Your ShelfYour Projects

Untitled article

5%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 6, 1867

FromReview and Herald, Vol. XXX, No. 8

Read the full edition

DOUBTS AND QUERIES.

By Editor

We resume in this number the subject interrupted last week for want of time. Our correspondent further says:—
3. “I have read part of the visions. I find nothing to object to, if they are inspired. But they do not sound to me like the Bible. They do not seem to possess anything of that elevation of style, so peculiar to the Bible. She often says, ‘I saw’ such and such things, when the things seem to be of such a nature that it would require to be told to her, instead of shown. I read the examination of the visions in the Voice, and some of the replies in the Review. The replies were not all satisfactory to me.”
To those who are investigating this question, we would recommend a careful perusal of all the volumes of Spiritual Gifts. Look at the import of their teaching, consider their tendency, and especially endeavor to practice what they inculcate in reference to morality and holy living. The objections will then disappear of themselves. In regard to their style, it is not claimed that they are written in the same way that the Bible was written. In that, holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, that is, by the direct impulse of the Spirit, without the intervention of vision. This of course is very different from a person’s seeing a thing in vision, and then expressing it in his or her own language. Much of the information imparted to Sr. W. in vision, is done through scenic representation. This explains the frequent use of the expression, “I saw.” For instance she may say, I saw that such a person was overreaching and covetous. This, it would naturally be supposed, is something that must be told her, instead of seen by her. But the propriety of the expression is seen when it is remembered that the fact was in all probability brought to her knowledge by some scene in that individual’s life being presented before her, in which these traits were unmistakably manifested.
The replies to objections against the visions to which our correspondent refers, were not replies to what has appeared in the Voice. This was principally a fiery and shallow tirade against the Sabbath, which we have not deemed of sufficient account to notice. The Answers to Objections we purpose to have ready for circulation in pamphlet form soon, when our correspondent will have the opportunity of seeing them all. The letter continues:—
4. “Mrs. White says, ‘I saw the tables of stone folded together. When they were opened I saw the commandments.’ The Bible says they were written on both sides. If there is one mistake or contradiction in the visions, does not that invalidate their claim to be of God?”
The writer proceeds upon the ground that here is a contradiction between the visions and the Bible. Is he sure of it? Is he sure that his view of the passage is correct, that each table was written on both of its sides? The expression in the Bible, it will be noticed, does not directly affirm this; and the visions are not the only authority we have for the view that the tables were not both of them written on both their sides, but that the writing was confined to one side of both. On Ex. xxxii, 15, Dr. Clarke says:—
“The tables were written on both their sides.” If we take this literally, it was certainly a very unusual thing; for in ancient times, the two sides of the same substance were never written over. However some rabbins suppose that by the writing on both sides is meant, the letters were cut through the tables, so that they might be read on both sides, though on one side they would appear reversed.”
Not a very plausible supposition, we think. Scott on the same passage remarks:—
“On both their sides.” This is differently interpreted. Some think that the ten commandments were written on only one side of each table, part on the one, and part on the other; so that they might close together as a book when laid in the ark; but others are of opinion that each table was written on both sides.”
Prof. Bush, who stands at the head of his profession as a Hebrew scholar, and who is therefore well qualified to judge of the meaning of the original, is still more definite and says:—
“The two tables were probably designed to close together like the lids of a book, and by their being written on both sides is meant that their right and left hand leaf or side, were each of them to be occupied with letters.—Note on Exodus xxxii, 15.
On these authorities we see that there is perfect harmony between the visions and the Bible on this point.
5. “If the Seventh-day people are the people of God, we earnestly desire to be with them. If the visions are of God, we desire to believe them. But must we believe without evidence? If the gifts are still in the church, how is it that but one seems to enjoy them? I cannot understand about there being two phases to the third angel’s message; that it should be so long preparing to go forth with a loud cry when the loud cry is all that is mentioned in the Bible. There was an article in the Voice of June 11, which says, ‘The climax of this message has been reached, and it is now on the decline.’ I think this rather a bold statement, and should like to see that article reviewed by the Review.”
In regard to the limited extent of the visions, it is certainly nothing against their authenticity that they are as yet confined to one individual. It is a great advance over years preceding the proclamation of the Advent doctrine that we have them at all. And if, in addition to this, we find that the people of God have been in exactly the same circumstances before, then certainly we ought not to regard this state of things as involving any difficulty over which there is occasion to stumble. We refer then to Deborah, the prophetess, Judg. iv, 4, the only one through whom God at that time communicated instruction to his people; for they inquired of her; and that one a woman. See also a parallel case in the time of Huldah the prophetess. 2 Kings xxii, 14.
Neither do we “understand about there being two phases to the third angel’s message.” There is no such thing. It is an invidious distinction invented by one of our opponents, who seems especially to delight in trying to throw ridicule upon this movement. The prophecy indeed says that it shall go with a loud voice, but it does not say that it was to be so from the very beginning; neither did it say so of the first angel’s message, which also went with a loud voice. That message may be said to have commenced as far back as 1821; yet the loud cry of that message was confined chiefly to the years 1843 and 4. So with the third message. It is to close in power; but, like all new truths, time must be given for its promulgation, and for the development of an earnest body of advocates and defenders. This work has been going forward from the commencement, and the message has been steadily gaining in strength till the present time. The work, however, is peculiar, and unlike that connected with the former messages. How many came up to the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, apparently holding a good place with the people of God, who showed themselves almost immediately after the passing of the time, to have been unprepared for the coming of the Lord. But all such surface work must be tested by this message; for this is the last work to be done for the people of God before the coming of Christ, and must result in not merely an apparent, but a real, preparation for that event. Hence the time that is given under this message for the development of character; hence the new crosses that we have to take up; hence the closer and closer tests that are one after another brought to bear upon us. “Here,” says the prophecy, “is the patience of the saints.” We read nothing about patience in connection with the former messages; which is at least an intimation that this would occupy a longer period, and bring more peculiar trials than those. And from the heart we feel to say, Let the true work of reformation and preparation still go forward. We do not want the message to move any faster than it moves right.
6. “Elder T. M. Steward held a series of meetings with us last winter. His course we think ought to have commended him to the love and confidence of all who love our Lord Jesus Christ; yet he encountered the most bitter hatred and misrepresentation of any one I ever saw. However, he made, we hope, some warm, true friends. I do not like the name Seventh-day Adventists. I cannot bear any name but Christian, as assumed by the church of Christ.”
The experience of Bro. Steward, to which our correspondent refers, should go far to show on which side the truth lies. He showed a commendable spirit, entitling him to love and confidence. Instead, he received from his opponents bitter hatred and misrepresentation. Now a person who manifests a Christian spirit, though he may for the time being hold erroneous views, will not be met with hatred and misrepresentation by those who hold the truth. Those means are never resorted to by those whose sole object is to know the truth that they may obey it. The spirit by which the opponents of Bro. S. were actuated was clearly not the Spirit of Christ; hence, we must suppose, till it is shown to be otherwise, that they have an unscriptural theory to defend, and resort to such means as the enemy of truth suggests.
In regard to the name, the Bible evidently does not designate the title by which the people of God are to be called during this dispensation, inasmuch as it gave them a variety of names, as friends, disciples, Christians, church of God, church of Christ, and church of the first-born. The object of a name is to distinguish a body who hold a peculiar truth, or make a particular profession, from those around them. When the gospel dispensation was opened, either of these titles would sufficiently distinguish the followers of Christ from the Jews and heathen around them. They are not sufficiently distinctive at the present time; for there are various sects whom we regard as being in error, and with whom we do not wish to be confounded, who assume these very names. For us to assume any one of them would therefore only add to the confusion, and defeat the very object of a name. The names mentioned in connection with the early disciples were such as at that time set forth the characteristics which distinguished them from others around them. We have felt called out from the sects of the present day. Our distinguishing views are emphatically the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, and the belief of the soon coming of his Son from Heaven; and what name could set these principles forth in so concise and distinct a manner as the simple and comprehensive term, Seventh-day Adventists?