The debate:

SMITH'S  FIRST  AFFIRMATIVE *
 

Some law is binding on Christians since the death of Christ, for James in his epistle written A.D. 60 urges us to keep it.  (Read Chapters 1 and 2)  Whatever law this is, James insists that EVERY PART OF IT is binding.  "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."  James 2:10.

What law was binding on Christians in the time when James wrote his epistle?  If the ten commandments recorded in Exodus 20 are binding, then the fourth one, which is the sabbath commandment, is binding.  If the ten commandments have been abolished prior to A.D. 60; then we must seek out the new law for Christians to see whether the sabbath is included.

The New Testament plainly indicates that there are some Old Testament requirements that are binding on Christians since the cross.  "And that from a child thou hast learned the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ."  2 Tim. 3:15.  Paul is writing to Timothy, the young minister at the church of Ephesus.  (1 Tim. 1:2 and 4:6)  This second letter was written from Rome when Paul was about to be brought before Nero the second time, about A.D. 66.  All authorities agree that the earliest of the New Testament Books were not written before about 54 A.D.

This means that the Scriptures Timothy was taught out of as a child, could be none other than the Old Testament.  Christ called the Old Testament "Scripture" when He said to the Jewish leaders, "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."  John 5:39.   Under the word "Scripture" in Cruden's concordance we read:

The Old Testament, which Timothy was taught as a child is able to make him wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, says Paul.  Now let us read the verse which follows, "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."  2 Tim. 3:16.

What could the apostle mean here when he tells us that ALL scripture is profitable?  Could we by any twist of the imagination think that he means only part of it?  Some would say, yes the Old Testament is all right for the stories it has, and for the inspiration of Psalms.  We can learn things by reading it, but we do not have to follow it in New Testament times.  But is this what the BIBLE SAYS here in 2 Tim. 3:16?  It says ALL scripture is profitable for DOCTRINE.

What is doctrine?  Webster's dictionary says, "That which is taught, the principles, belief, or dogma, of any church, sect or party."  According to this text written by Paul ALL scripture is profitable then to give us the principles of belief of the Christian church.  It is not only profitable for doctrine, but also for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, as mentioned in this text.

How could Paul tell us any plainer than in these words that the Old Testament is the guide book of the Christian as well as the new?  He states that it is profitable for all these phases of Christian teaching.  He says it can make one wise unto salvation.

Peter warns us that Paul has written some things hard to be understood, and that some who are unstable, wrest these and other scriptures to their own destruction.  (2 Pet. 3:15,16)  What should we do with the parts of scripture that we cannot understand?  "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are REVEALED belong unto us and to our children for ever . . ."  Deut. 29:29

There is no statement of Paul's which is plainer nor easier to understand than verses 15 and 16 of 2 Timothy, chapter 3.  So we KNOW that there are things in the Old Testament that are profitable for doctrine, etc., under the new covenant.  Paul has specifically and plainly told us the forms of worship which are no longer to he observed, also.  So why not put the two together?  Is not this the wise plan to take exactly what the Bible tells us, rather than to read into it something that is not there?

Now what are these old Testament forms of worship which are not required in the new? Paul specifically points them out so that there need be no question.  CIRCUMCISION is one.  (Gal. 6:15)  In fact the arguments about the law in Galatians were given because someone was urging circumcision upon the Galatian church.  ''They constrain you to be circumcised.''  Gal. 6:12

THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD was also not to be continued.  (Heb. 7:11, 12)  And of course the change in the priesthood indicated a change in the law which regulated the priesthood.  However the ten commandments say nothing about the priesthood, so there is no indication here of a change in the ten commandments.

THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES, which were a shadow of things to come, were also abolished.  Col. 2:14-16.  In this list all forms of worship involving meat, drink, holyday, new moon, and sabbath days WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME are abolished.  (Vs. 17).

The Levitical law tells of many ceremonial MEAT and DRINK offerings.  These pointed forward to Christ, and therefore come under the list mentioned in Col. 2 which are "Shadows of things to come."  See Heb. 9:9-12.  An illustration in point is THE PASSOVER LAMB which was to be eaten with bitter herbs.  This pointed forward to Christ, as indicated in 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us."

But does the, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink" statement of Col. 2 abolish ALL regulations regarding eating and drinking?  No.  We find that there are OTHER OLD TESTAMENT REGULATIONS that are still in force in the New.  The Bible mentions some specifically in Acts 21 :25.  Abstain from THINGS STRANGLED, from things OFFERED TO IDOLS and from BLOOD.  These are Old Testament regulations which Acts definitely mentions as being in force in the New!

Because of the law against the use of blood, the Jews were careful to kill animals in such a manner as to permit free bleeding.  We find this idea in the warning given by the church council against things strangled.  The law against eating blood is found in Deut. 12 :23, 24, as well as in a number of other places in the Old Testament.

Why do I mention this about meats in seeking to prove that the sabbath of the fourth commandment is still binding?  The above mentioned text (Col. 2:14-l7) is used repeatedly as an evidence by those who think the sabbath is abolished, and so we must consider the text as a whole to see what it teaches.  The above scriptures prove conclusively that the reference to meat and drink does not abolish all Old Testament regulations regarding eating and drinking.  AND DOES IT NOT FOLLOW as the night the day that NEITHER does the reference to a holyday and sabbath days in the same verse abolish ALL SABBATH REGULATIONS of the Old Testament!

It merely abolishes those that it SAYS it abolishes: Those which are a shadow of things to come!  (verse 17)

Now let us candidly compare these ceremonial sabbaths, which were shadows of things to come with the sabbath of the 4th commandment.  Three typical ones are the passover sabbath (treated above), The Feast of Tabernacles, and the Day of Atonement.  At the feast of tabernacles the people offered the first-fruits of their crops to the Lord.  It pointed forward to Christ in that He became the "First-fruits of them that slept."  (1 Cor. 15 :20, 23)  On the day of atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place of the sanctuary, and sprinkled the blood of a lamb before the ark of God to make an atonement for the sins of the people.  That this pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God, is indicated in Rom. 5:11.  ". . . Our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

By way of contrast let us now consider the weekly sabbath -- the sabbath of the fourth commandment.  "And God blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it BECAUSE in it he HAD RESTED from all his work which he had created and made."  At the sabbath's first mention it points BACKWARD to a completed task.  In the fourth commandment again a pointing backward is indicated: "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy GOD . . .  FOR in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

The sabbath is a memorial.  When we erect a memorial of some great statesman it POINTS BACKWARD reminding us of the life he lived for his country.  The inscription gives dates of the past, his birth and death, and perhaps a mention of some of his most famous deeds.  The sabbath is not a memorial of the dead but of the living, it is to turn our thoughts to him every time we REMEMBER that in six days he created the heavens and the earth.  The fourth is the only commandment that begins with the word REMEMBER.  The sabbath command is the only one that gives a reason for keeping it, the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

It has been shown conclusively that there are Old Testament teachings which are PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE under the new covenant.  (2 Tim. 3:15,16)  It has been proven that Col. 2:14-17 does not abolish all Old Testament commands even regarding eating and drinking for New Testament Christians.  (Acts 21 :25)  It not only does not abolish all commands in the respects listed in the text but SPECIFICALLY LIMITS ITSELF to those things pointing forward to Christ.

Thus the sabbath of the fourth commandment escapes the abolishment of Col. 2:14-17 on THREE COUNTS.

It has been argued that in the phrase "sabbath days" in Col. 2 :16, that the word "days" is in italics, and that the text should read, "Or of the sabbath."  Such an argument is merely a play on words and an insult to the intelligence of any scholarly audience.  The original Greek here is        .  The form is the genitive plural, and is translated literally, "or of sabbaths."  See any diaglott or analytical Greek lexicon.  THEREFORE, in no sense does the weekly sabbath find itself included under the items named abolished in Col. 2:14-17.

Now let us continue with our list of Old Testament forms of worship which are abolished in the New Testament.  CEREMONIAL WASHINGS AND ANIMAL SACRIFICES are mentioned specifically as no longer necessary.  (Heb. 9:10-14)  Also the SANCTUARY built on the plan given to Moses is called a figure of the true one in heaven, where Jesus now ministers as our high priest in this dispensation.  (Heb. 9:24, 8:1,2)

The teachings of the Bible are specific.  God does not leave his will for us to be learned by guesswork.  All Old Testament rules no longer binding under the old covenant are SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT in the New Testament.  Even such a minor ordinance as circumcision, we find discussed repeatedly, so that there will be no mistake.  The end of the priesthood, (Levitical) the end of ceremonial washings, the end of those things having to do with meats, drinks, holydays and sabbaths which were a shadow of things to come, the end of the sanctuary service, the end of animal sacrifices.

BUT WHERE in all this do we find the end of the SABBATH of the fourth commandment?   It is conspicuous by its absence.  ALL these minor details of worship are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.  Does it not follow that if the SABBATH was to have been abolished, it would have been MENTIONED?

God is not the author of confusion.  Can we accuse him now of being so inconsistent as to abolish the sabbath and not even REFER to it, with its honored place among the ten great rules graven in stone by the finger of God; and at the same time to take great space to enumerate all these OTHER things which did not even merit being included with the ten commandments?

WHERE IS IT???  I sincerely want to know.  I will still give $200 for a text stating when, where, and by whom the weekly sabbath was abolished.

What has been said of the sabbath is true of the OTHER COMMANDMENTS of the ten.  Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that the rule against idolatry, or graven images, or blasphemy, or dishonor to parents, or murder, or adultery, or theft, or false witness, or coveting is no longer to be observed.  While WHOLE CHAPTERS and BOOKS of the New Testament are given to discussing the items of the ceremonial law which are no longer in effect: WHY -- if the ten commandments were abolished -- is there not a single mention of the least item of these great principles being done away?

The absence of any New Testament evidence that the sabbath has been done away is a powerful argument for its continued existence.  Those who would put forward a new day for the veneration of Christians, must first show where the old came to an end.  This they are unable to do.

But how about its importance?  This is the next question that comes to our minds.  Suppose that it does exist as a forgotten law -- still in force on the statute books of God, but forgotten by man.  Is it important enough that he should turn against present day customs and usage, and order his life by the pure faith once delivered to the saints?

If this rule had been forgotten by all New Testament characters, we might well question its importance.  But the fact that we have INSTRUCTION in the NEW TESTAMENT on HOW TO KEEP IT indicates that the Lord did consider it important for the New Testament Christians.  In fact the sabbath comes in for more than its share of comment on how to keep it, compared with the amount of space given to the keeping of the other 9 commandments.

(1)  "It is lawful to do well on the sabbath days."

Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the sabbath, and justifies his deed with these words.  He also indicates that it is proper to act in cases of emergency to relieve suffering, by giving the example of the ox in the ditch.  (See Matt. 12:10-12)

(2)  It is proper to attend religious services.  "And Jesus . . . came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and AS HIS CUSTOM WAS, he went into the synagogue on the SABBATH DAY and stood up for to read."  (Luke 4:14-16)  "And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks."  (Acts 18:4).

(3)  "In it thou shalt not do any work."  (Ex. 20:8-11)  "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the sabbath day ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT."  (Luke 23:56)

(4)  In emergency it is proper to take measures to relieve our own hunger or discomfort on the sabbath.  "And at that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through a field of corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat."  Matt. 12:1.  That Jesus considered this to be an emergency is indicated by the fact that he justified this deed to the Pharisees by quoting another emergency, when David, fleeing for his life ate of the shewbread, which was for the priests only.  (Matt. 12:3, 4)

(5)  The day of preparation is for all work that can be taken care of before the sabbath.  (Luke 23:54)

(6)  It is proper to go out among the beauties of nature.  "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither."  (Acts 16:13)

It has been conclusively shown that there is no evidence that the weekly sabbath is abolished.  It has also become evident that the New Testament contains teaching on how to keep the sabbath.  It will now further indicate that the Bible "clearly teaches" that the sabbath is binding if we find that the ten commandments in whose very heart the sabbath rule is found, are binding on Christians under the new covenant.

A favorite text of those who would seek to show the ten commandments abolished is 2 Cor. 3:7, "But if the ministration of death, written and graven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.  For even that which was made glorious had no glory IN THIS RESPECT, by reason of the glory that excelleth.  For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished."  (2 Cor. 3:7-13)

All that this long scripture plainly claims abolished is the glory of Moses' face.  This was to be done away.  He covered it with a vail so that the people could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.  Some who are anxious to read into this that the law is done away, apparently would have us believe that because the passage ends with the word "abolished" therefore everything mentioned in the texts foregoing is abolished.  But the scripture DOES NOT SAY SO.  If we took this extreme view then the ministration of condemnation is abolished, in which case no one will be lost, everyone will be saved, John 3:16 is meaningless.  Paul's missionary journeys were not necessary, and the people who take the trouble to be religious today are going through a lot of useless motions.

The scripture DOES plainly state that the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones is not as glorious as the ministration of the spirit.  It further amplifies this truth by stating that if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

What is the purpose of this ministration of death and condemnation by the Law?   "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law: that EVERY MOUTH may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."  (Rom. 3:19)  The purpose of the law is to let us know that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."  (Rom. 3:23)  We must come to this place before we realize our need of a Savior.  This is how the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.  (Gal. 3:24)

"Do we then make void the law through faith?  God forbid: yea we establish the law."  Rom. 3 :31

The third chapter of 2 Corinthians, far from proving that we do not need to order our lives in harmony with the ten commandments, merely indicates the three steps in the Christian life, sometimes referred to as the three "R's" of Christianity.  They are: (1) Ruin by the fall.  (2) Redemption through the blood.  (3) Regeneration by the spirit.  The ministration of death has to do with the first "R."  After the sinner knows that he is under condemnation, THEN he comes to Christ for redemption (the 2nd "R").  And if the ministration of death was glorious is not the ministration of the spirit rather glorious?  After receiving forgiveness of sin he receives cleansing from sin the new birth, the regeneration of the spirit, (3rd "R") and if the ministration of condemnation was glorious is not the ministration of righteousness exceeding in glory?

Are we justified by the deeds of the law?  According to Rom. 3:19, 20 the law was given that every mouth may be stopped and ALL THE WORLD become guilty before God.  THEREFORE by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight."  Why?  Because everyone has broken it.  Paul is not making a rule, he is just stating a fact.  Simple, isn't it?  Everyone broke it, so naturally no one can be justified by keeping it.  NO ONE EVER HAS kept it except Jesus.

The purpose of the law is to show us our sins.  James compares the law to a mirror.  (Jas. 1 :23-25)  We look at it and it shows up the blemishes in our lives.  But will my face be clean if I smash the mirror to bits?  Not at all.  The mirror is to help me.  Neither will the enemies of the law clean up their sinful hearts by trying to show it abolished.  WE NEED IT.  The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

"For by the law is the knowledge of sin."  Rom. 3:20

"What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin (lawbreaking, 1 John 3:4) that grace may abound?  GOD FORBID.  How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"  (Rom. 6:1, 2)

Some law is binding on Christians since the death of Christ.  There is not one scrap of evidence in the New Testament proving that the ten commandments were abolished.  The Bible makes plain the forms of worship which were done away, but THE WHOLE TENOR of New Testament teaching is to uphold the ten commandments.  The Holy Spirit seems to exhaust human vocabulary, using comparison, and admonition, and precept and example and illustration to make these things plain.

Some law is binding on Christians in the new covenant.  Whatever law this is James says that every PART of it is binding.  We have found many parts of the ceremonial law not binding, so this could not be it.  THE ONLY LAW -- containing the commands against murder and adultery, of which NO PART is said to be abolished in the New Testament, is the TEN COMMANDMENTS.  "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.  FOR HE that said DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY said also DO NOT KILL."  Jas. 2:10-12

What law was binding on Christians in the time when James wrote his epistle?  There can be no doubt.  There is no question about it.  That law, which is Christ said He came not to destroy; that law, which Paul tells us is holy, just and good ; that law, which James tells us we will be judged by is none other than the ten commandments, graven in stone by the finger of God.

If the ten commandments are binding on Christians today, then the sabbath command of the fourth commandment is binding also.  If we break the sabbath we commit sin.  We are sinners and stand condemned, and the wages of sin is death.  (Rom. 6:23)

"TURN away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable . . ."  Isa. 58:13.

I am happy to enter this discussion with my friend, David Smith, who is endeavoring to prove that Christians under the new covenant must keep the sabbath of the law.  I appreciate being able to continue the discussion begun in the newspaper and to have this opportunity of delving deeper into this subject with my opponent.

While my friend failed to define the proposition I believe that it is clear enough in wording that there should be no question to its import.

My opponent, knowing that the sabbath is nowhere commanded under the new covenant, must resort to the old.  But this does him no good, affirming it is binding on Christians under the new covenant, unless he can prove that the old law is the new law or part thereof.  This he makes a feeble attempt to do.  However, all that is necessary to refute his assumption is to prove that the old law is done away.  If the old law is done away it is impossible for the affirmative to make it the authority in the new.  This I intend to do at this time, and at the same time showing its location historically in the scheme of redemption.

In contending for the observance of the sabbath day of Exodus 20, Adventists overlook the significance of history which is summarized by the apostle Paul in Galatians three.  This became apparent in our newspaper discussion which yet remains to be answered by David Smith.  Since this discussion is to include, according to our "agreement," the newspaper discussion, I shall not redevelop the points already made but will merely summarize and await Mr. Smith's reply.

Four hundred and thirty years before the law was given at Mount Sinai, God made the promise to Abraham, "In thee shall all nations be blessed . . .  He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."  (Gal. 3:8, 16)  At Sinai God made a covenant with the children of Israel, even the law.  It was in this law that the sabbath was given or made known: "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses thy servant."  (Deut. 9:13-14)   But this law "cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.   For if inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.  Wherefore then serveth the law?  It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; . . .  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."  (Gal. 3:17-25)

This history is too plain to be misunderstood even with expert help of Adventist teachers.  The law was "added . . . till" Christ should come.  Before he came, they "were kept under the law," but now that he "is come," we are no longer under the law!  This law, written and engraven in stones is abolished according to Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, the text satisfying the $200 offer.  In Col. 2:14 he says that Christ took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."  Rom. 6: 14 and Gal. 5:18, we "are not under the law."  Rom. 7:4, "ye also are become dead to the law."  Rom. 7:6, "we are delivered from the law."  Rom. 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law."  (Eph. 2:15)

The old law is done away; therefore, it could not be the new or in the new in whole or in part.  Smith is prone to think that if any principles of Old Testament law are contained in the New Testament they are there by virtue of Old Testament authority.  But not so!  When a new law is given, it may or may not contain some of the principles of the former law.  Just because some of the first's principles are adopted into the second, it does not obligate the legislature to place all of the first into the second, nor does it obligate those under the new law to keep the first law.  Let me illustrate.  This country at one time was under the law of England.   When we broke relationship with that country we severed responsibility to her law.   When our lawmakers drafted a new law, they placed some of the good principles of the English law in it.  But this did not obligate them to adopt the entire English law, nor did it obligate the freed people to continue observance of the old law.  When a law is abolished, it is abolished!  If any principle of the old law is to be in the new, it must be adopted therein.  This, of course, must be so stated in the new law.  Mr. Smith thinks that if any principles of the law of England are in the laws of the U.S., all of the English law must be kept unless they are "SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT" in the law of the U.S.  This is his argument with reference to the new covenant and the old.  Absurd.

My opponent needs to understand what a testament is.  Testament means "will" and "covenant."  (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, on diathaka, "testament".)   "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  For a testament is of force after men are dead  otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."  (Heb. 9:16-17)  Hence, the testament of Christ, or the New Testament, is the law that went forth after his death.  For a law to be binding on Christians under the new covenant, the law must be found in the new will.  Nothing is in a will unless so stated.  So with a covenant.  One may not add to the things mentioned and only the things mentioned are binding.  "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men  though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."  (Gal. 3:15)  Hence, if my Adventist friends would have Christians under the new covenant keep the sabbath they must find the new testament command.  Where in the will of Christ is a Christian commanded to keep the sabbath?   "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.  He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him."  (1 John 2:3-4)  "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.  For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation: which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him."  (Heb. 2:1-3)  The will of Christ which was at the first began to be spoken by the Lord was confirmed by them that heard him.  Therefore, under the new covenant we live according to His word as confirmed by the apostles.  (John 14: 26, 16:13)  If the sabbath is to be observed today we must find it commanded in the New Testament, not before it first began to be given.  If the sabbath is taught without such commandment the teacher transgresses the New Testament!  Such a teacher has not God nor Christ, and is a liar (John 9, 1 John 3:4)  Further, the apostle Paul wrote, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."  (Gal. 1:8-9)  My disputant must show us in the gospel that Paul preached the command to keep the sabbath or, in the language of Paul, "let him be accursed."

We are not under the law but under the new covenant!  (Heb. 8:6-13)  It is not enough to find the sabbath given in the law which has been done away.  Let us have the Adventists give the text commanding a Christian to keep the sabbath.

Now let us further investigate some of the claims made by Mr. Smith.  In trying to bring the Old Law into the New, as I have already pointed out, Mr. Smith assumes a rule that all the Old Testament is included in the New unless "SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT" not in it.  This is contrary to law, logic, and the scriptures as already shown.  I ask my opponent for the scripture teaching his rule.  It, like many other doctrines of the Adventists, is not to be found outside of Adventist theories and assumptions.  However, if Mr. Smith's rule were true it would not help him for in Col. 2:14-16 it is SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT to "let no man pass judgment on you in questions of a sabbath."  I'll have more to say of this presently.

The affirmative next makes a quibble on 2 Tim. 3:15-16.  Certainly the Old Testament is true and ought to be taught, for "all these things happened to them for ensamples; and they are for our admonition," "for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."  (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4)  This is far from saying that the Old Testament is written for our authority as Mr. Smith would like to imply.  Rather, Jesus is our "authority," "and hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."  (Matt. 28:18, 1 John 2:3).

Col. 2 :14-16 seems to bother my Adventist friends.  No wonder.  Here we have a command that SPECIFICALLY POINTS OUT that the sabbath along with the holyday and feasts be not observed.  "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."  The law having been abolished, "nailed to his cross," let no man judge you of the sabbath (which, after all, is a part of that law which has been abolished: therefore).  In 1 Chronicles 23:30-31, 2 Chronicles 2:4, 18:13, 31:3, Neh. 10:33, we have set forth the feasts as kept by the Jews.  In these references we have the services specified as morning and evening (being the daily service),  in  the sabbath (being the weekly service), the new moon (being the monthly service), the solemn or set feast (being the annual service as outlined in Leviticus 23).  The Jews observed feasts daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly.   Now notice Col. 2 :16: "Let no man judge you in meat or drink (daily), or in respect of an holyday (yearly), or of the new moon (monthly), or of the sabbath days (weekly)."  Hence, the weekly sabbath is SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT!

These are a shadow of things to come, therefore my friend reasons that the weekly sabbath could not be included as it was a memorial pointing back to creation.  My opponent then leads us to believe that the sabbath is a memorial for us, but he misses the boat.  I have shown him before, but he refuses to look, that the sabbath with all the law was given to the Jews: "Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations ...  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel."  (Ex. 31:13, 17)  Remember that the law (sabbath included) was "added . . . till" Christ came.  All these things were a shadow and must continue in force till the body, Christ should come.  Paul therefore says, "the body is of  Christ."  Evidently there was some effort being made to bind the disciples at Colosse under the law, forcing them to be circumcised and submit to the law.  Paul corrects this false teaching, saying that the law was ''nailed to the cross.''  The Christ had come and the law had served its purpose.  Therefore let no man judge you in the law which are a shadow of things to come, even Christ.   "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  And ye are complete in him," et cetera.  (Read verses 6-17)  Also consider Hebrews 4:3-11.

I noticed with particular interest Mr. Smith's comments: "It has been argued that in the phrase 'sabbath days' in Col. 2:16, that the word 'days' is in italics, and that the text should read, 'Or of the sabbath.'  Such an argument is merely a play on words and an insult to the intelligence of any scholarly audience."  Maybe my opponent will compliment the intelligence of this audience by telling us just what is the significance of the italicized word.  I shall eagerly await his answer.  Too, he might explain why some translations omit the word "days."  Again, since he has made reference to the Greek, maybe he will tell us the Greek word for "days" in Col. 2:16.

I was surprised to see David Smith bring up the $200 text again.  I was under the impression that he had had enough of "texts" and especially 2 Corinthians 3.  I attended his service at which time he advertised to "answer all doctrinal charges" made in the paper, but I failed to hear any mention of the text.  In fact, my opponent seems to have overlooked all of the scriptures discussed in the paper except two!  (We agreed on one all along.)  Now since he is bringing in 2 Corinthians 3, maybe he will answer the arguments made in the paper.

My friends would have us to believe that only the glory of the law was abolished but not the law itself.  And so he wants to bring an unglorious law into the new law!   But notice the eleventh verse (2 Corinthians 3): "For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."  To what does "that" refer?  If it refers to "glory" then we accuse Paul of unintelligent tautology and the glory of the law is not done away as stated ; hence, a contradiction.  But notice verses 7-8 "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious . . . how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?"  What was glorious?  "The ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious."  What happened to it?  "Is done away."  Notice that my friend has already admitted in the paper that this refers to the ten commandments!  The $200 that Mr. Smith and the Seventh-day Adventist Church have again offered ought to be forthcoming.  His honesty and the integrity of the SDA church are at stake.

Next our attention is called to Rom. 3 :31, ''Do we then made void the law through faith?"  The article is not found before ''law," but is found before "faith" hence, "Do we then make void law through THE faith?"  (See translation notes, Revised Version)  Do you mean to affirm, Mr. Smith, that every time law is mentioned that it refers to the law of Moses or the ten commandments?  And answer this: Does God have any law besides the ten commandments?

We are next given James 2:10-12 to prove (?) that the ten com- mandments are binding.   Has Mr. Smith ever noticed that in the eighth verse there is quoted a commandment not found in the ten? Does this mean that we are to keep all the law in which it is found? But James does not mention the sabbath commandment at all.  He did not say keep it.  He referred to the "law of liberty."  (v. 12)

All of the scriptures used to show the "importance" of the sabbath save one, refer to its observance before the New Covenant was established.  (Heb. 9:16-17)   The one quoted under the New Testament is Acts 16:13, "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made."  This says nothing of keeping the sabbath.  What my friend must find to sustain his contention is a command for Christians to keep the sabbath, or an example of a Christian who kept it under the new covenant.  To date my opponent has done neither.  His best has been to assume and flit through the archives of the Old Testament.  Our discussion is not whether or not the sabbath has ever been commanded or its importance to those to whom it was given.  Our proposition reads that Christians under the new covenant must keep the sabbath.  My opponent says, "Yes.''  Let's have the scripture!!!

I believe that this answers all arguments he has made in support of his proposition.  If anything has been overlooked, I ask that he call it to my attention.  I don't want to overlook anything.

I shall present some things more for Mr. Smith to consider now.  The sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel.  (Ex. 31:13, 17)  It then could not be binding on any other people than the Jews and those proselyted to the Jewish religion.   It could not continue in force longer than the Jews were the peculiar people of God.  Notice now : (1) None during the Jewish age could acceptably come to God except by identifying himself with God's sanctified.  (2) The sabbath was not in force previous to the giving of the Sinaitic law.  (3) It was never given to others than the Israelite people.  (4) It could not continue in force longer than the law of which it is a part is in force.  Paul said in Romans 3:19, "Now we know that what things soever the law says, it says to them that are under the law."   Therefore, if the sabbath was in force today without change, no Gentile as such would be bound to observe it.  Even the Seventh-day Adventist Churches that are made up of Gentiles would not be obligated to keep it.  It was not given to the Gentiles as such.

Furthermore, the law (including the sabbath commandment) was never intended to be permanent, nothing more than "added ... till" Christ should come fulfilling the promise.  This change from the covenant given at Sinai was frequently foretold by the prophets during the existence of the Sinaitic covenant.  Jeremiah foretold the change: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."  (Jer. 31:31-33)  This scripture is quoted in Hebrews 8:7-10 by the apostle Paul showing that the covenant containing the sabbath law was abolished in Christ.  Again, the abolishment is foretold by Jeremiah in 32:40 and 33:14.  Isaiah foretells the change in 55:3 and Ezekiel in 37:26.  Even the expressions regarding the sabbath show that it was limited to the Jewish age.  Exodus 31:16, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations."  This shows that it was not permanent.  You never read, "Thou shalt not kill throughout your generations."  Or, "The children of Israel shall not commit adultery throughout their generations."  Of course not!  But, "the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath . . . throughout their generations."  The expression shows that the sabbath was not to be permanent.  It was limited to the generation of Jews.  When they ceased to be the sanctified people of God, the law having been abolished, the sabbath was no longer binding.  It was done away with all the law.

Even after the death of Christ, after the law had been "nailed to the cross," men contended that the law should be kept (which included the sabbath).  From the very infancy of the church it was a subject of hot controversy, "Shall we keep the law?"  Some teachers of Judaic tendency insisted that Christians keep the law.   You remember that Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem that with the apostles and elders there they might reach a decision on the issue.  The apostle Peter on the occasion stood forth and related his experience in the conversion of the Gentiles of the house of Cornelius.  He concluded, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear?"  (Acts 15:10)  This yoke was the Sinaitic law.  Even David violated the sabbath and ate bread in the temple which was unlawful to do.  Have you not read that the priests profane the sabbath and are blameless?  They could not bear it.  Hence, the apostles, elders and brethren wrote letters to the churches saying, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment."

In practically every letter the apostle Paul wrote to the churches he spent much time and effort in the discussion of keeping the law.  To the church at Rome: 3:20, 7:4-7.  To the Corinthians: 2 Cor. 3:3-11.  To Galatia: 3:10-25.  To Ephesus: 2:14-15.  To the Colossians: 2:14-16.  To the Hebrews: 8:6-13, 10:28-29, 12:18-25.  Et cetera.  Of all topics discussed in the New Testament, none is so fully treated as the matter of keeping the law and none so repudiated by the weight of evidence as the modern doctrine commanding men to keep the sabbath.

I emphasize: Sabbath keeping is without New Testament authority.  I challenge any man to produce the text commanding a Christian to keep the sabbath!

In the newspaper, my opponent attempted to establish two laws at Sinai.  One he designated the ''Law  of God'' and the other "Handwriting of Ordinances.''   This line of argument he has since dropped, as well as other arguments made in the paper, unless he intends to develop it in his contention in James 2, but we will wait for that.  Before he has more to say along that line, I recall to him my newspaper reply, and ask, Where are the scriptures that say that the "ten commandments'' and the "rest of the law" are "two separate laws"?  If the Adventists be right in this contention (and they are not), then there are three laws: two at Sinai and one by promise in Christ make three.  But of course this is just not so.  There was only one covenant made at Sinai.  "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?  For  it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.  But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."  (Gal, 4:21-26)  Get it!  Paul says there are two Covenants -- Adventists affirm three.  Paul said there is "one from mount Sinai" -- Adventists say "two."   So Adventists hopelessly contradicts the Bible.  (And itself as I shall point out as the discussion progresses.)  But further: Agar, the bondwoman, is mount Sinai.  (v. 22, 25)  Now notice verses 30-5:1 --

One law was given at Sinai and we are free from it.  Notice, too, that Paul said the son of the bondwoman (law at mount Sinai) shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman (the law of liberty).  Yet, my opponent has endeavored to make ALL the law heir with the will of Christ except the parts "specifically pointed out" -- the very thing that Paul said should not be!

Rewording the proposition to affirm the truth, we have: "The Bible clearly teaches that the fourth commandment of the decalogue -- viz., 'Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy' -- is NOT binding on Christians under the new covenant."

The third paragraph of Mr. Frost's First Negative says, "My opponent, knowing that the sabbath is nowhere commanded under the new covenant, must resort to the old."  Here I have received credit for knowing something which I do not know.  If this is the case someone should enlighten me.

We read in the book of Hebrews about the new covenant, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been found for the second.  For finding fault with them he saith, "Behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ...  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND WRITE THEM IN THEIR HEARTS: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."  Heb. 8:7-10.

Far from failing to find the sabbath under the new covenant, I find that man's relation to the law of God is more intimate and personal under the new than it was under the old, "Not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."  (See 2 Cor. 3:3)

Also in paragraph 3 Mr. Frost states that it will be necessary for me to, "Prove that the old law is the new or part thereof."  This reference to the new law fills me with the greatest of curiosity.  What is it?  When was it given?  I read on in Mr. Frost's First Negative searching for clues as to its identity.

In paragraph 8 these words appear, "Hence the testament of Christ, or the New Testament, is the law that went forth after his death."  Here Mr. Frost indicates that a law went forth after Christ's death.  Perhaps this is the "new law" which means so much to him

But if so, where, when, and by whom was it given?  There is no question as to the essence and authorship of the ten commandments, proclaimed by God to the Israelites from Mt. Sinai amid heaven's thunder and smoke, and engraven by the finger of God in tables of stone for Moses to carry down from the mount.  There is no question as to the essence and authorship of the Sermon on the Mount, enunciated in beautiful simplicity by Jesus before the multitudes on the grassy hillside, and recorded by his disciple Matthew.  Nor is it difficult to find the disciple John's "new" commandment which is really just a restating of the old.  See 1 John 2 :7, "Brethren I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning . . ."  See also Lev. 19:18 . . ." Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

So now WHERE is the "new law" given, which according to Mr. Frost's arguments was given after the death of Christ, and which contains all of the ten commandments but the sabbath command?  "Surely if the ministration of death was glorious, shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?"  If the old law was given from a mountain top by the voice of God, with thunder and lightning, should not at least an equally noticeable manifestation be given at the presentation of the new?  Jesus said, "These things were not done in a corner."

A few random quotes from the Old Testament scattered here and there in the New, certainly will not suffice.  In fact these only serve to indicate that the Old Testament law was considered binding by New Testament writers or they would not have quoted from it.

We shall wait respectfully now for the chapter and verses containing the presentation of the "new law" en total.  We would also like to know when and by whom it was presented, with chapter and verse.  In paragraph 8 of his first negative Frost says, "Nothing is in a will unless so stated."  SO WILL HE FIND THE NEW LAW FOR US IN THE WILL OF CHRIST?

I will accept Mr. Frost's definition that a testament is a will.  "For a testament is of force after men are dead."  True.  If a wealthy uncle leaves you $5000 you do not get it until after his death.  It is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."  Even if the relatives sit around the dying man's bed like hungry vultures, the will, giving them the money, does not go into effect until the man dies.

But when was the will MADE?  It had to be made BEFORE the rich man died, or else no court in the land would hear it.  "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."  Gal. 3:15.  Christ's will was confirmed and went into effect at the time of his death.  To add anything to it later would be forgery of the basest sort.

Even if the Apostle Paul had added anything later -- which he didn't -- it would have been forgery.  "For other foundation can no man lay than that which IS LAID which is Jesus Christ.''  Therefore on the basis of whether it is a part of the last will and testament of Jesus Christ: Sunday observance was THREE DAYS TOO LATE ever to become a part of the Christian religion.  Even if the disciples had observed that first Sunday -- which they didn't -- Sunday observance would still have been three days too late to ever become a part of the will of Christ, because it was not written into the will of Christ before He died.

To fulfill the specifications necessary for a will -- the testament of Christ should have been given in the presence of witnesses BEFORE his death, and its provisions followed AFTER his death.  However as far as a new law, or revoking of the weekly sabbath, or the introduction of this Sunday business -- WHERE is it?  We do not find it given before Christ's death, neither do we find it observed by apostles after his death.  Neither Sunday-keeping nor Sabbath-breaking have a leg to stand on if they seek for it in the will of Christ.  There is not one scrap of Bible evidence to support such a contention.

In paragraph 3 again quoting Mr. Frost, ''However all that is necessary to refute his assumption is to prove that the old law is done away.  If the old law is done away it is impossible to make it the authority in the new."  Shall we not pause here for sober reflection?  A house of argument built upon these "if's" is worse than on a sandy foundation.  And about it being authority for the new.  Suppose there isn't any new?  Will not my most able opponent be embarrassed if he seeks to outline my task of proving that the old law is in the new law when there isn't any new?  Well, at any rate I shall be waiting word as to when, where, and by whom it was proclaimed.  Also for the context of this new law.

It has been requested that I present something as to the historical significance of the law.  Evidently the proofs presented in the newspaper article in which I answered the first challenge, were not deemed sufficient by my opponent.  I would like to request that the reader go over the points in that article, so that I will not have to repeat them here.  This will allow me space to provide the following additional proofs.

"Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gave them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses thy servant."  Neh. 9 :13-I4.

Those of the Campbellite persuasion seek here to place great emphasis on the two words "Madest Known."  They feel that this indicates that no sabbath law was in existence prior to Sinai.  And they conclude that it was a temporary provision for the benefit of Jews only, rather than for the whole human race for all time.

In Ezekiel 20:5 we find these words: "And made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt."  Does that mean that before he made Himself known to the Hebrews in the land of Egypt God had no existence?  It is just as reasonable as to conclude from the other "madest known" phrase above, that before Sinai the sabbath had no existence.

The argument is also advanced that Sabbath observance is not specifically mentioned until Exodus 16.  Therefore it was not kept before that time.  Exodus 16 is 1 month before the Law given on Mt. Sinai as recorded in Exodus 20.  In the book of Acts there is no record of meeting to break bread after Pentecost until the one mentioned in Acts 20.  Therefore according to this kind of reasoning there was no meeting to celebrate the communion for a space of about 27 years.

Jesus himself overthrows the argument that the sabbath did not exist before Sinai, with the statement, "The sabbath was made for man."  Mark 2 :27.  We read in Genesis 2:7 that Adam was a man.  We read in Genesis 2:1-3 the record of the creation of the sabbath.

The law of the ten commandments existed before sin came into the world.  If there had been no law there could have been no sin.  "For where no law is there is no transgression."  Rom. 4:15.  "Sin is not imputed when there is no law."  Rom. 5:13.  "Sin is the transgression of the law."  John 3:4.  The law is the agency which points out sin, "For by the law is the knowledge of sin."  Rom. 3:20.  What law gives this knowledge of sin?   Paul answers, "Nay I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet."  Rom. 7:7.  What law contains the commandment against coveting?  It is the ten commandments.  James tells us that if we break one of those commandments we break all.  James 2:10-12.

It has also been alleged by my opponent in a previous statement that no Gentile was ever commanded to keep the sabbath.  In Isaiah 56:2, 6, 7 we read, "Blessed is the man that doeth this and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing evil . . . also the son of the stranger [foreigners, A.R.V.] that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer."

This is speaking of strangers -- gentiles -- not those that join themselves to the Jews, but those that join themselves to the Lord.  Well here is the text.  Also in Acts 13:42, 44 and 17:1-4, and 18:4, 11 we have specific instances of Gentiles observing the sabbath in New Testament times.  The next question is, "If we are honest what shall we do about it?''

Which law was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made?  There was obviously more than one law given in the Old Testament, because God said, "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."  That there was a law in existence before sin entered, and that that law was the ten commandments,  I have already shown with proof texts.

Now what law is it that came later, which was added because of transgression?   This is the ceremonial law.  That this is a separate law is indicated in Lev, 7:1, "Likewise THIS IS THE LAW of the trespass offering: it is most holy."  See also verse 11, "AND THIS IS THE LAW of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the Lord."  See also verse 37, "THIS IS THE LAW of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings."  Compare this with the law of Col. 2:14-17 for a striking identification of the handwriting of ordinances! Part of this law said that a lamb or other animal must be sacrificed when man confessed his sins.  We find this law in effect very soon after sin entered.  God commanded Cain and Abel to offer a lamb as a sacrifice.

The sacrifice system, added because of transgression, continued until the promised seed should come.  When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming down to the water where he was preaching, he announced the fulfillment of all these ceremonies which pointed forward to Christ.  He said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world."  When Christ died on Calvary He cried, "It is finished" and an unseen hand tore the veil in the temple from top to bottom.  Matt. 27:50,51.

This veil separated the holy from the "most holy" place in the temple.  Only the high priest could go into this most holy place, and then only once a year on the day of atonement.  The rending of the veil indicated that these things all pointed forward to the true sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and that at the time of his death the most holy place came to an end of its usefulness.

We read in Daniel 9:26, 27, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself . . .  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease."

However much of Daniel's book might be difficult for the average reader to understand, this much is beyond cavil, that Messiah was to be cut off, but not for himself, and that he was to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

The apostle Paul enunciates the same truth in Col. 2:11, 16, 17.

Notice carefully the following:

Compare this verse 37 with Col. 2:16, and we find it quoted almost word for word.  Here the book of Leviticus mentions these things BESIDE the sabbaths of the Lord and offerings as if they are two separate commands!  We find the type of sabbath which will be feasts illustrated in the next verse, Lev. 23:39 --

Mr. Frost's contention that holyday represents yearly, new moon represents monthly, and sabbath days represents the weekly sabbath, is partially true but not all true.  Note Leviticus 25 :8.  "And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of YEARS unto thee, seven times seven years, and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years."  Far, far from the word "Sabbaths" referring only to the weekly rest day, we find it here referring to SEVEN YEAR PERIODS!  Which means that Mr. Frost's contention that the weekly sabbath is pointed out in Col. 2:14-17 is based on a faulty premise and cannot be true.  Also, I would like to ask my opponent what future event the weekly sabbath is a shadow of, if it is a shadow of thing to come.

This ceremonial system was filled with many sabbaths and holy days which came on monthly dates, and commemorated feasts and ceremonies which pointed forward to Christ.  Many types of food and drink offerings were included in the ceremonial system.  That "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink" applies only to these things which were shadows of things to come, is proven by the fact that the Apostolic council warned us against Blood and things strangled, and that Paul states that a drunkard shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The ten commandment law cannot be confused with this handwriting of ordinances.  They are two separate and distinct laws.  Note the following comparison:
 
 

Mr. Frost has tempted me to use valuable space to repeat a comparison of the moral and ceremonial laws, by accusing me of abandoning this line of argument.  I have fallen for this seduction in the hope that a second look at the truth might help to clear the cobwebs of confusion from his mind.  He makes a cavil as to the number of laws in existence.  There are certainly more than two.  The civil law of Israel would make a third.  The purpose of this comparison is to indicate that Paul MUST be talking about at least two different laws or else he clearly contradicts himself.  If he is then we cannot take what he says about one law and apply it to the other one.

Seeking to add confusion to the plain truth about the covenants, Mr. Frost raises a question as to how many covenants there are in the Bible.  He states with great assurance that Adventists maintain that there are three.  Well there are three, but there are also more than three.  Even a most superficial reading of the Bible indicates many covenants.

A few are God's covenant with Noah, that he would not destroy the earth with a flood.   His covenant with Abraham, that in his seed would all nations of the earth be blessed.  His covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, his covenant with David that the rulers on the throne would be of his seed until Messiah should come.

Friend Frost also wastes space on "Smith's" rule that things in the Bible which we are to follow should be specifically pointed out.  He wants chapter and verse for this which any child should know without being told.  But if it will help any, how about Deut. 29:29?  "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED belong to us and to our children forever."

The comparison presented by my opponent as regards the laws of England, and the United States is irrelevant, and makes no point at all.  Mr. Frost states that, "When we broke relationship with that country, we severed responsibility to her law."

There is no indication in Scripture of this type of break with the true Jews, or with the ten commandments.  Paul tells us, "If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Rev. 3 :9 states that those who say they are Jews but are not, will have to kneel before the feet of the members of the Christian Philadelphian church.  Paul tells us that the new covenant will be made with the "House of Israel."  Heb. 8:8-10   Is not cutting ourselves off from the house of Israel and from God's ten commandment law, cutting us off also from the benefits of the new covenant promises?  Paul in Rom. 11 presents the Gentiles as being grafted into the Israelite tree.  And in verse 21, we have this warning, "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee."

God's covenant is an everlasting covenant.  Heb. 13:20.  He tells us in Ps. 89:34, "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."  It is impossible for God to lie.  Heb. 6:18.  God confirmed his covenant by an oath.  Heb. 6:13, 17.

In verse 13 we are told that God sware unto Abraham.  In making his covenant with Abraham, we read that the Lord and Abraham each passed between the cut carcasses of animals in confirming the oath.  This was a custom of those times to indicate that the person making it would die before he should change or break the covenant.

Surely in all these texts there is sufficient evidence for anyone, that God did not and will not change or abolish HIS covenant.  Now WHOSE COVENANT is it that has been abolished?

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon BETTER PROMISES."  Heb. 8:6.  Whose promises were at fault?  The covenant was a contract or agreement between God and Israel.  Surely God's promises were not at fault.  It is impossible for God to lie.

Then whose promises WERE at fault?  Israel's of course.  And we read this in verse 8 of the same chapter.  "For finding fault with THEM he saith, behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL and with the HOUSE OF JUDAH."

What was this promise which the Jews failed to keep which necessitated the drawing up of a new contract or covenant?

Now, which are the BETTER PROMISES upon which the new covenant is based?

The fault of the old covenant is that it was based upon the people's promises.  The contract became of no effect, when they broke them.  "Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not saith the Lord."  Heb. 8 :9.  Last Part.

God has never changed His part of the agreement.  He merely wishes the people to enter into covenant relationship with him again.  And this time, instead of being based upon the people's promises to keep his law, it will be based upon his promise to write it in our hearts.  He will enter into this covenant with us as soon as he forgives our sins.  Rom. 11 :27.  Herein we will find perfection in Christ.

Every one that has ever been saved, Old Testament or New, has been saved under the NEW COVENANT provisions.  We read about the old in Heb. 8:7 and 7:19 indicating that it had faults, and that it made nothing perfect.  The new covenant was also recorded in the Old Testament.  See Jeremiah 31 :31-33.

Those saved in Old Testament times were saved by FAITH.  Read the 11th chapter of Hebrews.  David the Psalmist was saved by GRACE.  Read Rom. 4:6 also 4:13,

Jesus said, "Search the Scriptures (What Scriptures?  New Testament was not yet written) and they which testify of me."  John 5:39.  Also in Luke 24:44-48 Jesus mentions things in the Old Testament which were written concerning him.  Acts 8 :34-37: Philip preached from Old Testament scriptures (Isa. 53) to the eunuch, and then baptized him.

Let me ask, where do our anti-sabbatarian friends go for doctrine?  2 Tim. 2:15-17 says that ALL Scripture is profitable for DOCTRINE.  While referring specifically to Old Testament Scriptures (See verse 15) Paul in verse 16 dogmatically includes all.  He doesn't say for ensamples only he says for DOCTRINE.

It is that spirit of antichrist which will, "Seek to change times and the law."  Dan. 7:25.  Shall we not return to the pure faith once given to the saints, and have the Bible and the Bible only as our rule of faith and practice?

Argument often does not help us as we seek to learn new truths because of the spirit of strife that is so easily engendered.  But
I would plead with my brethren of all anti-sabbath persuasions
to examine this and all other evidence on the topic prayerfully.
Be willing to do His will no matter what it might be, or what inconvenience it might cause, and in the end you will understand
it the way Christ would have you, for "If any man will do his will,
he shall know of the doctrine . . ."  John 7:17.

I rejoice to have this discussion continue.  My good opponent has had over seven months in which to prepare his second affirmative article and to deal with my first reply.  I am happy that he has had time to consult the ablest supporters of Adventism and to otherwise thoroughly inform himself of the Adventist cause, in that when this discussion is completed it cannot be said that this effort does not fully represent Adventist doctrine.  Therefore, the weakness of his effort does not reflect on his ability or preparation, but lies in the falsity of the proposition that he affirms.

With all the time at his command, I regret that he should overlook much of my reply and continue his affirmative in many instances as if I had never spoken.

Nevertheless, I shall take up his arguments and examine them.

David Smith endeavored in his first affirmative to prove that all of the Old Testament is binding as part of the New unless "specifically pointed out."  In his second affirmative article he tries again to establish this rule, for he says that Old Testament quotes "serve to indicate that the Old Testament law was considered binding by New Testament writers."  I just wonder if he'll accept his own statement.    If all of the Old Testament quoted in the new establishes the authority of the same in the New Testament, then he will have what he calls the "ceremonial law" as New Testament authority.  My friend is in hopeless contradiction with himself.  Anyway, I answered this argument, saying,

I then presented conclusive arguments that the Old Testament has been done away, to which Mr. Smith has made no reply.  These arguments remain untouched and stand as a barrier against Adventism.

My friend assumes that all of the Old Testament is the New Testament "unless specifically pointed out" as not being in the New.  He is evidently confused by the adjectives "old" and "new."  Ask him for a New Testament command and he runs to the Old and cries, ''That's new !''  Assumptions will not do.  So I asked David Smith for his "rule" that everything is IN except what is pointed OUT.  He gives us Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever.'' Since his ''rule'' is not a REVEALED thing (that is, not in God's Word) it must be one of the SECRET things of God.  Well, it is no longer a secret -- Smith has told it.  I am wondering, "How did you discover this secret rule of God, Mr. Smith?"  This sort of thing has every indication that the Adventists have a new prophet!  First, Ellen White, the celebrated prophet of Adventism, "entered" heaven and received her sabbath message.  Now, David Smith has learned a SECRET thing of God.  "Did you 'enter' heaven to learn this 'rule,' Mr. Smith?"  This is most interesting.  Tell us more.

With reference to Hebrews 8, my opponent begs that it is the same Old Testament law, the same ten commandments and all, given at Sinai, but given differently is all.  His point is that the covenant is the same, just given differently.  Throughout, he denies that anything is "new" about the covenant.  Well, let's see about that.  Mr. Smith in his quotation jumped from verse 8 to verse 10.  Let us supply the missing ninth verse that completely upsets his argument: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: NOT according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt."  God said that this new covenant is NOT according to the Sinaitic covenant.  David Smith says that it is the same one!   Who is right about the matter, God or Smith? (Rom. 3:4)  Toward the last of his article, he argues that God's covenant is not new, only their agreement is new.   But we notice in verse 9 which Mr. Smith overlooked that God did not refer to their agreement which they made with him, but to the covenant which He made with them.  It was the covenant that God made that was done away.  In Exodus 19 :5.  God said: "If ye will ... keep my covenant."  He did not say, "If you will keep your agreement."  God said that they broke his covenant, not just their agreement.  (Heb. 8:9)  So it is a "new covenant" that God has given, not merely a new agreement.  Now what was this covenant God made? Deuteronomy 4:13 says that the Lord "declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments: and he wrote them upon tables of stone."  This covenant, even the ten commandments written upon tables of stone, Israel broke and God took away.  (Heb. 8, 2 Cor. 3:7-11)  Hebrews 8 stands in spite of my opponent's attempt to remove it.  It stands an impassable barrier to Adventism!

My friend Smith gets all excited when I speak of a ''new'' law.  Adventists have been under the impression that without the old Mosaic law there can be no "law and order."  But they are wrong about that, too.

As I have pointed out, some disciples were of Judaistic tendency, as my friend Smith is, and desired to be "under the law."  This matter came to the attention of the apostles and brethren and was discussed.  Peter said, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"  The brethren concluded, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment."  (Acts 15:10, 24)  The law was a law of bondage.  (Gal. 4:24)  The law was nailed to the cross: therefore, we are freed from bondage.  Col. 2:14)  Now notice: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."  (Gal. 5:1)  Those that were under the law were judged by the law of bondage.  (Rom. 2:12)  But we are not judged by the law of bondage, it having been nailed to the cross, but by the words of Christ, the law of liberty.  (John 12:48, James 2:12)

Adventists ask the question: "Are we free to commit crime since the cross?"  Of course not.  Now get it:

The law has served its purpose.  (Gal. 3:17-25)  Christ has come, given us the words of life, died upon the cross, and fulfilled the law.  Now we are directed in all our worship by the New Testament.  (Heb. 8:6-13)

My arguments still stand untouched.

David Smith cannot understand how that a law given amid heaven's thunder and smoke" could be done away or how a better law with better promises could be given.  The Bible was given to instruct men just like my friend Smith.  Hear the Word of God:

Let me answer Mr. Smith's question in particular.  "So WHERE is the 'new law' given . . .?"  In the new covenant: that was revealed to and reported by the apostles as written and practiced in the New Testament.  (1 Pet. 1 :12, John 16:13, Eph. 3:3, Jude 3)

David Smith says that the will "had to be made BEFORE" death.  How much before?  Can a man 's will be made before he is born?  Yet, Adventists would have the old Testament, given 1500 years before, the "will" of Christ.  Please, Mr. Smith, notice Hebrews 2 which thus far you have ignored: "which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord."  The will of Christ was at the first spoken, and after his death went into effect being "confirmed unto us by them that heard him."  (1 Pet. 1:12, Luke 24:48)  Again I will ask Mr. Smith   Where is the New Testament command for a Christian to keep the sabbath?"   Find it anywhere in the will of Christ.  It is not there -- "Oh, but it is in the Old Testament."  We are not under the OLD.  Where is the command in the NEW?  It is not there -- the Adventist church is not there -- Adventist doctrine is not there!

Noticing the statement, "Christ's will was confirmed and went into effect at the time of his death.  To add anything to it later would be forgery of the basest sort."  I ask, Are the writings of the apostles a part of the New Testament?   Are they guilty of forgery?  Do they speak the truth?  Take hold of these questions and answer them in the light of your argument.

I do not know what David Smith could mean by "Sunday-keeping."  If he means worshipping, such as taking of the Lord's Supper, on Sunday, then he is far from correct in his statement concerning it.  He, himself, gives the reference and affirms the fact of Acts 20:7.  Throughout this discussion we have had Smith versus the Bible, and now we have Smith versus Smith !  His terminology ''sabbath-breaking'' is improper for how can one "break" an observance no where commanded ?  While on the subject, let me ask, how is one supposed to ''keep'' the sabbath, today ?

Smith refers to Genesis 2.  I have already answered his assumption.  As if I had never spoken, he continues, "If there had been no law there could have been no sin."  So, he assumes that there must have been ten in the beginning.   Every time law is mentioned, except where it says it is "done away," Smith assumes it means the ten commandments.  Tell us, Mr. Smith, the stated command that Adam broke whereby he should die.  (Gen. 2:16-17)  And answer this, If man breaks any stated command of God other than the decalogue, is he guilty, or only if he breaks the ten?

Now we pass to the sabbath and the Gentiles.  I made the argument that whatever the law says, it says to them that are under the law.  The law was given to the children of Israel and not to the Gentiles.  (1 Kings 8:21, Rom. 2:14)   Therefore, the Gentiles as such are not bound to the law or to observe the sabbath.  Without noticing my argument, Smith advances Isa. 56 :2-7 in the affirmative.  Let him tell us why the Gentiles are called "strangers" and he'll answer his own argument.  "Strangers" to what?  Those that embraced the Mosaic covenant, that is, became proselytes, of course were obligated to keep the law they were under.  Where is the command for a Gentile as such to keep the sabbath?  As for Acts 13, 17, and 18 being examples of Gentiles observing the sabbath in the New Testament, "Mr. Smith, have you ever preached on Sunday ?  Did this make you and your audience 'Sunday-keepers'?''

On Col. 2:14-16 my arguments stand untouched.  I am waiting for Mr. Smith to answer the questions I asked in my first article.  He will have enough of Col. 2 before this discussion is concluded.

Next my opponent tries to establish three laws at Sinai : moral, ceremonial, and civil.  He presents a chart that he supposes does just that.  Nevertheless, charts cannot replace scripture.  I answered his chart in the newspaper and it remains untouched.  But we'll look at it again.  In the newspaper he tried to establish "two laws" at Sinai: a "moral law" which he also calls the "law of God," and a "ceremonial law" which he also calls "handwriting of ordinances."  He makes a distinction that God does not make.  Smith speaks of the "Law of God" in contrast to the "Ceremonial Law" which they (Adventists) sometimes call the "Law of Moses."  But notice.  The Bible teaches that they are one and the same law, and uses the expressions interchangeably.

The Bible teaches that God gave the law of Moses, and that Moses gave the law of God, that is, the whole law given by Moses was by God's authority.

Of course, this was in the newspaper.  Why hasn't David Smith tried to remove this barrier to his theory?  He is afraid to take hold of it.  His assumption that "two" or "three" laws given at Sinai is in vain.   I have asked for the scripture and have received nothing but silence.  The apostle Paul states in Gal. 4 that there was only  "ONE covenant" from Sinai, the law.  Mr. Smith says there were "three."  He accuses me of adding ''confusion to the plain truth."  Now look who is adding confusion -- let the Adventists clear it up for us.  I said that Adventists teach that "two" laws were given at Sinai.  Mr. Smith clears this up and says, not two, but THREE!  Now I see.  It is not a bit confusing to see that when Paul said ONE at Sinai, he meant THREE!  See how Adventists clear away the ''confusion'' ?

I want my opponent to clear this up for us.  Where does he read of "two, or THREE" laws at Sinai?  We read nothing of a ''moral law,'' and nothing of a ''ceremonial law"; yet, these expressions are a large part of the Adventist vocabulary.  Moses spoke only of "the law"; the prophets spoke only of "the law"; the Lord spoke only of "the law"; Paul spoke only of "the law"; "the law" is found fifty-one times in the book of Romans, twenty-nine times in the book of Galatians, but "the laws" not once in all the Bible!

We have noticed that our champion of Adventism assumes the major premise in almost every point he undertakes.  I am ready to ask, do the Adventists know that their assumptions are infallibly correct?  Did not their leaders think themselves correct when predicting the coming of Christ in 1843 and again in 1844?  Yes, but they failed both times.  Is there any assurance that their assumptions now are any more correct than they were then?  For this reason, I will not accept assumptions, but demand of Mr. Smith scripture for all that he advances.  He talks of a "ceremonial law,'' of a ''moral law,'' of "laws'' at Sinai, et cetera.  Just to assume will not be sufficient in this discussion, but ''if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God."  (1 Pet. 4:11)  In the New Testament we have ''preach the gospel'' fifty times, "preach Christ" twenty-three times, "preach the word" seventeen times, "preach the kingdom" eight times, but "preach the law" or "preach the sabbath" not once!  Adventists are constantly preaching the sabbath, while Paul in all his epistles mentions it but once, Col. 2:16, and then condemns it!