Your ShelfYour Projects

Disguised Infidelity

11%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 7, 1903

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 80, No. 27.

Read the full edition

Disguised Infidelity

By D. T. Bourdeau

D. T. BOURDEAU
THIS morning I attended a Christian Science meeting held in this city [Grand Rapids, Mich.], expecting, in harmony with a previous announcement, to hear a sermon against Spiritualism. But judge of my surprise when, instead of hearing such a sermon, I heard a reading executed by two persons, one of whom read passages of Scripture relating to Satan as a literal, personal being, and the other read portions of Mrs. Eddy’s writings purporting to give the sense of those passages of Holy Writ.
The first thought that impressed my mind was this: Why not have a regular Bible reading, and let the Bible tell its own story on Spiritualism and on Satan, if the Bible is its own interpreter, and is a sufficient rule of faith in religious matters? This way of doing was rather objectionable to me as a firm believer in the fundamental principle of Protestantism; namely, that of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as a rule of religious faith and practice, leading those who adopt it to enter their protest against all that exceeds the prescriptions of Holy Writ as binding on their consciences.
It would not be objectionable to quote the sayings of one who is not a Bible writer, if those sayings agree with the Bible. But in this case, they were in antagonism with the Bible in denying the personality of Satan; in saying that “Satan” means simply “sin,” “evil,” “the sum of all errors,” etc. What is this but disguised infidelity? What is this but pretending to believe the Bible, and yet so manipulating that sacred Word as to lead many to a disbelief in and denial of a cardinal doctrine of the Bible?
Is not this precisely what Spiritualists are doing at the present time? Do they not, while pretending more and more to believe in the Bible, deny that Bible doctrine of the personality of Satan? Should not, therefore, our Christian Science friends either join hands with Spiritualists on this point, or adopt the Bible doctrine of the personality of Satan?
Allow me to relate an incident in confirmation of the statement that Spiritualists deny that Satan is a literal being: Once a Spiritualistic medium lectured to a crowded house near my place of residence. I thought I would go to hear her, and let in a few rays of light, if I had an opportunity of doing so. I found the woman giving an eloquent discourse. As soon as I entered the place of meeting, she at once apostrophized me in these terms: “Christ said, ‘These signs shall follow them that believe.’ Where are the signs that follow you? There is no literal, personal devil. A man’s hell is in his own bosom. You, sir, are on the wrong side,” etc.
The Spirit of God urged me to speak, and I said: ‘You, madam! You have not the first sign mentioned by the Saviour: ‘In my name shall they cast out devils.’ You say there is no literal, personal devil. It is you who are on the wrong side.’ As I was uttering these words, the Spirit of God paralyzed her, and she fell on the floor, twisting like a snake, before all present.
May God give us the fullness of the power from on high that he is so anxious to give us, that we may be ready to meet all the isms and machinations that the enemy has devised to turn the masses away from the soul-saving and life-giving message for these times.