[12]
Section Titles
What Is Seventh-Day Adventism?
Protestants and the Law
Enemies of the Law
Seventh-Day Adventists Fundamentalists
Mr. Canright's Confession
What Spirit?
Mr. Canright says that he renounced Seventh-day
Adventism. He had served as a minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
for about twenty-eight years (with two or three short interruptions) before he
permanently withdrew from the Adventists and united with the Baptist Church. He
informs us, however, that even during these years of ministry, while he was
ardently proclaiming the doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists, he had many
qualms regarding the truthfulness of his own teachings, and that this so preyed
on his mind that on two or three occasions he dropped his ministry and took up
other work. After he finally gave up Adventism entirely, and severed his
connection with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he offered the following
reason for having ever been deceived by what he later came to look upon as a
system of error:
“I united with the Adventists when I was a mere boy,
uneducated, with no knowledge of the Bible, or history, or of other churches. I
went into it through ignorance. For years my zeal for that faith, and my
unbounded confidence in its leaders, blinded me to their
errors.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 52.
Then we are told of his growing doubts and final
renunciation:
“My doubts of the system did not come to me all at once
and clearly. It was well known that for the last dozen years I was with them, I
was greatly troubled over these things. Gradually, year by year, the evidence
accumulated, till at
[13]
last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then reluctantly and
sorrowfully I had to abandon and renounce it.”—Ibid., p.
53.
It is only proper that we should now pause to ask, What is
this “system” into which Mr. Canright went “through
ignorance,” and concerning which he later began to have doubts? What is
the faith which his doubts overbalanced and which he finally felt compelled to
“abandon and renounce”? Did Mr. Canright really renounce a system of
error built upon the superstitions of an ignorant people; or did he, perchance,
renounce the truth and go away into darkness?
These questions are vital, and should be understood by the
reader before we proceed to reply to some of the many arguments Mr. Canright
employs against the doctrines themselves.
Mr. Canright says he renounced “Seventh-day
Adventism.” His book indicates that he rejected it in toto. He
brands it as a system of error and a “yoke of bondage”
(Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 59), and declares that “it
leads to infidelity” (Ibid., p. 64). If, therefore, we can
ascertain what Seventh-day Adventists really believe, we shall understand
clearly what it was that Mr. Canright renounced. We will therefore briefly
state their cardinal doctrines, as recorded in their denominational
Yearbook, edition of 1933, pages 5 to 8.
“Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists
“Seventh-day Adventists hold certain fundamental
beliefs, the principal features of which, together with a portion of the
Scriptural references upon which they are based, may be summarized as
follows:
[14]
“1. That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain an all-sufficient
revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and
practice. 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
“2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the
Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the
Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the
salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the
third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of
redemption. Matt. 28:19.
“3. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same
nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine nature He
took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on the earth as a man,
exemplified in His life as our Example the principles of righteousness,
attested His relationship to God by many mighty miracles, died for our sins on
the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father, where He ever
lives to make intercession for us. John 1:1, 14; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1, 2; 4:14-16;
7:25.
“4. That every person in order to obtain salvation must
experience the new birth; that this comprises an entire transformation of life
and character by the re-creative power of God through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ. John 3:16; Matt. 18:3; Acts 2:37-39.
“5. That baptism is an ordinance of the Christian
church, and should follow repentance and forgiveness of sins. By its observance
faith is shown in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That the
proper form of baptism is by immersion. Rom. 6:1-6; Acts 16:30-33.
“6. That the will of God as it relates to moral conduct
is comprehended in His law of ten commandments; that these are great moral,
unchangeable precepts, binding upon all men in every age. Ex. 20:1-17.
“7. That the fourth commandment of this unchangeable
law requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
[15]
This holy institution is at the same time a memorial of creation
and a sign of sanctification, a sign of the believer's rest from his own works
of sin, and his entrance into the rest of soul which Jesus promises to those
who come to Him. Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; 31:12-17; Heb. 4:1-10.
“8. That the law of ten commandments points out sin,
the penalty of which is death. The law cannot save the transgressor from his
sin, nor impart power to keep him from sinning. In infinite love and mercy, God
provides a way whereby this may be done. He furnishes a substitute, even Christ
the Righteous One, to die in man's stead, making ‘Him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ 2
Cor. 5:21. That one is justified, not by obedience to the law, but by the grace
that is in Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God,
justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of
sin by His indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes ‘the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth.’ This experience is wrought by the
divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the
Sin-bearer, inducting the believer into the new covenant relationship, where
the law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power of the
indwelling Christ, his life is brought into conformity to the divine precepts.
The honor and merit of this wonderful transformation belong wholly to Christ. 1
John 3:4; Rom. 7:7; 3:20; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 2:1, 2; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 2:20;
Eph. 3:17; Heb. 8:8-12.
“9. That God only hath immortality. Mortal man
possesses a nature inherently sinful and dying. Immortality and eternal life
come only through the gospel, and are bestowed as the free gift of God at the
second advent of Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16; 1 Cot. 15:51-55.
“10. That the condition of man in death is one of
unconsciousness. That all men, good and evil alike, remain in the grave from
death to the resurrection. Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146.3, 4; John 5:28, 29.
“11. That there shall be a resurrection both of the
just
[16]
and of the unjust. The resurrection of the just will take place
at the second coming of Christ; the resurrection of the unjust will take place
a thousand years later, at the close of the millennium. John 5:28, 29; 1 Thess.
4:13-18; Rev. 20:5-10.
“12. That the finally impenitent, including Satan, the
author of sin, will, by the fires of the last day, be reduced to a state of
nonexistence, becoming as though they had not been, thus purging God's universe
of sin and sinners. Rom. 6:23; Mal. 4:1-3; Rev. 20:9, 10; Obadiah 16.
“13. That no prophetic period is given in the Bible to
reach to the second advent, but that the longest one, the 2300 days of Daniel
8:14, terminated in 1844, and brought us to an event called the cleansing of
the sanctuary.
“14. That the true sanctuary, of which the tabernacle
on earth was a type, is the temple of God in heaven, of which Paul speaks in
Hebrews 8 and onward, and of which the Lord Jesus, as our great high priest, is
minister; and that the priestly work of our Lord is the antitype of the work of
the Jewish priests of the former dispensation; that this heavenly sanctuary is
the one to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14; its
cleansing being, as in the type, a work of judgment, beginning with the
entrance of Christ as the high priest upon the judgment phase of His ministry
in the heavenly sanctuary foreshadowed in the earthly service of cleansing the
sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. This work of judgment in the heavenly
sanctuary began in 1844. Its completion will close human probation.
“15. That God, in the time of the judgment and in
accordance with His uniform dealing with the human family in warning them of
coming events vitally affecting their destiny (Amos 3:6, 7), sends forth a
proclamation of the approach of the second advent of Christ; that this work is
symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; and that their threefold
message brings to view a work of reform to prepare a people to meet Him at His
coming.
“16. That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary,
synchronizing with the period of the proclamation of the message
[17]
of Revelation 14, is a time of investigative judgment, first
with reference to the dead, and secondly, with reference to the living. This
investigative judgment determines who of the myriads sleeping in the dust of
the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living
multitudes are worthy of translation. 1 Peter 4:17, 18; Dan. 7:9, 10; Rev. 14:
6, 7; Luke 20:35.
“17. That the followers of Christ should be a godly
people, not adopting the unholy maxims nor conforming to the unrighteous ways
of the world, not loving its sinful pleasures nor countenancing its follies.
That the believer should recognize his body as the temple of the Holy Spirit,
and that therefore he should clothe that body in neat, modest, dignified
apparel. Further, that in eating and drinking and in his entire course of
conduct he should shape his life as becometh a follower of the meek and lowly
Master. Thus the believer will be led to abstain from all intoxicating drinks,
tobacco, and other narcotics, and the avoidance of every body-and-soul-defiling
habit and practice. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 9:25; 10:31; 1 Tim. 2:9, 10; 1 John
2:6.
“18. That the divine principle of tithes and offerings
for the support of the gospel is an acknowledgment of God's ownership in our
lives, and that we are stewards who must render account to Him of all that He
has committed to our possession. Lev. 27:30; Mal. 3:8-12; Matt. 23:23; 1 Cor.
9:9-14; 2 Cor. 9:6-15.
“19. That God has placed in His church the gifts of the
Holy Spirit, as enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. That these
gifts operate in harmony with the divine principles of the Bible, and are given
for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, the edifying of the
body of Christ. Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 1 Cor. 1:5-7.
“20. That the second coming of Christ is the great hope
of the church, the grand climax of the gospel and plan of salvation. His coming
will be literal, personal, and visible. Many important events will be
associated with His return, such as the resurrection of the dead, the
destruction of the wicked, the purification of the earth, the reward of the
[18]
righteous, the establishment of His everlasting kingdom. The
almost complete fulfillment of various lines of prophecy, particularly those
found in the books of Daniel and the Revelation, with existing conditions in
the physical, social, industrial, political, and religious worlds, indicates
that Christ's coming ‘is near, even at the doors.’ The exact time of
that event has not been foretold. Believers are exhorted to be ready, for
‘in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man’ will be revealed.
Luke 21:25-27; 17:26-30; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; Rev. 1:7; Heb. 9:28; James
5:1-8; Joel 3:9-16; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Dan. 7:27; Matt. 24:36, 44.
“21. That the millennial reign of Christ covers the
period between the first and the second resurrection, during which time the
saints of all ages will live with their blessed Redeemer in heaven. At the end
of the millennium, the Holy City with all the saints will descend to the earth.
The wicked, raised in the second resurrection, will go up on the breadth of the
earth with Satan at their head to compass the camp of the saints, when fire
will come down from God out of heaven and devour them. In the conflagration
which destroys Satan and his host, the earth itself will be regenerated and
cleansed from the effects of the curse. Thus the universe of God will be
purified from the foul blot of sin. Revelation 20; Zech. 14:1-4; 2 Peter
3:7-10.
“22. That God will make all things new. The earth,
restored to its pristine beauty, will become forever the abode of the saints of
the Lord. The promise to Abraham, that through Christ he and his seed should
possess the earth throughout the endless ages of eternity, will be fulfilled.
The kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.
Christ, the Lord, will reign supreme, and every creature which is in heaven and
on the earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, will ascribe
blessing and honor and glory and power unto Him that sitteth upon the throne
and unto the Lamb forever and ever. Gen. 13: 14-17; Rom.
[19]
4:13; Heb. 11:8-16; Matt. 5:5; Isaiah 35; Rev. 21:1-7; Dan.
7:27; Rev. 5:13.”
This is, in brief, what Seventh-day Adventists believe, and
this is, therefore, what Mr. Canright renounced and endeavored to refute.
The point on which Mr. Canright centers his most powerful
attacks, and which appears to have been his chief stumblingblock, is the one
mentioned under Nos. 6-8—the immutability and unchanging nature of the law
of God as contained in the Ten Commandments. In his renunciation of Seventh-day
Adventism he claims to have discovered that “the law was given only to the
Jews” (Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 320), that it was nailed
to the cross, and that it is, therefore, not binding on Christians.
We would, however, call the attention of the reader to the
fact that in declaring that Christians are no longer under obligation to
observe the Ten Commandments, it was not only Seventh-day Adventism that Mr.
Canright renounced but practically all Protestantism. Seventh-day Adventists do
not stand alone in teaching that Christians are under obligation to obey God
and keep His law as contained in the Ten Commandments. In fact, all the great
denominations have for centuries believed in the binding claims of the moral
law. This doctrine is clearly and emphatically set forth in the Baptist
Church Manual, the manual of the church to which Mr. Canright fled when he
escaped the so-called delusions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
This Baptist document declares:
“We believe that the law of God is the eternal and
unchangeable rule of His moral government.”—Baptist Church
Manual, art. 12.
[20]
Now here is a strange spectacle: A Seventh-day Adventist
clergyman revolts against the teaching of his church that the Ten Commandment
law is still binding upon Christians, holds up Seventh-day Adventists to
ridicule because of their ignorance, revealed in their supposition that the
moral law continued to exist after the cross, and flees to the Baptist Church
for refuge from this “yoke of bondage.” Yet when we follow him to his
new church home, where he professed to enjoy wonderful liberty and freedom from
the law, we ascertain on inquiry that the official pronouncement of that church
and of its founders on this point is in perfect accord with the teaching of
Seventh-day Adventists, and uncompromisingly opposed to Mr. Canright's
so-called new-found liberty.
In complete agreement with the foregoing pronouncement in
the Baptist Church Manual are the following statements from official
documents of the great Protestant churches and some of their representative
leaders:
John Calvin, regarded as the father of Presbyterianism and
also indirectly of the Calvinistic Baptists, said:
“We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has
freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout
and holy life, and must therefore be as unchangeable as the justice of God,
which it embraced, is constant and uniform.”—Calvin's Comment on
Matthew 5:17 and Luke 16:17, in Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels,
vol. 1, p. 277.
In the Methodist Church Discipline, edition of 1904,
page 23, we read: “No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of
the commandments which are called moral.”
[21]
Investigation will reveal the fact that the Wesleyan
Discipline, and also that of the Church of England, read the same as the
above.
The Rev. Dwight L. Moody, whom Mr. Canright quotes as
authority on a number of points, published a book some years before his death,
in which is to be found the following clear-cut statement:
“The commandments of God given to Moses in the mount at
Horeb are as binding today as ever they have been since the time when they were
proclaimed in the hearing of the people.”—Weighed and Wanting
(Fleming H. Revell Co., 1898), p. 15.
How tragic it is to see ministers like Mr. Canright turn
away from this generally accepted doctrine, and help to break down God's moral
barriers against sin and crime.
Again let us listen to Mr. Moody:
“Infidels may mock the Lawgiver and reject Him who has
delivered us from the curse of the law, but they can't help admitting that the
commandments are right. Renan said that they are for all nations, and will
remain the commandments of God during all the centuries.
“If God created this world, He must make some laws to
govern it. In order to make life safe, we must have good laws; there is not a
country the sun shines upon that does not possess laws. Now this is God's law.
It has come from on high, and infidels and skeptics have to admit that it is
pure.”—Ibid., p. 11.
In full accord with these declarations of faith are the
words of the Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon, the well-known Baptist preacher, who, in
a sermon preached in London, England, in 1898, and widely published, appearing
first in Australia, in the Melbourne Age, said:
“The law of God must be perpetual. There is no
abrogation of it, nor amendment of it. It is not to be toned down
[22]
or adjusted to our fallen condition; but every one of the Lord's
righteous judgments abideth forever…. To show that He never meant to
abrogate the law, our Lord Jesus has embodied all its commands in His own
life.”
Dr. Adam Clarke (Methodist commentator) writes:
“Thus it appears that man cannot have a true notion of
sin but by means of the law of God…. And let it be observed, that the law
did not answer this end merely among the Jews in the days of the apostle; it is
just as necessary to the Gentiles to the present hour. Nor do we find that true
repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those
who preach only the gospel to sinners, at best only heal the hurt of the
daughter of my people slightly. The law, therefore, is the grand instrument in
the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and awaken sinners; and he may
safely show that every sinner is under the law, and consequently under the
curse, who has not fled for refuge to the hope held out by the gospel: for, in
this sense also, Jesus Christ is the end of the law for justification to them
that believe.”—Adam Clarke, LL.D., A Commentary and Critical
Notes (New York: Lane and Scott, 1851), Rom. 7:13.
Bishop Simpson, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, supports
this teaching thus:
“The law of God, in its great and solemn injunctions,
should be distinctly set forth. Our congregations should be gathered as around
the base of Mt. Sinai, while from its summit is heard the voice of God in those
commandments which are unalterable and eternal in their character….
“Some will object to the sternness of the law, and say,
‘Prophesy smooth things;’ but still the law must be preached. It
brings the sinner to a recognition of his sins, in having transgressed God's
holy law, and shows him the fearfulness of the doom which is impending over
him. The law must be followed by the gospel; the awakened sinner must be
pointed to the Saviour, that he may see that, deep as are the stains
[23]
of his transgressions, the blood of Christ can wash them all
away.”—Bishop Matthew Simpson, Lectures on Preaching (New
York; Eaton and Mains, 1906), Lecture 4, p. 128.
“There are many preachers who love to dwell on the
gospel alone. They talk sweetly and beautifully of the fatherhood of God. This
is well. It is more than well, it is essential. But sometimes they go beyond
this, and declaim against the preaching of the law,—intimate that it
belongs to a past age, a less civilized society….
“Such a gospel may rear a beautiful structure; but its
foundation is on the sand. No true edifice can be raised without its
foundations being dug deep by repentance toward God, and then shall the rock be
reached, and the building shall be through faith in Jesus Christ. The law
without the gospel is dark and hopeless; the gospel without the law is
inefficient and powerless.”—Ibid., p. 129.
Also Dr. Albert Barnes (Presbyterian) agrees that Christians
are bound by the Ten Commandments:
“We learn hence: 1. That all the law of God is binding
on Christians. Compare James 2:10. 2. That all the commands of God should be
preached in their proper place, by Christian ministers. 3. That they who
pretend that there are any laws of God so small that they need not obey them,
are unworthy of His kingdom. And 4. That true piety has respect to all
the commandments of God. Compare Ps. 119:6.”—Rev. Albert Barnes,
Commentary (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1868), note on Matthew
5:19.
The editor of the Sunday School Times agrees:
“While God remains God, His moral law will be binding
upon all who would have any part in His life. God's moral law is eternal; it is
an expression of His very being. As such it can no more be abrogated than can
God Himself.”—Editorial in Sunday School Times, Jan. 3,
1914.
Let us turn also to the official statement of
Presbyterianism (Cumberland) regarding the binding claims of
[24]
the Ten Commandments. Note the following emphatic
declaration:
“The moral law is the rule of duty growing immediately
out of the relations of rational creatures to their Creator and to each
other…. This law is of universal and perpetual obligation…. This law
is not set aside but rather established by the gospel…. It accordingly
remains in full force as the rule of conduct.”—Presbyterian
Confession of Faith, pp. 43-45.
Again, let us turn to the teachings of John Wesley:
“The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to
the children of Israel, containing all the injunctions and ordinances which
related to the old sacrifices and service of the temple, our Lord indeed did
come to destroy, to dissolve, and utterly abolish. To this bear all the
apostles witness…. This ‘handwriting of ordinances’ our Lord did
blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. [Col. 2:14.]
“But the moral law contained in the ten commandments,
and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away. It was not the design of
His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken,
which ‘stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven.’ The moral law
stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual
law…. Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in
all ages; as not depending either on time, or place, or any other circumstance
liable to change; but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their
unchangeable relation to each other.”—Sermons on Several
Occasions (New York: Waugh & Mason, 1836), vol. 1, pp. 221, 222.
“In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of
Christ, are they who, openly and explicitly, ‘judge the law,’ itself,
and ‘speak evil of the law;’ who teach men to break (lusai, to
dissolve, to loose, to untie the obligation of) not one
only, whether of the least or of the greatest, but all the commandments at a
stroke; who teach, without any cover, in so many words, ‘What did our Lord
do with the law?
[25]
He abolished it. There is but one duty, which is that of
believing….’ This is indeed carrying matters with a high hand; this
is withstanding our Lord to the face, and telling Him that He understood not
how to deliver the message on which He was sent. O Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge. Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!
“The most surprising of all the circumstances that
attend this strong delusion is, that they who are given up to it really believe
that they honor Christ by overthrowing His law, and that they are magnifying
His office while they are destroying His doctrine! Yea, they honor Him just as
Judas did, when he said, ‘Hail, Master,’ and kissed Him. And He may
as justly say to every one of them, ‘Betrayest thou the Son of man with a
kiss?’ It is no other than betraying Him with a kiss to talk of His blood
and take away His crown; to set light by any part of His law, under pretense of
advancing His gospel. Nor indeed can any one escape this charge who preaches
faith in any such a manner as either directly or indirectly tends to set aside
any branch of obedience; who preaches Christ so as to disannul, or weaken in
any wise, the least of the commandments of God.”—Works of
Wesley (New York: Waugh & Mason, 1833), vol. 1, pp. 225, 226.
Let us very carefully note again the category in which Mr.
Wesley placed those who thus openly attack the law of God and teach men to
disregard its precepts:
“In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of
Christ, are they who, openly and explicitly, ‘judge the law,’
itself, and ‘speak evil of the law;’ who teach men to break …
not one only … but all the commandments at a stroke…. This is
indeed carrying matters with a high hand; this is withstanding our Lord to the
face.”—Ibid.
And yet this denial of the claims of the moral law is just
what Mr. Canright taught after he broke his connection with the Seventh-day
Adventist Church and was
[26]
accepted by the Baptist denomination in Michigan, and ordained
to preach his no-law doctrine to communicants of the Baptist faith! Would early
Baptists have thus accepted him and endorsed his new teaching?
It was not, therefore, Seventh-day Adventism merely that Mr.
Canright renounced, but the eternal law of God. Of this law Jesus said:
“Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18, 19.
Or, as Weymouth in his translation puts it:
“Solemnly I tell you that until heaven and earth pass
away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the law until
all has taken place. Whoever therefore breaks one of these least commandments
and teaches others to break them, will be called the least in the kingdom of
the heavens.”—The New Testament in Modern Speech.
But, sad to say, Mr. Canright has not been alone in this
attempt to nullify the law of Jehovah. We live in a lawless age. Men are not
only trying to remove the restraints of the law of God, but to get rid of God
Himself. Infidelity openly stalks in the pulpit, and skepticism sits in the
pew. Men are losing their former sense of sin. They no longer feel the need of
a sin-pardoning Saviour. They are therefore rejecting the doctrine of the
atonement, the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, and are
telling us that Jesus was only a man, although a peer among His fellows. The
evolution theory has robbed God
[27]
of the glory of the original creation, and removed the evidence
of His power for regeneration. Naturally, men who accept these heresies would
desire to be rid of a law which purports to have come from God who, in their
reckoning, does not exist. This no-law doctrine is a fitting companion to the
evolutionary, modernistic teaching that has lately spread throughout
Christendom as an overwhelming flood.
But have those churches which have been betrayed by their
leaders into an abandonment of God's moral precepts as a rule of life binding
upon Christians grown more holy? Have they progressed more rapidly in their
conquest of the world for Christ? Are their converts truer Christians than were
those made by the church in the days when the Decalogue was held up as the
standard of a final judgment before the great white throne? Is the world
growing better under this no-law, no-atonement preaching? Is it? We will permit
Mr. William T. Ellis to reply to these queries as we quote from an article
published by him in the Washington Post, July 15, 1919:
“What portends this turbulence of our time, which has
swept around the earth like a seismic current? With so much that was for ages
accepted going now into the scrap heap, are we to discard also the teachings of
our mothers and of the Book they taught us to revere? Is a new philosophy of
life, a new creed of religion, to be forged in the day's superheated furnace of
unrest? Shall we look for a herald of a better social order who will bear in
his hand a different code of laws for the regulation of man's relationship with
man, and with the Unseen? Is there to come out of Russia or out of Germany a
working faith for a revolutionized world?”
“With all the honesty of soul I possess I have sought
to see straight into the causes and character of conditions. Turn whichever way
I will, follow whatever set of conditions I
[28]
can call to mind (and I have had recent personal experience of
Bolshevized Russia, of proud and discontented Europe, of sullen and menacing
Asia), I find myself led straight up to the mount of the law. Here is the
answer to every question. Things have gone wrong because … people have
departed from this law. They will never get right until … people have
the clarity of vision and the courage to turn to the keeping of the ten words
spoken on Sinai.”
“Let us confess the truth…. We have wandered from
the straight paths of our fathers, and have turned aside from the simple faith
that made them great….
“Is there any one of the ten commandments that we as a
civilization have not openly, flagrantly, and shamelessly violated, in disdain
of God and in disregard of the proved social utility of these laws?”
“A universal acceptance of the ten commandments,
together with the summary of the law given by Jesus, would straightway,
overnight, relax the tension of the times, settle revolutions, and bring in
that better day toward which the world is blindly and violently groping….
The path runs straight as a sunbeam from the granite crest of ‘Jebel
Musa,’ Mt. Sinai. The master word is here: ‘Keep ye the law, be swift
in all obedience.’ … The ten commandments are an exposition of
universal justice.”
Seventh-day Adventists are absolute Fundamentalists. As has
already been pointed out, they hold strictly to all the great fundamentals of
the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They have nothing in common
with Modernists, who would remove the foundation stones of the plan of
redemption. They are endeavoring, through the grace of God, to fulfill the
words of the Master, spoken through John the revelator, when He said of those
who were to be called out of the nations and tribes of earth in preparation for
His Second Advent: “Here is the patience of the saints:
[29]
here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith
of Jesus.” Revelation 14:12. Or, as rendered by Goodspeed: “On this
fact rests the endurance of God's people, who obey God's commands and cling to
their faith in Jesus.”
The teachings of this church, therefore, are not some
new-fangled theories, novelties just discovered, but rather a going back to the
“old paths,” a restoration of precious truths lost through the great
apostasy of the Dark Ages, but necessary to be restored to the people of God,
that they may be in readiness when Christ comes. When He comes He will find a
“remnant” waiting for Him, who will be without “spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing,” yes, “without fault before the throne of
God.” Ephesians 5:27; Revelation 14:5.
Seventh-day Adventists do not admit that they are the
“troublers of Israel.” When Elijah was accused by King Ahab of having
troubled Israel, the prophet replied: “I have not troubled Israel; but
thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the
Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” 1 Kings 18:18.
This, then, is our answer to the charge that the Seventh-day
Adventist teachings confuse the people. There is no confusion so long as men
believe in God and obey His law. The only confused ones are those who prefer to
follow a tradition that makes void the law of the Most High. And we submit that
Mr. Canright's confusion began when he renounced the binding claims of the
Decalogue, and not when he, by the grace of God, was obedient to the divine
law. Mr. Canright did not advance from darkness to light when he repudiated
Seventh-day Adventism, but the light that was in him evidently became
darkness.
[30]
(See Matthew 6:23.) “It shall come to pass, if thou wilt
not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all His
commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these
curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.” “And thou shalt
grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper
in thy ways.” Deuteronomy 28:15, 29.
The strangest thing of all in connection with Mr. Canright's
case is the fact that he must have fully realized that in repudiating Adventism
he was going from light into darkness, as is evidenced by a confession made by
him after one of his disaffection experiences, when he, for a time, gave up
preaching, but was still a member of the Adventist Church. This disaffection
took place about 1882, and for some two years Mr. Canright worked on a farm. In
1884 he accepted an invitation to attend some general meetings to be held in
Michigan by the Seventh-day Adventists, and while there he made a voluntary
public confession, which was afterward published by him in the Review and
Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist official church organ, in the issue
bearing the date, October 7, 1884. In this confession he said in part:
“Most of the readers of the Review know the part which
I have acted in this cause for many years, both in preaching and in writing.
They also know that for two years past I have dropped out of the
work.”
Then, after speaking of certain reproofs that were given him
because of a wrong course he was taking in the conduct of his work, he
added:
“This I did not receive at all well, but felt hard
toward
[31]
Sister White, and soon quit the work entirely…. So I went
to farming, resolved to live a devoted life, and to do all I could that way.
But I soon found my doubts and fears increasing and my devotion decreasing,
till at length I found myself largely swallowed up in my work, with little
time, taste, or interest for religious work…. So it always is when a
person lets go of one point of the truth,—he begins to drift, he knows not
whither.
“A short time since I attended the Northern Michigan
camp meeting with Elder Butler. Here we had a long time for consultation,
prayer, and careful examination of my difficulties. I began to see that at
least some of my objections were not tenable, and that I myself was not
right and in the light…. I saw that I had put a wrong meaning on some
things, and that other things were certainly true. If these were true, then
I had certainly been wrong all the way through…. Everything looked
different. Then I felt how wrong, sinful, and in the dark I had been. My
sins came up before me as never before in all my life. Like Job I cried,
‘Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.’ …
“Friday, September 26, while on the camp ground at
Jackson, Michigan, I felt in my heart the most remarkable change that I ever
experienced in all my life. It was a complete reversion of all my feelings.
Light and faith came into my soul, and I felt that God had give
me another heart. I never felt such a change before, not even when first
converted…. I believe it was directly from heaven—the work of the
Spirit of God. I now believe the message as firmly and more understandingly
than ever before…. Such nearness to God, such earnest devotion, such
solemn appeals to live a holy life, can only be prompted by the Spirit of
God. Where that is, there I want to be. I am fully satisfied that my
own salvation and my usefulness in saving others depends upon my being
connected with this people and this work, and here I take my stand to risk all
I am, or have, or hope for, in this life and the life to come, with this people
and this work.”
This remarkable statement was published by Mr.
[32]
Canright only a little more than two years before he became
grieved again at some of his associates, and finally dropped out of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church altogether. He immediately began to advocate the
doctrines which he had declared only two years before to be darkness. In the
foregoing confession he graphically relates how the “Spirit of God”
had led him out of the darkness of his fears and doubts and hard feelings, and
had restored him to the light. He was led to feel “how wrong, sinful, and
in the dark” he had been. He had had a new conversion, and was convinced
that his salvation depended upon his connection with this people and this work.
Said he, “I believe it was directly from heaven—the work of the
Spirit of God.”
Let the reader remember that these words were not uttered
and published by the “mere boy, uneducated, with no knowledge of the
Bible, of history, or of other churches,” that Mr. Canright presents
himself to have been when he first became a Seventh-day Adventist, but by a
seasoned minister of some twenty-six years' experience, and only about two
years before he finally left the church and posed before the world as the great
exposer of Seventh-day Adventist errors!
If, therefore, the Spirit of God led Mr. Canright
back into the light in October, 1884, and placed in his heart a settled
conviction that Seventh-day Adventism was truth, what spirit was it that led
him to renounce this light on February 17, 1887, two years and four months
later? Could the same spirit have led him on both occasions? He was certain in
1884 that the experience that came to him
[33]
and which fully settled him in the Adventist faith was
“directly from heaven—the work of the Spirit of God.” Whence,
then, came the change two years and four months later, which led him to
repudiate this whole experience? Does he claim this also to be from heaven and
the work of God's Spirit? Is, then, God divided against Himself, leading men
one way today and another way tomorrow?
And if Mr. Canright was in the “light” in 1884,
when he became fully settled in the Seventh-day Adventist faith, what was he in
when he renounced it two years later? Should it be said that when he left the
Adventists he had had his eyes opened and saw clearly that he had been in
darkness all the time that he was connected with them, we would reply that only
two years and four months before, he tells of having felt in his heart the most
remarkable change he had ever experienced in all his life; it is described as a
wonderful work of God, direct from heaven, an experience that could “only
be prompted by the Spirit of God,” which fully satisfied him with the
Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, and caused him to take his stand, to risk all
he was or had or hoped for, in this life and the life to come, with the
Seventh-day Adventist people and their work.
Which experience, therefore, shall we take to be genuine? If
he was mistaken in the first instance, can we be sure that he was right in the
second? If he was right in the 1884 experience, then he must have been wrong in
the 1887 experience. At any rate, can a man who thus frequently changes his
mind and who has so many conflicting experiences, all of which he in turn
attributes to the Holy Spirit, be a safe guide for other men in religious
matters? We think not, and we believe that our readers
[34]
will also seriously question his qualifications as a spiritual
counselor and interpreter of the Word and will of God.
In our reply to Mr. Canright's arguments against the moral
law and the seventh-day Sabbath we shall follow quite largely the plan of
permitting him to answer himself, by comparing what he wrote on these subjects
while he was still a Seventh-day Adventist preacher, with what he later said in
his book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced. His former statements in
support of the enduring claims of the Decalogue and the original seventh-day
Sabbath are so clear and convincing and so full of Bible proof, whereas his
later arguments against these doctrines are so confusing and unbiblical, that
we feel sure a careful comparison of the two will readily serve to convince any
candid reader that in renouncing Seventh-day Adventism, Mr. Canright went from
clear light into dense darkness.
It is of such persons we are warned by Isaiah the prophet
when he said:
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that
put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!” “Because they have cast away the law of the
Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
Isaiah 5:20, 24.