[47]
Section Titles
The Essence of the Law
Essence of the Law Examined
Fallacy
Pointed Out
An Astonishing Change
Why the Ten Commandments Were Given Separate From the
Ordinances of the Law of Moses
Not Under the Law but
Under Grace
Christ to Judge Christians, Therefore He
Should Give Them Their Laws
Christ Is the End of the
Law
The Law Dead
After Mr. Canright as a Baptist began to wage relentless
warfare against the moral law of God, he resorted to the very arguments against
it which he had so completely demolished in his former publications. Let us
note a few of them:
“The law was given only to the
Jews.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 320.
We answer, then the rest of us are free from any of the
restraints of the law. We can lie, steal, swear, etc., with impunity. We, being
Gentiles instead of Jews, are not bound by any restrictions on these points.
Only the Jews were to restrain their fleshly lusts and put to death the carnal
mind. Mr. Canright would not have admitted this; yet the logic of his argument
would lead to just this conclusion; for, says Paul, “where no law is,
there is no transgression.” Romans 4:15. And again, “Sin is not
imputed where there is no law.” Romans 5:13. Well, then, according to Mr.
Canright, the Gentiles are entirely free from lawful restraint. No law, no
restrictions, therefore no sin; for “sin is the transgression of the
law.” 1 John 3:4. We are Christians, people of another race and
dispensation; we are free!
May we inquire of the reader whether he would like to
locate in a community of professed Christians who actually lived what Mr.
Canright taught concerning the Ten Commandments after he renounced Adventism;
a
[48]
place where people felt themselves entirely liberated from
any obligation to keep the Ten Commandments; where there was no restraint
against murder, theft, adultery, false witness, covetousness, Sabbath breaking,
idolatry, swearing, etc.? Even a heathen would not be willing to risk his life,
family, and property in such a place. Think of it! No law of God! Do just as
you please. Just remember that the Jews were the ones who had to be restrained.
Surely this line of reasoning is preposterous and a travesty on the Christian
religion.
But Mr. Canright has found that the law had an
“essence.” This essence was something inside of the outer shell
called the law, and was the real thing that mattered—the kernel of the
wheat, so to speak. We read:
“‘Yet not one jot or one tittle of the
essence of the moral law is abated. When Paul, referring to the
abolishment of the law dispensation, said: “For if that which was done
away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious,” he
indicated the correct status of the law. The essence of the moral law
“remaineth.”’ This is exactly what I
believe.”—Ibid., p. 333.
Now here is something quite new. The Jews had only the
letter of the law, but we have the essence! Mr. Canright as a Baptist has
already stated on page 330 of his book that “the letter of the law
is not binding upon Christians,” but now he informs us that we do have the
essence. Seems a bit hard on the Jews, doesn't it? They had to deal with
a law, even in the letter, but according to this we Christians have no code, no
letter of the law, no set rule of conduct, but just an essence. It may perhaps
be felt that codes are a bit difficult to manage; they say such definite
[49]
things, demand certain measures of obedience, and thereby
become, in the estimation of some, a yoke of bondage! But a mere essence is
different! With an essence only, one cannot be pinned down to any definite
measure of service or standard of life. Almost any form may be right. One man's
interpretation of the standard of morality is as good as another's, where there
is no letter of the law to guide them, but only an essence.
What would we say of a nation which decided to abolish
all its laws and destroy its statute books, leaving it entirely with its
citizens to obey what they considered to be the essence of morality? Such a
nation could abolish its lawmaking assemblies, disband its police force, tear
down its jails, and proclaim absolute liberty of action to its citizens. Where
no law is, there could be no proof of guilt, and therefore no infliction of
punishment. Every man would determine for himself what was right or wrong, and
would live under no restraint whatsoever from the state. But who would want to
live in such a country? What protection would there be of life or property?
None whatever. Such a nation could not possibly survive.
There is a very strange thing about Mr. Canright's
“essence” of the law. It seems that after the letter and code
disappeared, this essence looked just like the former law, but for the fact
that it had a new rest day. On this point he says:
“Excepting the Sabbath, the other nine commandments
are in the New Testament, either in the same words or in
substance.”—Ibid., p. 362.
“The observance of the Lord's day [Sunday] meets
the spirit of the fourth commandment.”—Ibid., p. 332.
[50]
So this essence is beginning to take shape again, and,
lo! it appears just like the old abolished letter of the law which the
Jews had, except for this one point: it has Sunday for a rest day instead of
the original seventh-day Sabbath!
The point seems to be that this “essence”
stage of the law was intended by Mr. Canright to cover only a brief transition
period. Some means had to be found by which to get rid of the true Sabbath, so
the dissolvingview effect was resorted to. The whole law was made to fade out
into an “essence.” Then a waving of the wand, a command from the
juggler, and, lo! it takes definite form again—changes back into real
substance, but the holy Sabbath of God has disappeared, and the first day of
the week has taken its place!
While Mr. Canright was still a seventh-day Sabbath
observer, he wrote as follows regarding the argument that nine of the Ten
Commandments are re-enacted in the New Testament, but that the fourth one is
left out. Note how fully Mr. Canright the Adventist answers Mr. Canright the
Baptist in the following statements:
“Those who hold this theory teach that all the ten
commandments were abolished at the cross, and nine of the ten re-enacted at the
same instant!
“Of course this must have been done simply to get
rid of the Sabbath, as the law would have been all right, but for that.
“Or, as some claim, the law was abolished at the
cross, and re-enacted at Pentecost, which leaves an interregnum of fifty days
without any law at all. ‘Where no law is, there is no transgression.’
Rom. 4:15. All the crimes committed during those fifty days must go unpunished,
as there was no law to condemn them!…
“The world was in rebellion against the law of
the
[51]
Father. God sent His Son to reconcile the world to Himself.
Says Paul, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.’ 2
Cor. 5:19….
“Men cannot be judged by an abolished law; hence
all those before the cross will go free in the judgment, having no law to
condemn them. Will God judge the millions of Hebrews who lived from Moses to
Christ by an old dead law which, according to our opponents, was always only a
yoke of bondage, grievous to be borne? It would be a violation of every
principle of law. Thus I read in the decision of the supreme court of Iowa,
1862 (‘Iowa Reports,’ Vol. XII, p. 311):
“‘The general principle relied upon,
independent of some statutory rule, is not controverted, that when a statute is
repealed it must be considered as if it had never existed, except with
reference to such parts as are saved by the repealing statute.’ This
refers to the criminal code, not to the civil law. But our opponents claim that
all God's law was abolished—no part saved. Hence it cannot be a rule in
the judgment.
“It assumes that the decalogue has been abolished,
when no record of its repeal can be found. Notice how carefully the record is
made when even human laws are abolished:
“Law repealed. ‘Be it enacted by the
General Assembly of the State of Iowa, That section 2498 of the Revision of
1860, be and the same is hereby repealed.’ Approved Feb. 7,
1870.—Session Laws of the Thirteenth General Assembly of Iowa, p.
112.
“Let our opponents bring something like this for
the repeal of God's law, and we will believe them.
“Laws which are to decide the eternal destiny of
billions of souls should be given in the plainest possible manner. They should
not be left to inference and guesswork. Beyond dispute, God did give one
law—the decalogue. He delivered it in just that solemn, public, and
definite manner which we would expect in so all-important a transaction.
“Our opponents claim that Jesus gave a new code of
laws in place of the old, yet they can produce no record as
[52]
to when it was given, where it was given,
how many precepts it has, which is the first, or the last,
who gave it, to whom it was given, what its penalty is,
wherein it differs from the old, or any other particular.
“Of all documents, a law should be given in the
plainest manner. But in what book, chapter, and verse is this new law to be
found? Was it given during Christ's life? was it at His death? or was it
after His resurrection? Was it delivered in the temple, by the seaside, or
elsewhere? Has it only nine commandments now, or has it a dozen? Which is the
first commandment? Was it given in private, or in public? to the disciples, or
to the world? Surely if this law has a real existence, all these questions
ought to be easily answered. But the Bible reader knows that the New Testament
is entirely silent upon all these questions. It neither knows nor says anything
of such a new law.“—D. M. Canright, The Two Laws, pp.
102-106.
Farther on in this same work Mr. Canright pointed out
the utter fallacy of his later argument that nine of the commandments which had
been abolished were restored in the New Testament. On this point, speaking
still as an Adventist, he said:
“Many, in their opposition to the Sabbath, carry
the impression that all the commandments except the Sabbath are repeated word
for word in the New Testament. But such is not the case. Neither the first,
second, third, fourth, nor tenth commandments, are anywhere repeated in the New
Testament. This is an important fact, as it shows that the New Testament does
not give a new code of laws.
“The other five commandments, with a part of the
tenth, are quoted in the following passages in the New Testament: Matt.
5:21-27; 15:4; 19:18, 19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 7:7; 13:9; Eph.
6:2, 3; James 2:11. If, then, the Sabbath is not now obligatory because that
commandment is not directly quoted in the New Testament, then also the
[53]
first three are not now binding, and it is no sin to have
other gods, worship images, or profane God's name! To what a monstrous
conclusion this theory leads! So it always will be found that every argument
framed against the Sabbath comes with equal force against the other
commandments.
“But yielding the point that there are several
others of the ten commandments, as well as the Sabbath, not quoted at all in
the New Testament, our opponents next claim that there were nine of the ten
commandments re-enacted in the New Testament, not, indeed, in the very words of
the old law, but in substance the same. It is painfully amusing to see them try
to find these commandments as thus re-enacted. Here is the mode generally
adopted: First commandment (1 John 5:21), ‘Keep yourselves from
idols.’ How plain! But when was this written? Not until 90 A. D., or about
sixty years after the resurrection. Here, then, were sixty years before the
first commandment was re-enacted—sixty years in which there was no law
against idolatry! If, to evade this terrible conclusion, it is admitted that
this passage does not bring to view the time when, and the place where, this
commandment was re-enacted, but only a reference to it as already existing,
then the whole point is given up. For thereby they admit that they have no
record of the time when, or place where, this was re-enacted. It only shows
that there was a law against idolatry; and this is simply a reference to it as
previously existing. Here they are compelled to admit the whole truth, and come
squarely upon our ground. That commandment, with the time and place of its
enactment, is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, but it is found in the
decalogue. Ex. 20:3.
“It puzzles them very much to find the second
commandment re-enacted in the New Testament. Matthew 22:37 is generally quoted
as the nearest to the point, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart.’ If a man loves God with all his heart, he will not worship any
image. But try that a little further. Would he have other gods? No. Then this
includes the first commandment. Would he profane God's name? Certainly not.
Would he violate God's
[54]
holy rest day? No. Then this includes the fourth commandment
as well as the first three, and so proves too much for our opponents.
“But this language was spoken by Christ some time
before His crucifixion, at which time they claim the old law was abolished. So
they have a part of the law re-enacted before it is abolished! But the simple
fact is, this is only a quotation by Christ from the Old Testament. The lawyer
asked Him which was the great commandment in ‘the law’—the law
already existing, not a new law which Christ should give. In answer to this,
Jesus quotes directly from Deuteronomy 6:5, the great commandment to love God
with all the heart, and from Leviticus 19:18, the second, to love your neighbor
as yourself. If, therefore, the giving of these two great commandments was to
supersede the decalogue, then it must have passed away in the days of Moses,
1500 B. C.!
“Look at the places where the other commandments
are claimed to be regiven. In Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus, in answer to the young
man, quotes the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments just as
found in the decalogue.
“This was no re-enactment of them, but simply a
quotation from the law as already existing. This, too, was before the law is
claimed to have been abolished; so that Christ reenacted these before He
abolished them, if indeed this be a regiving of them!
“So Paul, in Romans 13:9, quotes five of the ten
commandments. This also is seized upon as a re-enactment of those commandments.
But were they re-enacted both by Jesus and by Paul, and then again by James?
Chap. 2:8-12. How can any candid man for a moment maintain such a position?
“How plain is the simple fact that both Christ
and the apostles were only quoting from the law, before given by God the
Father, than whom there could be no higher authority.
“It is claimed that nine are referred to while the
fourth is not; but this is false. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New
Testament oftener than any other of the ten commandments,
[55]
being not less than fifty-nine times in all. It is
worthy of notice that in all these numerous references not one word is spoken
derogatory to the honor and sacredness which it had always
possessed.”—Pages 117-120.
How utterly astonishing it is to find this same man only
a few years later setting forth the very arguments which he himself had so
completely overthrown.
The one thing Mr. Canright, in his later theory
regarding the “essence” of the law, failed to inform us about, was
when this new rest day (Sunday) came in after the law was abolished and
reshaped. This point was entirely overlooked. We would like to see the chapter
and verse cited. Where, we ask, are we informed in the Scripture that Christ
took away one Sabbath and gave Christians another? Where does the Bible say
that the old law had a Sabbath, but that in the essence of the
law given to Christians this part had been changed or dropped out? Where is
Sunday, the first day of the week, called a Sabbath, a rest day, a holy day, or
anything but a working day? It cannot be found in Scripture. It is not there.
Had it been, Mr. Canright would, no doubt, have simply produced the text, thus
settling the question and saving himself the necessity of creating this new
“essence” theory as a means of ejecting the Sabbath from the law.
The fact is that Christians have no new moral law. The
moral law is as much in force today as when it was spoken by God Himself from
Sinai; and the fourth commandment, unchanged by a jot or a tittle, still
declares, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work.” (See Exodus 20:8-11; Luke 23:56.)
[56]
Why the Ten Commandments Were Given Separate From the
Ordinances of the Law of Moses
In his book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, Mr.
Canright makes a desperate but entirely fruitless effort to prove that the
Decalogue was only a part of the ceremonial law of Moses. In order to show that
they constitute only one law instead of two separate and distinct codes, it was
necessary for Mr. Canright to overcome the impression created by the vastly
different ways in which the two were given. One was spoken by God's own voice,
written by His own finger on tables of stone, and deals with moral issues only;
the other was given through Moses, and was later written by him in a book, and
dealt with rites and ceremonies, sanitary regulations, and civil relations.
But Mr. Canright soon found a way out. “It would
have been impossible,” he said, “to carry around the whole law if
written on stones; hence only a few samples out of that law could have
been selected and put on stones to be kept as a witness of that
covenant.”—Page 343.
Surely this is a strange argument! Think of it! The only
thing that deterred God from writing all the ceremonies, rites, ordinances,
etc., pertaining to the sacrificial service, was the size of the load it would
have made to carry!
How unfortunate for Mr. Canright and those who share his
opposition to the seventh-day Sabbath that the fourth commandment crept in
among the samples and got onto the tables of stone! How much easier it would
have been to have brushed the Sabbath aside, had it gone
[57]
into the book of the “law of Moses” instead! The
very fact that it got in among the moral precepts of the Decalogue and became a
part of a strictly moral code would naturally give the impression that it
belonged in that class and was not ceremonial in nature, as were the laws of
Moses. But, of course, if God only picked up a few samples at random and wrote
them down on tables of stone, anything might have gotten in.
But is this like God? Does the “Ancient of
days” perform His work in such a careless manner? Would He give to men a
rule of life and a standard of judgment, and then inform them that those He had
given were only a few samples? Absolutely not. To argue thus is to charge God
with folly. No, the Ten Commandment law of God is not a makeshift. It is
“perfect” (Psalms 19:7); therefore it is complete. It is “holy,
and just, and good” (Romans 7:12); therefore it cannot be improved upon.
It is just as it should be, seventh-day Sabbath and all, and just as it will be
when we stand before the throne of God at the judgment of the last great day,
and find that this law is the standard by which our lives are to be measured.
Hence the importance of heeding the admonition of James when he says: “So
speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”
James 2:12.
But let us permit Mr. Canright to answer himself. When
he was still a Seventh-day Adventist he wrote:
“Those who deny the pre-eminence which we claim for
the decalogue, can give no reason why the Lord singled out the ten
commandments, and gave them in so conspicuous a manner as He did. All God's
acts are in wisdom, and for a purpose. It was not by accident that He singled
out and gave the decalogue as He did. Evidently He did it to honor that law
above all others.”—The Two Laws, p. 102.
[58]
Not Under the Law but Under Grace
In a further effort to establish his no-law doctrine Mr.
Canright the Baptist tries to find an argument for his theory in Paul's
statement, “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14.
On this he says:
“Several times Paul says directly that Christians
are ‘not under the law.’ (See Rom. 6:14, 15; Gal. 3:23-25; 4:21;
5:18.) It would seem as though that ought to settle it that Christians are not
to be governed by that law, for surely if we are not under a law, we are under
no obligation to obey it.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced,
pp. 381, 382.
Let it be remembered that this came from Mr. Canright
after he had renounced Seventh-day Adventism.
Now let us listen again as Mr. Canright answers himself
when he at another time discoursed on the same passage. The following
paragraphs, written by him while he was still in the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, clearly set forth what the apostle meant by being “under the
law,” and it is shown that Paul was teaching the very opposite of what was
attributed to him by Mr. Canright in his later writings.
“Probably this passage is urged as an objection to
the perpetuity of the law oftener than any other. That the law here is the
decalogue we all agree. What, then, is meant by the term ‘under the
law’? We understand it to mean, to be condemned by the law. Our
opponents claim that it means to be under obligation to obey the law; and as
Paul says we are not under the law, they claim that we are not now obliged to
keep the law. Can it be that we need not keep the commandments against
adultery, murder, theft, idolatry, etc.? If their position is correct, this
must follow; for these are a part of the law. Paul's entire argument in this
book shows that this is not his meaning.
“What subject has he under consideration in this
chapter?
[59]
It is not the difference between the old law and the new,
the change from the old dispensation to the new; but the change which takes
place in individuals at their conversion, a change from the old man to the new
man, from sin to holiness, from condemnation to grace. He first asks, ‘How
shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’ Verse 2. Then he
says, ‘We are buried with Him [Christ] by baptism.’ Verse 4. This
shows that he is speaking only of converted men. Next he says, ‘Knowing
this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.’ Verse 6. That
this refers to conversion and not to a change from the old covenant to the new,
will be seen by every candid mind. Further on he says, ‘Likewise reckon ye
also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus
Christ our Lord.’ Verse 11. Of whom is this true? Only of the converted
man. So he is not speaking of all men in general, but only of saints. Again:
‘Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it
in the lusts thereof.’ Verse 12. What is sin? John says, ‘Sin
is the transgression of the law.’ 1 John 3:4. Paul then exhorts them not
to let their fleshly members and passions lead them to transgress the law.
‘For,’ said he, ‘sin shall not have dominion over you.’
Verse 14. Why not? Because the law is abolished? No; but because they have left
the service of sin, have ceased to transgress the law of God. His whole
argument shows that this is what he means. ‘For sin shall not have
dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.’ Verse
14. That is, having broken off your sins, ceased to break the law, believed in
Christ, and been baptized, you are now no longer ruled over by sin, nor
condemned by the law, because you have found grace in the sight of God, and
your sins are pardoned. Then he asks, in the next verse, ‘What then? shall
we sin [that is, transgress the law, for remember, “sin is the
transgression of the law”], because we are not under the law, but under
grace? God forbid.’
“This conclusion of Paul's utterly demolishes the
theory of our opponents. For if ‘not under the law’ means that we
[60]
are not to obey the law, then it follows that we could
transgress it at will. But this, Paul vetoes with a ‘God forbid.’
“Take two more places where Paul uses the term
‘under the law’ as meaning, to be condemned by the law. Thus he says,
in Galatians 5:16-18: ‘This I say, then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall
not fulfill the lust of the flesh; for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other;
so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit,
ye are not under the law.’ Now, in this case, who are not under the law?
Those who are led of the Spirit, and those only. And who are those who
are led of the Spirit? Those who do not fulfill the lusts of the
flesh—that is, do not commit sin. No other meaning can be given to this
text. Then those who are not under the law are converted men, whose sins are
pardoned, who have received the Spirit of God, and hence do not transgress His
law any more. the text has not the slightest reference to the abolition of the
law. Paul says that those who are led of the Spirit are not under
the law. Then it follows that those who are not led by the Spirit
are under the law. This conclusion is so plain that no candid man will
deny it. But are the wicked led by the Spirit? No. Then they are under the law.
But if the law has been abolished, then no one can now be under it, no more the
wicked than the righteous. This shows that the law does still exist, and is
able to hold men under its power.
“Now look a moment at the absurdity of our
opponents' position. They say that by the term ‘not under the law,’
Paul means that the law is abolished, and hence we need not obey it. If this be
true, then no one is under the law, whether he is led by the Spirit or not. But
Paul declares that in order not to be under the law, we must be led by the
Spirit. How plainly this contradicts their conclusion.
“Take one more case. In Romans 3:9-19, Paul says,
‘We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under
sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.’ And so he
goes on in several verses to prove that all are sinners, then he concludes
thus: ‘Now we know that
[61]
what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God.’ Verse 19. Now, what is the consequence of being under
the law? Paul says it is ‘that every mouth may be stopped, and all the
world may become guilty before God.’ So that to be under the law is to
have our mouths stopped, and to stand guilty and condemned before God.
“No better proof could be given that the meaning
which Paul designs to convey is, that the phrase, ‘not under the law, but
under grace,’ means simply not under the condemnation of the law, because
not sinners, but in the freedom of the gospel, through the forgiveness of our
sins.”—The Two Laws, pp. 32-36 (old ed., pp. 30-33).
Christians generally believe that they should not swear,
kill, steal, nor lie; in other words, that they should keep the commandments.
Seventh-day Adventists believe the same, with this difference, that they apply
the same principle also to the fourth commandment. Now, if we are under the law
because we believe in keeping all the Ten Commandments, then the other
Christians are nine tenths under the law by keeping nine of them.
“Consistency, thou art a jewel.”
From Mr. Canright's renunciation of Adventism we quote
two lines as follows:
“Jesus gave commandments to His disciples…. We
are to keep His commandments.”—Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced, p. 361.
Now it is true that Christ did give commandments to His
disciples, but the inference here is that they were given to supplant or
supersede the Decalogue. But such a
[62]
deduction cannot be substantiated. Every command given by
Christ while among men was in perfect harmony with the precepts of the moral
law given from Sinai. He came to magnify the law and make it honorable.
Mr. Canright further says:
“As Christ, … the head of the church, …
is to judge the world (John 5:22) at His judgment seat (Rom. 14:10), how
reasonable that He should give the laws to that
church.”—Ibid., p. 365.
This is all very well, but we inquire, Will not Christ
also judge the Jew? Or is it the plan that the Father and the Son shall divide
the work, one judging the Jews and the other the Gentiles? Will the Jews have
to face one standard, the Decalogue, and the Gentiles another, the so-called
new law of Christ? If so, will we then afterward go to the same heaven? How is
this? Does God have two standards of citizenship for His kingdom? Must the Jew
attain to one standard of morality and I to another? Can I get through easier
than he? Will these two different standards be maintained in heaven, the Jewish
community living according to one rule and the Christians another? Or will the
Jew perhaps have to undergo training in heaven and familiarize himself with a
new moral standard—one that looks just like the old one he used to know,
but which has the Sabbath dropped out and the Sunday of the pagan world and
papal church substituted?
Surely these things are absurdities. God has one moral
standard for all time and all men. Changing ages, priesthoods, and
dispensations have not affected one jot or tittle of the great moral code
handed down from heaven. And, dear reader, when you and I appear before the
judgment seat of Christ alongside our Jewish brethren of past
[63]
ages, we will all stand on the same footing, and one
standard—the Ten Commandment law of God—will be applied to our lives,
and the same Judge will judge us all. “Is He the God of the Jews only? is
He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.” Romans 3:29.
Mr. Canright the Baptist uses as another proof text to
show that the moral law ended at the cross, Paul's statement in Romans 10:4,
that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.” He sums up his argument on this point by declaring, “That
ends the decalogue.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 334.
But Mr. Canright, while still a Seventh-day Adventist, clearly answered his own
argument on this text as follows:
“We agree that this means the decalogue, but we do
not agree that it means that Christ has put an end to that law. End does not
always mean termination. It is very frequently used as meaning the object of a
thing, as in James 5:11: ‘Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have
seen the end of the Lord.’ This certainly does not mean that the Lord died
in the days of Job. James means to say, Ye have seen the object of the Lord in
the afflictions He brought on Job. The word ‘end’ is used in that
sense in the text. Christ is the object of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth.”—The Two Laws, pp. 43, 44.
That is to say: What the law demands of me, Christ
is. The law finds complete expression in His life. He came to fulfill,
or to live out, its every requirement. The moral standard demanded by the law
and that revealed in Christ are the same. Therefore the purpose, or end, of the
law is that I should be like Christ; and it is evident that this
[64]
standard can be reached only through faith and
obedience.
When Mr. Canright renounced Adventism he boldly declared
that the law of God was dead. His argument for this is based on the following
statement by the apostle Paul:
“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that
know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long
as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man,
she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from
that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of
Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from
the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” Romans 7:1-4.
Now let us note Mr. Canright's comments on these
verses:
“No statement could be plainer: we are delivered
from the law which is dead.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced,
p. 388.
“The apostles say that the law is
dead.”—Ibid., p. 390.
But the text does not “say that the law is
dead.” Mr. Canright finds it necessary to misrepresent the meaning of the
text in order to read his no-law theory into it.
That Mr. Canright himself well understood the fallacy of
this argument that the law is dead, is evidenced by a former extended statement
published by him concerning the true meaning of this text. Let us note how, in
his
[65]
earlier statements he completely shatters his own later
arguments:
“The position of our opponents on this chapter is,
that Paul is showing the contrast between the old dispensation and the
new—between the law and the gospel. We believe that Paul has no reference
whatever to any such thing, but continues the same subject that he considered
in the sixth chapter; namely, the change which takes place in every individual
at his conversion from sin to holiness. He first shows how the law condemns the
sinner, and yet is just and holy in so doing; and then, how the sinner obtains
pardon and grace through faith in Christ, and thereby receives strength to keep
the law which he previously found himself unable to obey. Thus we read:
‘Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that
the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?’ Verse 1. He then
illustrates what he means by this statement: ‘For the woman which hath a
husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the
husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.’ Verse 2.
“Consider the illustration. Today a woman in Iowa
marries Mr. Smith. Now the law of Iowa binds her to Mr. Smith as long as he
lives. There are three things in the illustration: 1. The woman; 2. The
husband; 3. The law. Paul says, ‘If the husband be dead, she is
loosed from the law of her husband.’ Observe, she is loosed
from that law. But what is it that died in this illustration? Is it the law?
Suppose that Mr. Smith dies, just as Paul says, does that abolish the law of
Iowa which bound her to Mr. Smith? How absurd that would be! No; the law does
not die, and yet the death of Mr. Smith does loose the woman from that law; not
because the law is dead, but because the person is dead to whom it bound the
woman. Paul proceeds: ‘So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.’ Certainly, if
while Mr. Smith lives she should marry Mr. Jones, she would be an adulteress;
for the law does not allow her to have two husbands
[66]
at the same time. Paul goes on: ‘But if her husband be
dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man.’ Yes; if Mr. Smith dies, then she is freed from
the law of Iowa, and can now marry Mr. Jones lawfully. Bear it in mind that
Paul twice says that if her husband dies she is loosed from the law, freed from
the law. But the same law which bound her to Mr. Smith now binds her to Mr.
Jones. It will be seen that in all this illustration there is not the slightest
reference to the death or abolition of the law; the law remains the same all
the time. It is the husband that dies, not the law. Now, did Paul know how to
properly use an illustration or not? We think he did….
“If this illustration is a proper one, it is a very
unfortunate one for the no-law position; for in the illustration, the law never
died at all, while he declares that by the death of the husband the woman is
freed, loosed from the law, and yet the law lives. Now the only question is,
What is represented in the illustration by the two husbands? We answer that the
old man, the carnal mind, the body of sin, the unconverted man, is represented
by the first husband, and the Lord Jesus Christ by the second husband. The
following language of Paul settles this point: ‘Wherefore, my brethren, ye
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be
married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should
bring forth fruit unto God.’ Verse 4.
“Paul plainly says, ‘My brethren, ye
are become dead’—not that the law is dead; that it was these brethren
who died. Then with whom is the second marriage made? This he as plainly
states: They should be married to Him who is raised from the dead. In other
words, while the old, carnal man lived, the law of God bound them down in
condemnation to that old body of sin; but when that was dead, then they were
united to Christ. The next verse confirms the fact that Paul is speaking here
of their conversion from sin to righteousness. ‘For when we were in the
flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members
[67]
to bring forth fruit unto death.’ Verse 5. ‘When
we were in the flesh,’ plainly means when we were unconverted, and has no
reference to being under some former dispensation. He continues: ‘But now
we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held.’
Verse 6. The margin says, ‘Being dead to that’ wherein we were held.
The American Bible Union translation says, ‘Having died to that wherein we
were held;’ that is, the old man having died which kept us from being
united to Christ, we are delivered from the law just as in our illustration the
woman was delivered from the law of Iowa when Mr. Smith died. That it was not
the law, but the old man, that died, is put beyond controversy by the following
language: ‘For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment
came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life,
I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived
me, and by it slew me.’ Verses 9-11. Here Paul says, ‘I died;’
the law ‘slew me.’ Now, did the law die, or did Paul die? He says
emphatically the law slew him. Then it was not the law that died, but the old
man.
“Then hear his conclusion. If the position of our
opponents is true, Paul should have concluded like this: Wherefore the law is
dead and abolished, it being a yoke of bondage. But instead of such a
conclusion he sums it up thus: ‘Wherefore the law is holy and the
commandment holy, and just, and good.’ Verse 12.”—The Two
Laws, pp. 36-39.
This statement was made by Mr. Canright in 1886, just
three years before he published his Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, in
which he so emphatically declares that “the law is dead.”How one
could so quickly and so completely reverse himself on so vital a point of
Christian doctrine, we cannot understand. We feel sure that the candid reader
will agree with us that in this reversal Mr. Canright was certainly not
advancing from darkness into light, but was rather retreating from light into
darkness.
[68]
He had departed from the plain and very evident
interpretation of Scriptural teaching, and had espoused a theory which cannot
possibly be maintained, since it has no foundation in Scripture.
In fact, all teaching that tends to lessen reverence for
and confidence in God's great moral standard, the moral law, is altogether
subversive of truth, contrary to Scripture, and harks back to the rebellion of
Lucifer in heaven, and his later efforts in Eden when he succeeded in
persuading our first parents that the commands of God could be disobeyed with
impunity and even profit. For six thousand years Satan has been seeking to
break down the restraints which God has placed upon His people through the
giving of the Decalogue, and the present almost universal reign of lawlessness
serves as evidence of how well he has succeeded. Infidels, agnostics, skeptics,
and scoffers have joined in sowing the seeds of rebellion and lawlessness, and
today the world is reaping the whirlwind. What then may be expected when even
the ministry join forces with them, and begin to teach that Christians are
under no obligation whatsoever to keep God's great moral code, urging that it
has been thrown into discard by the ushering in of the gospel dispensation?
Will not Satan thus greatly exult over us, and will not the kingdom of God thus
suffer loss?