p. 55 | TEXAS | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 7, 1879

TEXAS

Norman Hill, Tent No. 3, July 29.—We shall hold no more meetings at present during the week, on account of the decrease in interest since the presentation of the Sabbath question. Five have taken a firm stand for the truth, one of whom was a confirmed infidel.

I shall remain here until our camp-meeting, holding meetings on Sabbaths and Sundays, and during the week shall visit and solicit subscribers for our periodicals. I have obtained eight subscribers for the Tidende; two for the Harold; and one for the REVIEW. Have sold four Bibles, and $7.75 worth of our books and tracts. Bro. Chas. Wilson and wife, from Cleburne, came here and assisted me for a few days, which help I highly prized. Bro. Edward Swaden is still with me, rendering efficient service. God is our refuge; in him we trust, and to him do we look for help and strength for the future. A. W. JENSON.

Savoy, Tent No. 1, July 21.—We closed our meetings here last evening. The tent was filled. At our Sabbath-school more than a hundred were present. Our social meeting was very interesting and profitable, a large number taking part, some for the first time. The Spirit of the Lord was in our midst. Quite a number of our friends from Denison were present, which added much to the interest of the meeting, and was a great source of encouragement to me. The effort of our brethren to attend meetings where a new interest is being raised is commendable, and often a source of help. On account of the extreme scarcity of money, we have sold but few books. Have obtained three subscribers for the REVIEW, and thirteen for the weekly Instructor. There are now more than twenty who are keeping the Sabbath, all heads of families. R. M. KILGORE.

Savoy Debate.—This began the 14th inst., and closed the 18th, two sessions being held each day. Nothing new from the other side was presented. On the subject of the Sunday, although the question read, Do the Scriptures teach, etc., Elder Horn had to resurrect Barnabas and Justin Martyr, and call up Prof. Hackett, to testify that the first-day was the Lord’s day, thus yielding the point at issue. On the immortality question his principal argument was based on the following: The idea of immortality in this life could not be conceived by man, yet all men at the present time have the idea, and the heathen from antiquity had the same; therefore some higher power, like God, must have revealed it. From these suppositions it is concluded that we have a soul and spirit that does not die; thus adopting St. Augustine’s rule: when any doctrine of the church cannot be traced to its foundation, or starting point, it must have come from the apostles. I admitted that the idea was now very generally accepted; that the aborigines of modern times and the heathen of more ancient times believed it; that the idea of immortality in this life could not have been conceived of by man; and that it had been revealed; but added that it was quite unfortunate for my opponent, and the theory which he was trying to sustain and bolster up, that its author,—he who had “revealed” the idea, “Thou shalt not surely die,”—did not possess at that time a reputable character. John 8: 44. By telling this first lie he caused our first parents to sin, thus bringing death,—“he was a murderer from the beginning.” Satan as prime engineer laid out the road; heathenism did the grading; by papal corruptions the leveling was done, and the bridges and connections were made; while spiritualism comes to the rescue in these last days, lays the track, puts on the rolling stock, and invites the world to get on board.

Elder Horn on this question simply pandered to the prejudices of the people, by glibly repeating inferential passages, repeatedly referring to the rich man and Lazarus as his stronghold; but he abandoned the thief on the cross. On the punishment question Elder Horn admitted that Aion was sometimes limited in its meaning. He therefore abandoned Rev. 14: 11; and 20: 10; but built his whole fabric on Matt. 25: 46. I admitted all he claimed on this text so far as the duration of the punishment was concerned; but remonstrated on the authenticity of his dictionary. According to his rendering, life meant happiness; death, eternal life in misery; punishment, torment; fire did not mean real fire, it was only a figure when applied to the wicked; everlasting destruction, simply banishment. All the threatenings of the Old Testament were local, and referred to the temporal judgments which fell on the Jews; and, with him, to be judged by the law was equivalent to being justified by the law. A mere reference to, or a simple reading of, some of the plainest and most pointed texts which I had produced was all that he deemed necessary to rebut them. Sophistry and ridicule were his main fort. We gained many friends, and lost none who had taken a stand on the truth prior to the debate; but these were strengthened and established in the faith. R. M. KILGORE.