Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

Replies to Elder Canright’s Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists

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

    CANRIGHT FOR THE SABBATH. CANRIGHT IN THE LIGHT

    In Eld. Canright’s “Critical Notes,” published at the beginning of this very year (1887), he says:— Colossians 2:14-17. “1. ‘BLOTTING OUT’ could not apply to engraved stones..... “2. ‘HANDWRITING.’ Decalogue written by the finger of God. Exodus 31:18. Of the other law it is often said, ‘by the hand of Moses.’ Galatians 3:19. ‘By the hand of Moses’ occurs twenty-four times in the Old Testament. Leviticus 10:11, etc. “3. ‘ORDINANCES’ cannot apply to the moral law. “4. ‘AGAINST US.’ Which of the ten commandments is against us? Not the Sabbath (Mark 2:27; Isaiah 58:13); nor any of them. “5. ‘NAILING.’ could not nail stone; but could parchment. “6. MEATS, DRINKS,’ etc. Verse 16. These show what law is meant. None of these are in the decalogue, hence it cannot be that law. “7. “HOLY DAY.’ Greek, heortees, means feast day. “8 ‘MOON’ not in the decalogue, but is in the ceremonial law. “9 ‘SABBATH DAYS.’ Which? Verse 16. Those which are shadows; but the 7th day is not a shadow, but memorial, and points back. Exodus 20:11.”RCASDA 47.2

    In his pamphlet on the “Two laws,” after quoting Colossians 2:14-17,he says:—RCASDA 48.1

    “It can be clearly shown that there is not one reference in all this to the moral law or the seventh-day Sabbath. On this Dr. Adam Clarke says: ‘By the handwriting of ordinances the apostle most evidently means the ceremonial law.’ (Comment on verse 14.) Look at the figures used. ‘Blotting out.’ That which was written on parchment in books, as the ceremonial law, could be blotted out with a wet sponge. (See Numbers 5:23.) But it would be improper and absurd to talk of blotting out what was engraven in stones, as was the decalogue. ‘Handwriting.’ The ceremonial law was the handwriting of Moses, but the decalogue was written by the finger of God. Exodus 31:18. ‘Of ordinances.’ Here is further proof that it is the law of ceremonial ordinances which is meant. Compare with Hebrews 9:10: ‘Which stood only in meats and drinks; and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.’ Then there was a law which stood only in the carnal ordinances of meats, drinks, etc., the very things of which the apostle speaks in Colossians. Mark that these were imposed on them as a burden. So in Ephesians 2:15: ‘Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.’RCASDA 48.2

    “Here, too, we have the law of ordinances, the enmity, abolished. ‘That was against us, which contrary to us.’ The ceremonial law, with all its rites and ordinances, which must be carefully regarded in the smallest affairs of every-day life, was indeed a burden, a yoke, and against them, imposed upon them to keep them a separate people till Christ came. But which one of the ten commandments is against us? Let us examine them. Is it against us, 1. To have no other gods? 2. Not to make or worship an image? 3. Not to swear? 5. To honor our parents? 6. Not to kill? 7. Nor commit adultery? 8. Nor steal? 9. Nor lie? 10. Nor covet? Are not these commandments good, and for our best interest? But perhaps the fourth precept, the Sabbath is against us. No, indeed; for Christ himself said, ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’ Mark 2:27. That which is for man cannot be against him. Indeed, is not the Sabbath one of the greatest blessings ever given to our race? What would the world do without it?RCASDA 48.3

    “‘Nailing it to his cross.’ It would be proper to speak of nailing to the cross a parchment, or laws written on paper, but entirely improper if the reference is to the tables of stone. They could not be nailed up. Notice now the items which the apostle mentions, not one of which is in the decalogue, but all of which are in the ceremonial law. ‘Let no man judge you in meat.’ Anything in the ten commandments about meat?—Not a word. ‘Or in drink.’ Anything there about drink?—Nothing. ‘Or in respect of an holy day.’ The original word here rendered ‘holy day’ is heortees, which means a feast day. thus Greenfield defines it: ‘A solemn feast, public festival, holy day.’ It occurs twenty-seven times in the New Testament, and is, except in this place, every time rendered feast or feast day...RCASDA 48.4

    “‘Or of the new moon.’ Anything about new moons in the ten commandments?—Not a thing. Hence this can have no reference to that law. Was there a law touching the celebration of new moons?—Yes; the ceremonial law. (See Numbers 10:10; 28:11; Psalm 81:3, 4.) Thus far we have not found the slightest reference to the ten commandments, but every item mentioned is found in the ceremonial law, outside of the decalogue.RCASDA 49.1

    “‘Or of the sabbath days.’ Here our opponents are in high glee, thinking that the seventh-day Sabbath is surely meant by this; but we are as confident that it is not, and will give our reasons for it. Many of the ablest commentators agree with us in this. Dr Clarke says of this expression: ‘The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holidays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths....There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy is a command of perpetual obligation.’RCASDA 49.2

    “The American Tract Society comments thus on this passage: ‘A holy day -sabbath days; in the original, a festival -sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be observed in meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law associated with the commands forbidding murder, theft, and adultery.’RCASDA 49.3

    “The following are some of the reasons why this does not apply to the weekly sabbath:—RCASDA 49.4

    “1. If it does, then it leaves us no weekly sabbath day at all; for no exception is made. It sets aside the first-day Sabbath as well as the seventh-day. Let no man judge you in respect to the sabbath days. If one man is not to be judged for disregarding one day, then another is not to be judged for disregarding another day, and so we need keep no day. But who believes such a doctrine?RCASDA 49.5

    “2. This interpretation contradicts the many plain and direct texts which assert that the law which includes the Sabbath is still in force and must be kept, even to the smallest point. Romans 3:31; Matthew 5:17-19; James 2:8-12.RCASDA 50.1

    “3. If this proves the Sabbath nailed to the cross, then the other commandments went with it, and so the law against murder,adultery, theft, etc., has been abolished.RCASDA 50.2

    “4. Not a single expression in the whole passage, unless it be this one touching the Sabbath days, is applicable to the law of God engraven in stones, as we have seen.RCASDA 50.3

    “5. Every item in the context enumerated by the apostle, viz., meats, drinks, festivals, and new moons, is found, not in the decalogue, but in the ceremonial law. This is a strong indication that he is talking simply of the institutions of that ceremonial law, and has no reference to the moral law.RCASDA 50.4

    “6. But were there any sabbath days in the ceremonial law? Yes, several yearly sabbaths distinct from the Lord’s Sabbath, which was the only weekly Sabbath. They are described at length in Leviticus 23....RCASDA 50.5

    “7. Paul is very careful to designate which sabbath days were done away. He says, ‘The sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come.’ Verse 17. This was true of the ceremonial sabbaths, but not of the seventh day Sabbath. It pointed back to creation, not forward to the cross; hence it is not what the apostle meant.... So our opponents have not even a single hook upon which to hang their theory in this passage, but we have strong proof here of our position on the two laws.”RCASDA 50.6

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents