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

    FIFTH SPEECH

    Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I am afraid my opponent has done that which is not lawful. It is not just for him to affirm that I believe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made for the son of man at creation. I do not say, the Bible does not say that it was made for the son of man, and his last remark was an assumption entirely unwarranted.PSDS 21.4

    The Sabbath was made at the creation, and the Sabbath was made for man. No new elements can enter into that conclusion. Does his logic on this point amount to anything? “The Sabbath was made for man.” “The Sabbath was made for the man.” What does this prove? There is certainly no new element in the conclusion. I am unwilling to admit that the Sabbath was made for the son of man.PSDS 22.1

    The declaration that obligation grows out of precept is wrong. There is a difference—I grant that moral obligation grows out of precept. We find a fact of a Sabbath back at creation. We find a principle existing—and to make a distinction here is making a difference that I cannot see.PSDS 22.2

    Take the third commandment in the decalogue: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” etc. Why was that command given? Because it was wrong to take the name of God in vain. Did God’s name originate with the third commandment? Certainly not; and yet, according to my opponent’s reasoning, it would not have been wrong to blaspheme the name of God before the law of the ten commandments was given at Mount Sinai. So with all the rest. The principle of any or all the ten commandments of the decalogue could have been openly and continually violated by all mankind previous to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, and no man would have been guilty of sin by so doing, for, says my opponent, “obligation and precept go hand in hand.”PSDS 22.3

    “The Lord giveth you the Sabbath 2500 years ago.”PSDS 22.4

    [This I suppose he read from his notes, so I put it in quotation, though perhaps it should be so written.—Reporter.]PSDS 22.5

    But suppose it is limited and localized, the quotation from Exodus and the reason given in the 5th of Deut., do not agree. They could not keep the day on which God rested from the creation, and they could not keep the day on which they were delivered out of the land of Egypt, but God gave them a day answering to that on which He rested, and told them to remember that they were bondmen in the land of Egypt, etc. The fourth commandment enjoins the observance of that day as a relative duty.PSDS 22.6

    My opponent says there is a distinction to be made between the reason why a certain day was set apart and the reason why it was to be observed as a Sabbath unto the Lord. We will read the 5th of Deut. 14th v. The Sabbath of the Lord is the same as the rest of the Lord. It is our duty to keep the Sabbath, and our duty to keep the rest of the Lord. And it is a mere evasion to say that we cannot keep the day upon which the Lord rested. By the declaration of the holy scriptures we find that the seventh day was sanctified, and that day was the day upon which the Lord rested. I deny that a limited and local reason encroaches in any way upon a general one. Now there is a specific reason for our meeting every year to celebrate the fourth of July. There may be many specific reasons applying to individuals or communities, but the general reason is not thereby destroyed. It is not touched. So with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. The general reason for its observance is because God rested on that day. God may have given a specific reason to the children of Israel, but that does not destroy the general one. The observance of the seventh day was enjoined upon them because God rested on that day. God sanctified it and set it apart for man. Now if my opponent admits my premises, my conclusion is correct, for he says it is a principle of logic that “a conclusion always grows out of a premise.PSDS 22.7

    He says the question is not the Sabbath of the Lord, but the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. We have shown that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, but he says the question is upon the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. But the fourth commandment says that the Sabbath is the Sabbath of the Lord. Now will not my opponent apply a little of his logical reasoning here, and show us how we are in error?PSDS 23.1

    But he thinks the Sabbath of the fourth commandment must commence when the fourth commandment commences, when, the fact is, it is the Sabbath of the Lord which is enjoined in the fourth commandment. It is the Sabbath of the Lord, and it was the Sabbath of the Lord before the fourth commandment was given. I admit that the question is about the origin of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, but the identity of the two is the same. The Sabbath of the Lord and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment are identical. Why does God call it a holy day. Because it was holy before the commandments were given at Mount Sinai.PSDS 23.2

    I do not see any reason why they could not keep a Sabbath of 2500 years’ standing if my opponent does. Then he tries to answer my argument in this way: “The Lord gave you the Sabbath 2500 years ago; therefore he gives you the bread of two days on the sixth, etc.” My friends, that is his own declaration. No commandment exists till the obligation to observe it exists, but I shall show that it is not so.PSDS 23.3

    The book of Genesis is a book of history, and the book of Exodus is a book of law.PSDS 24.1

    I will now proceed to an examination of the 4th and 5th chapters of Deut. The point that we want to introduce is the classification of these ten commandments of the decalogue as a complete code of law. It is affirmed that it is never called a law, and that there is no such declaration made in respect to it. I will call your attention to some scripture on this subject. Exodus 24:12 v. Here God was going to call Moses up into the Mount that he might give him a law. Then in Deuteronomy 4:12, 13 verses. Now Moses is here referring back to past events. “—saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice.”—and Mount Sinai was altogether in smoke, etc., etc. Here was the burning of the Mount that Moses referred to. “I am the Lord thy God, etc.” The mountain burned with fire, etc.PSDS 24.2

    [This is a jumble of quotations and remarks that I can’t see head nor tail to! Guess he was trying to find something, and so kept reading and talking alternately to fill up the time.—Reporter.]PSDS 24.3

    5th ch. 14th v. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” etc. And the reason why they were commanded to observe that day was because God rested on that day after the creation of heaven and earth 4 ch. 13th v. Now the position that I take is, that the word covenant has two significations, and one signification of it is a law. The other is a condition stated by the Lord to the children of Israel. Exodus 19:5 v. Here it is shown to be a condition, by the keeping of which, the house of Jacob were to be a peculiar treasure unto God, above all people. But the word covenant has two significations, as we set out to show, and one of them is a law. Exodus 31:18 v. Now how much was there in that covenant? The ten commandments. Anything more? No. They were written by the finger of God and they were a complete law, and a complete covenant with the children of Israel. They did not see God, but they heard a voice, etc. One of these commandments is the fourth, the Sabbath of which we are considering, and I would like to see how you would note a distinction between the Sabbath of the Lord and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. You might with equal propriety argue that the Sabbath of the Lord did not exist, as that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment did not, for I have shown them to be identical.PSDS 24.4

    Other scriptures will come up to show that the ten commandments were the law of God that he wrote upon tables of stone.PSDS 25.1

    We have not time to take up a chain of evidence to establish this point. The point we wish to make is founded upon 1 Chronicles 26th. The word covenant has two significations. It has more, but I claim two in this connection.PSDS 25.2

    The Sabbath of the fourth commandment dates farther back than the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. The confirmationPSDS 25.3

    [That word is a little doubtful in my phonographic report, but I venture to “render” it as above.—Reporter.]PSDS 25.4

    of the law goes back to the Abrahamic promise. We will not antedate thus by assumption, but by the scriptures.PSDS 25.5

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents