Is it not common knowledge that when Christianity began in the world the people of that day, both Jews and Greeks, had much to say about its being a new doctrine? When Christ rebuked an evil spirit, commanding it to come out of a man, the people "were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this?" mark 1:27. When Paul came to Athens and began to preach Christianity, the people inquired, "May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?" Acts 17:19. Various other passages might be given, showing that the teachings of Christianity were considered new and strange.
Come down to the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Who does not know that the most common argument against the Reformers was that their teachings were new? The argument was about in the form of the objection we are considering: If what you Reformers say is true, how is it that these doctrines were not discovered before?
But did such charges against Christ and the apostles and the Reformers prove that their teachings were not of God? No. Doctrines must be judged by a different standard from that.
But what of this charge of newness made against Christianity and the Reformation? When Christ or His disciples were confronted with the charge, they always denied it, declaring that they did not preach new, strange doctrines, but that, on the contrary, as Paul affirmed, they preached "none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come." Acts 2622. When the charge was made against the Reformers, they proceeded to show from the Bible that the doctrines they preached were not new but very ancient. And, further, they could show that all down through the centuries there had been a few faithful children of God who had known and preached those doctrines.
As we read history we still marvel at the charges made against Christ and the Reformers, and wonder why men should have been so slow to discern truths that now seem so evident. But the fact that they were so slow is an indictment of them and not of the doctrines they failed to see.
The relation of these facts to the question before us is clear. With Christ and the disciples and the Reformers we would say that the sabbath doctrine is not new; it is as old as creation, and has been known and kept by godly men through a ll the centuries. Granted that this Sabbath truth was almost completely suppressed for centuries, and did not burst forth again until relatively modern times, is it not a fact that the truth of righteousness by faith was almost wholly lost for more than a thousand years, and did not burst forth again until the sixteenth century?
Now a word as to why more "leading men" do not believe this Sabbath truth. What of the "leading men" in the days of Christ, and of the Reformation? Who does not know that it was "the common people" who heard Christ gladly; that His disciples were ordinary people, such as fishermen? And who does not know that the "bigmen" of Christ's time endeavored to argue people out of accepting Christ by inquiring, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" John 7:48. What was it that Paul declared to the early believers? "Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." 1 Cor. 1:26. And in Luther's day what about all the "leading men"? All the church dignitaries were spending their time trying to catch him to burn him.
True, we believe that God has among the so-called "big men" many honest hearts, and that from their ranks will finally be drawn strong believers in the Sabbath. But though none such should accept, the seventh day would still be the Sabbath of the Lord, for no man is big enough to change God's commandments.
Answers to Objections, Francis D. Nichols, pg. 253-254 |