Creation vs. Evolution by W. W. Prescott

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 8, 1909

Creation vs. Evolution

By W. W. Prescott

(Concluded)

BUT NOW, further,—not only do this people call themselves observers of the seventh-day Sabbath, but they are Seventh-day Adventists—those who observe this seventh-day Sabbath, according to the Scriptures, and those who, according to the Scripture, believe in and teach the near, personal, second advent of our Lord. Is such a protest needed in this generation? There are two standpoints from which some look at this matter. Here are two classes of teachers: the Roman Catholic teacher does not hesitate to say, frankly and openly, “The tradition of the church is of more authority than the Scriptures; the teaching of the church is above the teaching of the written Word.” I am not making any wrong statements. I am not making any attack or charge in saying this. You may read it in any authoritative Catholic work upon this subject. The church writers say there are two divine streams, the written Word, and tradition; both of these are divine, “but to us,” they say, “tradition is more clear, and more safe.” In fact, you know perhaps that they make the charge that Protestants would not have the Bible if the Catholic Church had not allowed them to have it.

But on the other side are Protestants who profess to believe the Word, claim to teach the Word, and they are brought into a very inconsistent position. Now, Roman Catholics are not inconsistent on the Sabbath question. Their position is perfectly consistent. Here are some of the things they say. Cardinal Gibbons takes this view, in order to prove that the Bible is not the single rule of faith:—

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practise. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.—From “Faith of Our Fathers,” page 111.

Look at the logic; the great mass of professed Christian believers are observing the first day of the week. The Bible clearly teaches that the seventh day is the Sabbath, as Cardinal Gibbons says; therefore, “the Bible is not a sufficient rule of practise.” That is to say, if the majority of the people decide to act contrary to the Bible, that is proof that the Bible is not a divine guide. That is the logic of such a position. Now the consistent Protestant must say that the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practise; and no matter if nine tenths, or ninety-nine hundredths, of the people of the world depart from it, that does not prove the Bible wrong, but proves the people wrong. The consistent Protestant must say that the Bible is to remain forever a sufficient guide. But the Catholic says it is not sufficient; the church, he says, is above the Bible, tradition is above the Bible. We read:—

It is worth while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the Church.—“Plain Talk,” page 213.

Now while speaking as a Seventh-day Adventist, I say the Roman Catholics are consistent, speaking as Catholics,

they themselves say that the Seventh-day Adventists are consistent. This next is from a Catholic writer as it appeared in a prominent Catholic paper, the Mirror:—

Of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday.—From the tract, “The Christian Sabbath,” page 14, published by the Catholic Mirror, Baltimore.

Now when you are willing to put tradition and the voice of the church above the Bible, you have no trouble with these questions; but so long as we stand upon the Protestant platform,—the Bible as the rule of faith and practise; the revelation of the living Word as the revelation we are to follow,—then we must hew to the line; then we must follow the guide. But how is it in this generation? Professed Protestants have discarded the Scriptures as a sufficient rule of faith and practise; they have substituted speculation, reason, the conclusions of a false science, in the place of the Bible; and they are following that ignis fatuus. The two, although seemingly so far apart, have one common principle; and what is that?—The exaltation of the authority of man above the authority of God. It does not make any difference whether it is a combination, as in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, or whether it is one person. It does not make any difference whether millions upon millions of Catholics agree and have one pope, or whether millions upon millions of Protestants disagree, and have just as many popes as there are Protestants. The thing is just the same. It is the exaltation of human authority, the exaltation of man above God; and Protestants are adopting the Roman Catholic principle, only in a different way.

Now what is the result of both?—They all come to one result finally. By different routes, they appeal to different classes of minds; but there is one mind behind the whole thing. Any one who can take a wide view of the present situation, as regards the religious world, must recognize that to-day the master mind which has been plotting against the gospel of Jesus Christ since the first promise was made that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head,—that that master mind is marshaling all his forces, from every point, bringing them into line for the final contest against the Son of God. That is the situation just now, in this generation, just in the time when people’s minds ought to be directed toward heaven and heavenly things, when they ought to see in the heavenly sanctuary the great High Priest doing his final work of atonement preparatory to his laying aside his priestly robes and putting on his robe as a king and coming in power and great glory. Just at that time, all theories are marshaled, all forces are brought into line, everything is brought to bear to prove that there can be no such thing as the second advent, to prove that the whole thing is a delusion and a snare. Now just read what professed Protestants say about it:—

The time has fully come for Christian leaders to admit frankly that it is impossible to construct a credible doctrine of the second coming of Christ on the basis of a literal interpretation of texts. The books of Daniel and Revelation were written to instil courage and hope into men harassed by terrible persecution; they were tracts for their times, one for the Maccabean age and the other for the days of Domitian, and their use to predict world catastrophes is a sin against all sound principles of exegesis. The words of Jesus, as recorded, would seem to show that he expected his return within the lifetime of men then living [talk about “principles of exegesis,” and make that statement! I challenge it!], and St. Paul and his contemporaries awaited the parousia daily. Time has shown that this was an error; and if Christian experience counts for anything, it is demonstrated that the whole attitude of waiting for the clouds to break is unwise and harmful. Already in New Testament days the wiser and more spiritual view obtained [when the apostasy began, you know]; for in the fourth Gospel a portion is no longer marvelous and apocalyptic, but a quiet coming of the Spirit of the Lord. This is the only parousia which can be preached with any compelling force to men of to-day.

No considerable body of people will ever again anticipate the personal return of Jesus to the earth.

I protest! I say, There is a body of people, to be in every nation, out of every kindred, tongue, and people, that will be a living protest against that statement!

A pervading of society by his Spirit, which is actually taking place, is something a great deal better.—N. Y. Independent, 1908.

“Actually taking place!” Think of the record of the last three or four years, and ask yourself whether you want that spirit to continue to increase, and pervade society more and more. Rottenness in politics! Rottenness in finance! Rottenness in morality! Rottenness in the home! Rottenness in the church! Rottenness everywhere! That is not the Spirit of Christ pervading society: that is the spirit of the devil!

But now that is from a liberal. That is from a paper that professes to be liberal. Here is something from a paper that does not profess any such thing. This is from The Christian Advocate, of New York, the leading Methodist paper of this country:—

The Seventh-day Adventists maintain that “the end of all things is at hand,” and believe that the world should be warned of that event. . . . They do not now fix a day, but they feel certain that his [Christ’s] coming is near at hand. Through the whole career of Christianity, people have been teaching that same thing. Believing, as we do, in the Gospels, and that the words and passages in the Bible which relate to the coming of Christ must be compatible with the lapse of nineteen hundred years, though they seem in their letter to imply his speedy coming, we infer that what is compatible with nineteen hundred years may be compatible with ten times that number. We trust that the Seventh-day Adventists, whom we respect for their energy and adherence to an unpopular doctrine, will not think us inclined to scoff when we show that Saint Peter meets the case in a way which convinces us of the entire uncertainty of the time of Christ’s coming [and that “entire uncertainty,” when you analyze it, means to-morrow—never “this generation”], and that he may not come for thousands of years; and further, that the reason he is delaying is that more souls may be saved.

In the third chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter it is written: “There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

I think I would not have quoted that, if I had been the editor. He then draws a parallel between the people who did not believe the flood was coming, but were mistaken,—just see how complete this is,—and proceeds:—

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing; that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” In stating that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, the apostle overturns the view that undertakes to determine whether he is coming soon or will long delay.—Christian Advocate (New York), March 25, 1909.

Now this is another view of this question of the advent; and just notice the basis upon which this is made to rest. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. But he did not say it is so with men. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; but not so with me. And when the Lord deals with me, he deals with me for what I am, and on my basis, and not on his basis.

Now observe: If that is a correct exegesis, let me indicate what you will be compelled to overthrow.

First, you must overthrow the literal prediction given by God to Noah, that in 120 years the world would be destroyed by a flood. The flood came, and that prediction was fulfilled.

You must overthrow the prophecy of

the 400 years, given to Abraham—a prophecy that was afterward literally fulfilled.

You must overthrow Isaiah’s definite prophecy, that “the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people;” and this was literally fulfilled.

You must overthrow Jeremiah’s literal prophecy, that the Lord would give the children of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, “seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon.” When the seventy years had ended, this prediction was literally fulfilled, and the children of Israel returned to the land of their fathers.

You must overthrow Daniel’s definite prophecy of the 1260 years, when the church was to be given into the hands of a persecuting power “until a time and times and the dividing of time,”—the time when the woman (the church) “fled into the wilderness,” as brought to view in the seventh chapter of Daniel and in the twelfth chapter of Revelation.

You must overthrow Daniel’s remarkably definite prophecy of the seventy weeks,—dated from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, and made up of three definite periods of seven weeks, threescore and two weeks, and one week, or 490 years in all. And this prophecy of Dan. 9:25 was literally fulfilled.

And, I pray you, what must you not do, if you adopt that position? Every fulfilled literal prophecy in the Bible says that exegesis is wrong!

But that is simply to show that on all sides, and among all classes, the scientist, the Roman Catholic, the liberal Protestant, the man who believes himself to be a conservative Protestant, are all setting aside the idea of the second advent. Seventh-day Adventists proclaim the message to the world (and I hope live the message to the world) that He is coming, and coming soon, and that this is the generation that is to witness the closing of this mighty conflict. Let the forces be marshaled; let the enemy do his worst; let his forces attempt to set aside the Bible; let them attempt to put man in the place of God; but the day will come, and will come soon, when our God shall come, and shall not keep silence, and a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. Then those who have defied him, then those who have defied his Word, will call to the rocks and the mountains to hide them “from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” But those who have protested against infidel science will say, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

Creation vs. Evolution1

Creation vs. Evolution