DOUBTS AND QUERIES by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 30, 1867

DOUBTS AND QUERIES.

By Editor

It is ever a pleasure to us to examine all inquiries which are evidently proposed with a spirit of candor, and with a sincere desire to know the truth. A brother from Wisconsin states a number of points over which he is somewhat perplexed, and asks for help. We will give his letter entire in sections convenient for reply, and trust that what we shall say may be satisfactory to him, and a benefit to others. He says:—

“We have been reading the Review some for the past year, and have been much perplexed to know whether to send for it, or not. We take the Voice, Crisis, Christian, and Young Pilgrim, more than we are able to read or pay for; but as we have been trying to keep the Sabbath for a few months past, we feel attracted to a Sabbath paper; yet we find some things in that to trouble us. Some of the writers seem to us sometimes a little harsh. Some are quite severe on those who embrace part of the seventh-day doctrines and cannot embrace all. How are we to know if the visions are true? Is the internal evidence sufficient? We have never seen but one person who knew anything personally of Mrs. White. Unless we know the visions to be from God, can we believe any doctrine or fact merely because they declare it? I wish to know and do the will of God, but in this age of false doctrines we do not wish to fall into error.”

In regard to the Review, it is the aim of all who have to do with it to furnish a paper that will be a welcome visitor to every Sabbath-keeper. We do indeed design to expose sin and error with an unsparing hand. There is such a thing as taming down a testimony, walking, in the popular style, “with velvety tread, all around the ten commandments,” so that no sin is rebuked, and no sinner reproved. We endeavor to guard against this; but this does not lead us to personalities. We think the reader will search in vain for any harshness or bitterness against individuals from the writers in the Review. We can “hate the sin, but still the sinner love.”

“How are we to know,” it is asked, “if the visions are true?” Some at the very outset suffer their prejudices to control them on this subject, and will not admit even the possibility of their being true on any ground whatever. Such are in no condition to judge of their truthfulness. They are not heeding the injunction of the apostle, which says, “Despise not prophecyings.” They should first comply with this, and then follow out the further instruction, “Prove all things,” and “hold fast that which is good.” Test the visions by the word of God, and their internal evidence. These are perhaps all the tests that can well be applied to them by a person having so slight an acquaintance with them as the writer of the letter under consideration. On these grounds there is not to our mind any objection that can be found against them; but it is worthy of remark that those who oppose them most are those least acquainted with them, and the manner and circumstances under which they are given; while those most familiar with these circumstances, are strongest in their belief, and warmest in their love. They know, if they are able to judge when the Spirit of God is present and how it manifests itself, that the visions are the result of its operation.

In regard to doctrines, we would repeat that whatever theory enters into our system of belief, we prove by the Bible and the Bible alone. The visions are not given for the purpose of establishing a rule of faith, and are not designed to be quoted for that purpose.

2. The hardest thing to believe in the Seventh-day views is that the Saviour left the holy for the most holy place in 1843 . The Scripture evidence on this seems very slender. I like a belief “not deduced from the Bible, or inferred from the Bible, or proved by the Bible, but written in the Bible.”

If our friend endeavors to go strictly by this rule, we think it will materially reduce the points of his faith. There are many important doctrines not stated in so many words, in the Scriptures, but resting on deductions and proofs drawn from its language. Thus, it is nowhere said that it was Satan who deceived Eve; but this can be plainly inferred. It is not directly said that the fourth beast of Daniel vii is Rome, nor that the different periods of time given in the Bible are prophetic and signify a year for a day; nor that the dragon of Rev. xii is Pagan Rome; nor that the leopard beast of chap. xiii is Papal Rome; but there is good proof for them all, and if they are not so, the whole system of prophetic interpretation is reduced to chaos. It is logical and scriptural to apply a symbol according to the characteristics affirmed of it, and the actions attributed to it.

But there is no point, not expressed in direct terms in the Bible, which can be more clearly and directly proved, than that the ministration was changed in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. Thus we have, 1. The earthly sanctuary of the typical system, with its ministration, described in all its minutest particulars—particulars which have no meaning unless they are designed to teach us something respecting this dispensation. 2. We are told that the cleansing of that sanctuary was accomplished by the high priest’s changing his position from the holy to the most holy place, and accomplishing a brief service before the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of God’s testament. 3. We are expressly told that there is a sanctuary in Heaven, the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man, and that the ministration of the priests on earth was a shadow of the priestly ministration connected with the sanctuary in Heaven. 4. It is declared that at the end of the period of 2300 days the sanctuary should be cleansed. 5. From unmistakable data furnished by the Bible and history, these days are shown to extend to 1844, nearly 1800 years this side of the time when the earthly sanctuary was utterly destroyed, the heavenly having, by a change of dispensation, taken its place. 6. Therefore the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of those days is the heavenly sanctuary, it being the only one in existence at that time. 7. Therefore our great High Priest, the minister of that sanctuary above, changed his position from the holy to the most holy place at the end of the days in 1844, to accomplish the cleansing of the sanctuary, as was prefigured by the earthly service.

All these are conclusions absolutely necessary from facts expressly and explicitly stated in the Scriptures. Then where is our risk in taking our stand upon them? There is none. They are so plain and simple that a child can understand them, while the mightiest intellects in the land cannot overthrow or shake them.

We commend to our correspondent and all others, a thorough study of the sanctuary question. It is full of light and beauty. It makes clear portions of scripture which are otherwise obscure. It produces harmony where otherwise all is confusion. The impress of divinity is upon it.

For want of time we defer the remainder of our correspondent’s letter till next week.