Loyalty to This Message
By Editor
THE belief of the Seventh-day Adventists has never been formulated into a creed which has been adopted by the body. We profess our adherence to the Protestant principle that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is a sufficient rule of faith and practise, and we regard the teaching of the Scripture, as set forth in the language of Scripture, as the only authoritative expression of our belief. It is true that this admits of considerable latitude of interpretation upon what might be termed the incidental teaching of the Bible, but under the guidance of the Spirit of truth it ought to lead to essential unity upon those doctrines which constitute the warp and woof of the gospel message for this generation. Inasmuch as this message is designed to correct those errors which really overthrow the foundations of genuine Christianity, it is certainly clear that every teacher of this truth ought to accept without mental reservation the doctrine of a personal God in the well-established meaning of the expression, and openly to reject that nebulous and pantheistic conception of an immanent God which to such an alarming extent pervades the teaching of the present day. This means that we should determine our thought of God by the revelation which he has made of himself in his Word and in the person of his Son, rather than by the speculations of human philosophy and the discoveries of science. The Infinite Energy of science is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Creator is not to be confounded with creation. The personal God revealed in the Scriptures is not properly defined as the unknowable Power of modern scientists. He is “our Father who art in heaven.” Every one who is loyal to this message must have a definite and positive belief in a personal God. Those who are familiar with the rise of this advent movement, and all who really understand its fundamental principles, must surely know that the teaching of the Scripture concerning the priesthood of Christ and his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is such an essential feature of this message that to discard it is the same thing as discarding this message. That which brought comfort to the advent believers who were disappointed in 1844, which renewed their confidence in that interpretation of the prophecies that showed the coming of the Saviour to be near, and which brought harmony out of confusion, was the light upon the question of the sanctuary. They saw that at his ascension Jesus entered into the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary; that the beginning of the judgment hour in 1844 marked a change in his ministry from the holy to the most holy place, and that this was the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the twenty-three hundred days. This Scriptural view of the sanctuary and its cleansing distinguishes Seventh-day Adventists not only from the leading denominations, but also from all other Adventists. So far as we are aware, no other denomination in the world holds this view of the sanctuary, but it is an essential feature of the teaching upon which this advent movement is based. It certainly ought to be evident to every right-minded person that one who teaches such an interpretation of the Scriptures dealing with the sanctuary and its services as in effect contradicts the position in which this message originated is really tearing down what this movement has built up. We do not claim authority over the views or the teaching of any man, neither do we attempt to force even the Biblical doctrines upon others, but we do claim that it is neither fair nor right for any one to maintain a profession of unity with this message, and then to undermine confidence in its essential doctrines by putting such a new meaning into the old forms of expression as really puts a new philosophy in the place of well-established truth. This has been the course of the higher critics from the first. Instead of openly declaring their rejection of orthodox doctrines and withdrawing from the churches, they have gradually put new interpretations into Biblical statements of beliefs until they have largely overthrown the fundamental tenets of the old faith. We say in all frankness that when one finds himself so much out of harmony with either of these important doctrines that he can not longer honestly advocate them in a positive manner, but, on the contrary, feels impelled to teach views which either plainly or by plain inference tend to weaken the confidence of the people in these fundamental truths, he ought to let his position be known. This is simply to follow the principle of common fairness of dealing among men. To take any other course is to sail under false colors. To say, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible,” and “I believe in the Testimonies,” and “I believe in a personal God,” and “I believe in the sanctuary teaching,” meaning all the time, “I believe . . . according to my own interpretation,” is not an honest statement of belief. We accord to every person the fullest right to believe just as he is persuaded in his own mind, and the fullest privilege to publish his views; but when one chooses to believe and decides to publish doctrines which are a complete subversion of this third angel’s message, it can hardly be expected that believers in this message would like to circulate such teaching, if they understand what they are doing. We therefore feel in duty bound to advise our brethren in the field to acquaint themselves with the literature which they are asked to place in the homes of the people. This is due both to themselves and to the people.