Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    INCONSISTENCIES OF THE OPPOSITION

    While truth is harmonious, error is often found to contradict itself, as well as to be opposed to the Bible. This fact should aid in determining who have the truth on the Sabbath question. We have known some of our opponents to take all the following positions in the course of a single interview on the Sabbath question:-RFOS 74.2

    1. The law of ten commandments is immutable.RFOS 74.3

    2. The fourth commandment was abolished.RFOS 74.4

    3. The whole law was abolished.RFOS 74.5

    4. The Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day by divine authority.RFOS 74.6

    5. All days are alike.RFOS 75.1

    6. We keep the first day because Christ rose on that day.RFOS 75.2

    7. It is probable that the seventh day has been lost.RFOS 75.3

    8. We obey the fourth commandment in keeping the first day.RFOS 75.4

    9. There is no divine law enjoining the observance of the first day.RFOS 75.5

    10. We obey the law of God in keeping any day whatever after six days of labor.RFOS 75.6

    11. If all kept the seventh day, we would keep it.RFOS 75.7

    12. Those who keep the seventh day are fallen from grace.RFOS 75.8

    13. We should not judge one another in regard to the keeping of days.RFOS 75.9

    The most inconsistent, criminal, and inexcusable feature of the opposition is seen in the efforts which are frequently put forth by our opponents against the profession of all Protestant denominations, to prove that the law of ten commandments is abolished, with the design of evading the force of the fourth commandment. And, generally speaking, if the objections that our antagonists urge against the Sabbatic law prove the abolition of the Sabbath, they equally prove the abolition of all the commandments. For instance, if because we are not under the law and because we are not justified by the law, we are to conclude that we have full liberty to transgress the Sabbath,should we not also conclude, for the same reasons, that we may transgress all the precepts of the law? But, as a general thing, those who are guilty of this inconsistency will finally admit that nine of the commandments are obligatory. They slay all the commandments that they may dispose of the fourth, and then try to restore nine of the commandments to their proper position. It is as if an army officer should slay a whole company of soldiers to punish and dispose of a lawless one; or as if a man having a diseased finger, should propose to get rid of it by having all his fingers amputated by one blow, and then to have his nine good fingers restored to where they were originally!RFOS 75.10

    The difference between those who are under the law and those who are under grace, is clearly seen in the following illustration: A man is seized by the law for having stolen a piece of property. He is condemned to pay a fine of $300, or to be imprisoned. Being unable to pay the fine, he is sent to prison, where be is under the law of the country. The governor pays the fine on condition that the thief reforms, and the thief is delivered from prison, and from the law that weighed heavily upon him. He is now under the grace or favor of the governor. But may he for this reason steal as much as he pleases? Let him try it, and he will find himself under the law again. It is thus with those who pretend that because Christians are not under the law, they may violate the Sabbath.RFOS 76.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents