Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
14 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Seventh Day Adventism Renouned, October 17, 2003
Excellent exposure of the doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist Church written by an insider who was a debater for them for a number of years.
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bitter, Falsified and Confused, May 10, 2008
D. M. Canright's 1889 publication, "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" is the platform all modern critics of Adventism stand upon. Unfortunately, like other works that have followed, it's filled with falsified information. If this is what so many are eager to give glowing praise, an examination is in order. Let's compare just a few renunciations posed against Seventh-day Adventism, then see if they are sound or unsubstantiated.
What did Mr. Canright have to say regarding God's moral Ten Commandments law, and does it stand up to historic Christianity?
D.M. Canright: "Now, under Christ, we are delivered from the law; the law is dead." Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 331
"The letter of the law is not binding upon Christians as a coercive code." Ibid., p. 330.
"We have something better than the decalogue." Ibid., p. 355.
That was the converted to Baptist minister Canright in 1889. But only 3 years prior while still an Adventist we quote:
"Thus we see that whenever the ten commandments are mentioned, or any one of them, either by Jesus or His apostles, they are always praised, exalted, and enforced. That law is held up as the standard of life, the test of character, and the rule of judgement." The Two Laws (1886) p. 97.
Now the historic Protestant Christian point-of-view. See which Canright was more on track.
John Calvin(regarded as the father of Presbyterianism, and indirectly of Calvinistic Baptists): "We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must therefore be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform." Calvin's Comment on Matthew 5:17 and Luke 16:17, in Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels, vol. 1, p. 277.
D.L. Moody(often quoted by Canright himself): "The law that was given at Sinai has lost none of its solemnity. Time cannot wear out its authority or the fact of its authorship.... I HAVE NEVER MET AN HONEST MAN THAT FOUND FAULT WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS." Weighed and Wanting, p. 11. Emphasis mine.
Charles H. Spurgeon(well known fellow Baptist preacher and contemporary of Mr. Canright): "The law of God must be perpetual. There is no abrogation of it, nor amendment of it. It is not to be toned down or adjusted to our fallen condition; but every one of the Lord's righteous judgements abideth forever.... To show that He never meant to abrogate the law, our Lord Jesus has embodied all its commands in His own life." From a sermon preached in 1898 in London, England; widely published and first appearing in Australia in the Melbourne Age.
Dr. Albert Barnes: "We learn hence: 1. That all the law of God is binding on Christians. Compare James 2:10. 2. That all the commands of God should be preached in their proper place, by Christian ministers. 3. That they who pretend that there are any laws of God so small that they need not obey them, are unworthy of His kingdom. And 4. That true piety has respect to all the commandments of God. Compare Ps. 119:6." Rev. Albert Barnes, Commentary (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1868), note on Matthew 5:19.
John Wesley: "The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to the children of Israel, containing all the injunctions and ordinances which related to the old sacrifices and service of the temple, our Lord indeed did come to destroy, to dissolve, and utterly abolish. To this bear all the apostles witness.... This 'handwritting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. [Col. 2:14.]
"But the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which 'stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven.' The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law.... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages; as not depending either on time, or place, or any other circumstance liable to change; but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other." Sermons on.Several Occasions (New York: Waugh & Mason, 1836), vol. 1, pp. 221, 222.
Not convinced yet as to which Canright, Adventist or Baptist, was more in line with historic Protestant Christian thinking on the law and the Sabbath? Let's quote a few more sources.
Jesus: "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18, 19. KJV
How about Weymouth's translation of the same text:
"Solemly I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the law until all has taken place. Whoever therefore breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to break them, will be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens." The New Testament in Modern Speech.
Can Adventists be considered at fault for continuing to teach what the Bible, and historic Christianity considers still binding upon us? Doesn't the charge of Canright's "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" on page 59, now sound groundless about Adventism? That "it leads to infidelity." Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Adventism "leads to infidelity" because they teach man's duty to keep, not break the moral law of ten commandments? Something Mr. Canright turned Baptist advocated, along with many reviewers of this book. Does that even stand up to sound reasoning? Maybe it's just that one commandment most churches refuse to accept; the "hated" seventh-day Sabbath.
But remember those highly regarded Protestant men of faith we just quoted above? Their words seem to be totally inclusive of the Sabbath as well, since it is right smack in the midst of the other ten. Let's quote another source on just that particular commandment.
Martin Luther(considered the prince of the Reformation movement): "God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath. This He has not done with any other creature. For heaven and earth or any other creature has He not sanctified to Himself; but only the seventh day. The significance of this is especially that we should learn from it to understand that the seventh day is particularly suited for and ought to be used for divine worship. For that is called sanctified, which is separated from all other creatures and dedicated to God. To sanctify is to select to holy use or divine worship, an expression often used by Moses, for instance when he speaks of holy vessels.
"It is evident from this text, that even though Adam had stood the test and had remained in his innocency, he would still have kept the seventh day.
"And, even though man by sin has lost his perception of God, yet God has willed that the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath should remain, and has willed that man on the seventh day should practice and inculcate the word and worship of God." Dr. Martin Luther's Copious Exposition on Genesis, translated according to the German Text in Walch's Edition by F.W. Bugge, vol. 1, pp. 62, 63.
Of course many would now make Canright the greatest scholarly commentator and expositor on the Sabbath, even more so than the above quoted Christian leaders. This is how it would appear from the many favorable reviews of his book. Look once more, as we quote the before and after Canright; Seventh-day Adventist/Baptist. And remember, these two works of his where only written a mere 3 years apart from one another.
Canright(Adventist): "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, 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." The Two Laws, p. 120.
Canright(Baptist): "Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned in the whole New Testament." Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 267.
And I wish we could go on, but space will not permit me for we've only scratched the service of Mr. Canright's false statements and accusations. We haven't even touched upon his attacks toward Ellen G. White and such claims found on pages 74 and 75, like falsely accusing us of not believeing in the divinity of Christ, the existence of the devil, baptism or organization? And in his very own deceitful words: "Gracious! And these are the people sent with a 'message' to warn the church!"
Don't you see the smokescreen? Don't you perceive the level some critics will stoop to out of bitterness to deceive many? But I recommend to you all sincere seekers of truth W.H. Branson's "In Defense of the Faith" available here on amazon.com, and reviewed by me personally. First published in 1933 as a rebuttal to "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced," it exposes the 1889 edition thoroughly. Then after reading, see what you think of Canright's work then. And while you're at it, check-out Francis D. Nichol's "Ellen G. White and Her Critics" to see how the same recycled arguments still circulating today, were soundly answered over a half century ago. But there will be those "ex-Adventists" mocking even the evidence given today, since Canright seems to be the shaky foundation on which they stand. And since they are so quick to recommend "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" to all Adventists, I'm taking the challenge one step further. Why not read Canright, then in fairness Branson and Nichol for everyone to get the full scope?
God Bless, and may the most sound arguments be given their full due.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
A must read for every adventist, June 10, 2009
First of all I must say that I was a seventh day adventist of 4th generation from the island of Cuba. I read Canright, every single book he published and concluded that he was right. Adventist and EGW did teach the shut door doctrine from 1844 to 1851 and I would like to give the following quotations: The present truth is the sabbath and the shut door-Joseph Bates; the sinners have no advocate...after 1844-James White; The shut door that we have had; God has taught and taught-EGW.
If the present truth is the sabbath and the shut door then go ahead and find out what the first paper of seventh day adventism The Present Truth says; I really believe that that paper was the work of the devil; seventh day adventist believed and published that they were the only ones going to be saved and no other chance of new converts would be possible.
Also it is true that they believed that "the seal of the living God, the sabbath" was only for 144000 and they were looking for them between 1844 and 1851 because under their theory the bridegroom had come in 1844 and Christ would come in 1851. All those writings were hidden and edited.
Any one looking for the truth about seventh day adventism can investigate for himself, read The Present Truth and all publications of Joseph Bates before 1851 (specially A Seal of the Living God, 1849) here we have part of it:
John see that the 144,000 were sealed of all the
tribes, &c., and these were the servants of our God, men
and women now living. Where are they, says our opponents?
Answer, on the earth. Do you know where to find them all?
no, not yet; but I believe John saw every one of them, and
I had rather believe him, if I should never have the
privilege of seeing or hearing from one of them until the
resurrection of the just, than to have my part taken from
the book of life and out of the holy city, by continually
trying to prove that it was not so, because the Sabbath
believers could not point them all out, and tell their
names. I am quite sure that such as find fault and reject
God's Holy Sabbath, (no matter what else they do,) will
never be among that happy number; none but Sabbath keepers
and believers can ever be sealed with this seal, and even
many of them will fail unless they keep the Sabbath holy in
its appointed time, for it is just as sinful in the sight
of God to wilfully reject the Bible light on the commencing
of the Sabbath, and therefore transgress a part of sacred
time, as it would be not to keep it at all. Friday evening
at 6 P.M., the Sabbath commences, all other figuring is
lost time. p. 38, Para. 1, [SEAL144].
(by the way Canright also explains how EGW and her gang kept the sabbath day for 9 years from 6PM to 6PM when the sun sets by 4Pm on Winter time in Michigan every friday; what a seal!)
You can spend hundreds of hours investigating or you can simply read Canright!
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Walter T. Rea
