existence,” it follows inevitably that man must have been created on the seventh day, unless indeed he supposes that man was created one day and did not exist till another! But who ever before heard of “the seventh day of creation”?! We cannot imagine where he ever learned of such a thing. Never from the Bible, certainly; for the Bible tells of only six days of creation. The first chapter of Genesis gives the record of the six days of creation; and in the fourth commandment God declares, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” The Bible tells plainly that man was created on the sixth day. But lo, Mr. Elliott finds seven days of creation, and that the seventh day of creation was the first day of man’s existence!! What a wonderful thing a five-hundred-dollar-prize essay is! It brings such large returns of nonsense for such a small investment of wisdom! 

Well, what is Mr. Elliott’s conclusion from this line of argument? Here it is:— 

“If he [man] began the calculation of the week from that time, and kept the same Sabbath with his Maker, then the first day of the week, and not the seventh, was the primitive and patriarchal Sabbath. If a crude, bald literalism is to be the rule of interpretation, let us follow it boldly, no matter where it takes us.”—P. 206. 

We should say that if crude, bald nonsense is to characterize the argument by which the Sunday-sabbath is supported, then the essay entitled “The Abiding Sabbath” is fully entitled to the five-hundred-dollar prize which it received. This is the only reply that we shall make to this argument, for he himself knows that it is worthless; and he feels the necessity of making an apology for it, which he does, saying:— 

“This suggestion is made, not for any valve which it possesses, in itself, but as a fair illustration of the difficulties attending any attempt to fix the day.”—Ib. 

But is it “a fair illustration”? We are certain that it is not. And we are equally certain that if an honest inquiry were made for the day which God has fixed as the day of the original and only Sabbath of the Lord, it would, in every case, be found with less than a hundredth part of the difficulty that has attended this self-contradictory prize, or any other effort, to show that Sunday is the Sabbath. 

But why talk about “the change of the Sabbath”? While creation stands, to change the Sabbath is impossible. And even though the present creation were swept away and a new one formed, even then it would be impossible to change the Sabbath to the first day of the week. Study this point a moment:—

Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath day is the rest day; and “God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” Hebrews 4:4. As, therefore, the seventh day is the day upon which God rested, that is the only day that can be the rest day. God rested no other day of the week, therefore no other day of the week can be the rest day. And so long as it remains the fact that “God did rest the seventh day from all his works,” so long it will be the truth that the seventh day is the Sabbath. This discovers the utter absurdity of the idea that is so prevalent, and which is so much talked, and printed, and spread abroad, that “the Sabbath has been changed.” To speak of a real change of the Sabbath, is but to say that the rest of God has been changed from the day upon which he rested to one upon which he did not rest. In other words, it is to say that the Lord rested upon a day upon which he did not rest. But that it is impossible for even the Lord to do, for to call that a rest day upon which he worked would not be the truth, and it is impossible for God to lie. 

The seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, rests upon facts, and it is impossible to change facts. Fact is from factum—that which is done. When a thing has been done, it will remain a fact to all eternity. To all eternity it will remain the truth that it was done. It may be undone, yet the fact remains that it was done. No power in the universe can change a fact. It is a fact that in six days God created the heavens and the earth, and all things that are therein. This can never cease to be a fact. This earth might be relegated again to chaos, yet the fact would remain that in six days God did create it. It would likewise remain a fact that the Lord worked each of the six days. And as long as this world stands, which was created in these six days, so long will it remain impossible truthfully to call any one of these six days the Sabbath, that is, the rest day, because there stands the fact that the Lord worked, and, we repeat, he himself cannot call that a rest day in which he worked. It is likewise a fact that God did rest the seventh day. That can never cease to be the truth. Though the whole creation which God created should be blotted out, it would still remain the fact that God did rest the seventh day. And as long as the creation stands, so long the truth stands that the seventh day is the rest day, the Sabbath of the Creator; and that none other can be. Therefore it is the simple, plain, demonstrated truth that the seventh day of the week, and that day only of all in the week, is the Sabbath of the Lord; and that while creation stands it cannot be changed. 

There is, however, a way, and only one conceivable way, in which the Sabbath could be changed; that is, as expressed by Alexander Campbell, by creation being gone through with again. Let us take Mr. Campbell’s conception and suppose that creation is to be gone through with again for the purpose of changing the Sabbath; and suppose that the present creation is turned once more to chaos. In creating again, the Lord could of course employ as many, or as few, days as he pleased, according to the day which he designed to make the Sabbath. If he should employ nine days in the work of creation, and rest the tenth day, then the tenth day would be of course the Sabbath. Or, if he should employ eight days or seven days in creation and rest the ninth or the eighth, as the case might be, that day would be the Sabbath. Or he might employ five days in creation and rest the sixth, then the sixth day would be the Sabbath; or employ four days, and rest the fifth; or three days, and rest the fourth; or two days, and rest the third; or one day, and rest the second. Then the fifth, the fourth, the third, or the second day, as the case might be, would be the Sabbath. 

But suppose it should be designed to make the first day the Sabbath. Could it be done? Not possibly. For suppose all things were created in one day, the day on which creation was performed would necessarily, and of itself, be the first day: therefore the rest day, the Sabbath, could not possibly be earlier than the second day. The first day could not possibly be both a working day and a rest day. It matters not though only a portion of the day should be employed in the work, it would effectually destroy the possibility of its being a rest day. So upon the hypothesis of a new creation, and upon that hypothesis alone, it is conceivable that the Sabbath could be changed; but even upon that hypothesis, it would be literally impossible to change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. 

People will talk and write glibly about the change of the Sabbath, never pausing to consider what is involved in the idea; never considering that heaven and earth would have to be removed before such a thing could be done. Even as Christ said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” And, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law.” In the prophecy which foretold this attempt of “the man of sin” to change the Sabbath, the word is not that he should change the law, but that, “He shall think to change times and laws” of the Most High. This might be expected of the power that should oppose and exalt himself above God (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4); and it is perfectly in keeping with his character that in his thought to change the Sabbath of the Lord, he should select the very day—the first day—to which, above all others, it would be impossible for the Lord himself to change the Sabbath. 

We now take our leave of Mr. Elliott and his prize essay; to pursue the subject further would only be to multiply notices of nonsense. In closing, we would simply repeat the remarks already made, that, in consideration of the fact that the Committee of Award decided that this essay was worthy of a prize of five hundred dollars, we should very much like to see an essay on this subject which that committee would decide to be worth nothing. If this essay stands as one of the best arguments for the Sunday-sabbath (and this it certainly does by taking the aforesaid prize, and by its receiving the endorsement of the American Tract Society by a copyright) then the Sunday institution must be in a most sorry plight. And if we had no better reasons for calling the people to the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day—than those that are given in this prize essay for Sunday-keeping, we should actually be ashamed ever to urge anybody to keep it. 

As for us, we choose to obey the word of God rather than the word of men. We choose to rest the day in which he has commanded us to rest. We choose to hallow the day which he has hallowed. We choose to keep holy the day which he has made holy, and which he has commanded all men to keep holy. 

Reader, “God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” Hebrews 4:4. What are you going to do? God says, Remember the rest day, to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8. What are you going to do? God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath [the rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Exodus 20:10. What are you going to do? 1

The word of God is truth. All his commandments are truth. Psalm 119:151. When God has spoken, that word must be accepted as the truth, and all there is then to do is to obey the word as he has spoken it. “It shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath commanded us.” Nothing is obedience but to do what the Lord says, as he says it. He says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” To disregard the day which God has commanded to be kept, is disobedience. And the disobedience is not in the slightest relieved by the substitution of another day for the one which the Lord has fixed, even though that other day be styled “Christian.” The fact is that the seventh day is the Sabbath; and in the fast-hastening Judgment the question will be, Have you kept it? God is now calling out a people who will keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Nothing but that will answer. Neither commandment of God nor faith of Jesus ever enjoined the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week. Both commandment of God and faith of Jesus show the everlasting obligation to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Will you obey God? Will you keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus?' (End Excerpt)

Revelation 14:12

 Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 

We must make sure we are keeping the commandments of God and not man-made commandments disguised to appear as God's. No matter how clever the disguise, God will allow those who are His to see through Satan's greatest deceptions. God will also allow those who want to believe lies to believe them, He will allow the blind to remain blind. Not all who claim to want to see -say that in truth, but God knows all the truth, He knows our hearts. He will clean our hearts, this must be our desire.

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER IX. THE FATHERS, ETC

As we have shown, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” fills up, with the heathen edict of Constantine for the partial observance of Sunday, the blank left by “the complete silence of the New Testament” so far as any command or rules on that subject are concerned; yet his system is not complete without the sanction of the Fathers. So, as is the custom of the advocates of Sunday observance, he gives to the Fathers, the Councils, the popes, and the Catholic saints, a large place in his five-hundred-dollar-prize argument for Sunday keeping. We have before cited one of the rules laid down by the Rev. Levi Philetus Dobbs, D. D., for proving a thing when there is nothing with which to prove it, and have given an example from the “Abiding Sabbath” in illustration of the rule. We here present another of the Doctor’s rules, and in Mr. Elliott’s treatment of the Fathers, our readers can see its application. Says Dr. Dobbs:— 

“I regard, however, a judicious use of the Fathers as being, on the whole, the best reliance for anyone who is in the situation of my querist. The advantages of the Fathers are twofold: first, they carry a good deal of weight with the masses; and secondly, you can find whatever you want in the Fathers. I don’t believe that any opinion could be advanced so foolish, so manifestly absurd, but that you can find passages to sustain it, on the pages of these venerable stagers. And to the common mind, one of these is just as good as another. If it happens that the point you want to prove is one that never chanced to occur to the Fathers, why, you can easily show that they would have taken your side if they had only thought of the matter. And if, perchance, there is nothing bearing even remotely or constructively on the point, don’t be discouraged; get a good strong quotation and put the name of the Fathers to it, and utter it with an air of triumph; it will be all just as well; nine-tenths of the people don’t stop to ask whether a quotation bears on the matter in hand. Yes, my brother, the Fathers are your stronghold. They are Heaven’s best gift to the man who has a cause that can’t be sustained in any other way..” (See Appendix.)

The first of the Fathers to whom Mr. Elliott refers is Clement of Rome, who he says died about A. D. 100. From Clement he quotes a passage which says nothing about any particular day, much less does it say that Sunday is the Lord’s day, or the “abiding Sabbath,” and of it the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” says:— 

“This passage does not indeed refer by name to the Lord’s day, but it proves conclusively the existence at that time of prescribed seasons of worship, and asserts their appointment by the Saviour himself.”—P. 214. 

But for all it mentions no day, it is, says he, an “important link in the argument” that proves that Sunday is the Lord’s day and of “perpetual obligation.” An argument in which such a thing as that is counted “an important link,” must be sorely pushed to find a connection that will hold it up.

His next link is no better. This time he proposes a quotation from Ignatius, and of it says:— 

“The passage is obscure, and the text doubtless corrupt, but the trend of meaning is not indistinct.”—P. 215, note. 

It seems to us that an institution that has to be supported by an argument that is dependent upon a “trend of meaning,” drawn from an “obscure passage,” in a “corrupt text,” is certainly of most questionable authority. True, he says “the argument can do without it if necessary;” but it is particularly to be noticed that his argument does not do without it, and he deems it of sufficient importance to devote more than a page of his book to its consideration. We would remark, also, that we have never yet seen nor heard an extended argument for the Sunday institution that did do without it. 

His next quotation is from a writing of about equal value with this of Ignatius. He says:— 

“Here may be introduced a quotation from the so-called Epistle of Barnabas.... The external evidence of the authorship of this writing would be convincing but for the discredit which its internal characters casts upon it.”—Pp. 216, 217, note. 

That is to say, we might consider this epistle genuine if the writing itself did not show the contrary. And as if to make as strong as possible the doubt of its genuineness, he adds:— 

“There is a very close relationship between this writing and the ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.’” 

And to the “Teaching” he refers by the doubting phrase, “if genuine.” Well let us see what this “Teaching” is worth. We need not go outside of the document itself to successfully impeach its credit in the estimation of all people who have any regard for the rights of property. We here make the distinct charge that the document entitled “The Teaching of the Apostles,” plainly teaches that it is right to steal. Proof: in Chapter I we find these words: “If one that is in need taketh, he shall be guiltless.” And to show that it is theft that is meant, we have but to read right on: “But he that is not in need shall give account whereof he took and whereunto; and being in durance [imprisonment] shall be questioned touching what he did, and he shall not go out thence until he give back the last farthing.” 

According to this precious document then all that is requisite is to be “in need,” and then if he “taketh, he shall be guiltless.” A man is sorely in need of a suit of clothes; he “taketh” one and “shall be guiltless.” Another is in need of a horse; he “taketh,” and “shall be guiltless.” Another is in great need of bread; he “taketh” a sack of flour, and “shall be guiltless;” and so on to the end of the catalogue. How the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, and the anarchists generally, may be glad and shout for joy, and fling their ready caps in air at sight of “The Teaching of the Apostles,” this wondrous screed, this last, best gift to the rascals! 

Well may Mr. Elliott attach to this document the saving clause “if genuine.” But why should he want to receive and use it, as he does, even with that qualification? Does he not know that such is not the genuine teaching of the apostles? Oh, yes, of course he does, but in this precious document there is a phrase that can be made to do duty in support of Sunday as the Lord’s day, and that blessed consideration sanctifies all else, even to its tenets sanctioning theft. And between “the so-called Epistle of Barnabas” and this document “there is a very close relationship”! We do not doubt it in the least. But there is no relationship at all between either of these productions and the genuine teaching of the apostles. No, such is not the teaching of the apostles of Christ; but it shows how very degenerate the Christianity of the day has become, when it receives so gladly, and extols so highly, as the veritable teaching of the Spirit of God, a production that is a shame to man. 

Then after mention of Pliny’s letter to Trajan, Justin Martyr, Melito, the “Teaching,” and Irenaeus, he comes to Clement of Alexandria, of whom he speaks as follows:— 

“Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, in a mystical exposition of the fourth commandment, in the midst of fanciful speculations on the religious signification of numbers, comes down long enough from the loftier flights of his spiritual arithmetic to tell us that the seventh day of the law has given place to the eighth day of the gospel... Nobody, of course, can tell what far-fetched and unheard-of meanings may lie underneath the words of the good semi-Gnostic Father; but as far as his testimony goes, it helps to establish the fact that the first day of the week filled the same place in the minds of the church of that time, that the seventh day had occupied in the Jewish system.”—P. 223. 

Certainly. It matters not what “mystical expositions,” nor what “fanciful interpretations,” nor what “far-fetched and unheard-of meanings” there may be, they all “help to establish” the heathen institution of Sunday, in the place of the day made holy and commanded to be kept so, by the Creator of the heavens and the earth. 

With just one more witness he closes the second century. And it is most fittingly done, as follows:— 

“This century will be concluded with the mention of that most brilliant and erratic of all the ante-Nicene Christian writers, Tertullian, of Carthage...This vehement writer fitly closes this list of evidences of the honored place filled by the Lord’s day in the first two centuries of the Christian church.”—Pp. 223, 224. 

Fitly, indeed, does this “vehement writer,” and most erratic of all the ante-Nicene Fathers, close the list of the first two centuries. But what a list! He gives us a list of ten witnesses to prove that Sunday is the Lord’s day, and that it was observed as such in the first two centuries, and by his own words it is shown that the first one does not mention the day at all; the second is an obscure passage in a corrupt text; the third is doubtful; the fourth speaks only of a “stated day,” without giving it any title at all; the fifth “calls it by its heathen name;” the seventh is doubtful but teaches that men may steal if they are in need; the ninth is so mystical, so fanciful, that “nobody can tell what far-fetched and unheard-of meanings may lie underneath his words;” the tenth is the “most brilliant and erratic [having no certain course; roaming about without a fixed destination] of all,” and this “vehement [“furious; violent; impetuous; passionate; ardent; hot”] writer,”—we do not wonder that Dean Milman calls him “this fiery African”—this witness “fitly closes the list of evidences of the honored place filled by the Lord’s day in the first two centuries!” Well we should say so. But what is a point worth that is “proved” by such evidences? It is worth all that the Sunday-sabbath is, which is supported by it, and that is—nothing. Yet these are the only witnesses that can be called, and false, doubtful, and untrustworthy though they be, they must be used or the Sunday institution will fail. But whether the failure would be any greater without such proofs than with them, we leave the reader to decide. And that is part of the argument for the obligation of Sunday, that was accounted worth a prize of five hundred dollars! We should like very much to see an argument on that question which that committee of award would consider to be worth nothing. 

After this array of five-hundred-dollar-prize witnesses for Sunday, we hope our readers will justify us in declining to follow Mr. Elliott through a further list, composed of Origen, and Athanasius, Theodosius the Great, and Emperor Leo the Thracian, and a number of Catholic saints, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, “Chrysostom the golden-mouthed,” and Jerome, “the foul-mouthed” (Mosheim, Cent. 4, part 2, chap. 2, last par. but one); through the Councils of Nice, Sardica, Gangra, Antioch, First of Toledo, Fourth of Carthage, and that of Laodicaea, and so on down to the Synod of Dort, and the Westminster Assembly. 

Yet his work on this division of his subject would be incomplete, and out of harmony with his method of argument throughout, if he should not turn about and upset it all. Accordingly, therefore, he at once destroys the edifice which he has thus so laboriously erected. Among the dangers which threaten the Sunday institution of to-day he declares that:— 

“Dangerous is the substitution of the dictum of the church for the warrant of Holy Scripture...To make the Lord’s day only an ecclesiastical contrivance, is to give no assurance to the moral reason, and to lay no obligation upon a free conscience. The church cannot maintain this institution by its own edict. Council, assembly, convocation, and synod can impose a law on the conscience only when they are able to back their decree with ‘Thus saith the Lord.’”—P. 263. 

The only dictum that the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” has shown for the Sunday-sabbath is the dictum of the church. 

The only means by which he has fixed the day to be observed is “by a religious consensus of the Christian church” (P. 203). 

The only edicts which he had presented are the heathen edicts of Constantine, additional laws by Constantine and Theodosius the Great, and the decree of Emperor Leo the Thracian.

 It is only in these, and the action of council, assembly, convocation, and synod that he obtains authority to impose the observance of Sunday as a law upon the conscience. 

He has given no “Thus saith the Lord” for the institution nor for its observance; but on the contrary has confessed the “complete silence of the New Testament,” in regard to any command or rules for either the institution or its observance. Therefore, by his own argument, the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath is of “no obligation upon a free conscience.” And that is the truth. (End Excerpt)