The Principle Involved by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 22, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 40.

The Principle Involved.

By Editor

A LETTER has been received at this office from a friend who writes in a kind spirit, and who evidently has full faith in the correctness of his positions. He accepts the Sabbath, but does not accept our views of immortality. His views of certain texts we do not notice, only because expositions of them have been so often given. We choose to strike at the root of the matter, and show that there is a principle involved which the writer seems to have entirely overlooked. He says:—

"It will not alter the facts in the case, it will not change the order or decrees of the Supreme Ruler, whether I believe that the spirit of Jesus comes to take each of his children home as they die, or whether they all lie dormant until the resurrection. Nor would it make any difference if all the preachers in the universe should advocate either the one doctrine or the other. It is not on these that our hope of immortality depends, but in coming to Christ, and taking him at his word."

To the first part of this paragraph we can assent. Our belief on this subject will change neither the facts in the case nor the decrees of the Supreme Ruler. But, unfortunately for his position, this assertion can be applied with equal force to any and every doctrine of the Bible. It will not alter the facts in the case one particle whether or not we believe that Jesus is the Christ of God, for God will be true if we are all liars. It will not change a single decree of the Almighty if we deny entirely the inspiration of the Scriptures, as our correspondent has in part, as we will presently show. God's truth does not depend upon our acceptance of it, or our action in relation to it. But our acceptance with God does depend upon our acceptance of his truth, and our action in regard to it. And it is our imperative duty to accept it as he has revealed it, and not as we would wish to have it.

From his next proposition we dissent. He says it would not make any difference if all the preachers in the universe would advocate either one or the other of these doctrines. But if the one is true, and the other is false, then it would make a material difference. Or will he insist that it does not make any difference whether preachers advocate truth or falsehood? Both doctrines cannot be true. Are the truth of God and falsehoods equally valuable and equally innocent? The tendency of the age is toward accepting this proposition, but we denounce it as heretical and dangerous. Dangerous to the keeping of the Christian faith in purity, and dangerous to the souls of those who accept it; for we are sanctified through the truth of God, and not through error. John 17:17. The idea that "it does not make any matter what you believe if you are only honest," is a delusion and a snare; it is the vestibule to the temple of infidelity.

We believe it is essential to take Christ at his word; and his word—his own very words—are found in Luke 14:14: "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." And, therefore, they who believe and teach that we shall be recompensed at some other time, contradict the word of Jesus, and exalt themselves and their words above Christ and his word. Can they do this and be innocent? We will let our correspondent judge.

"It would seem to me very unreasonable that God, by whom all things were created, should create so many devils that there were even legions of them in Christ's time!"

It is appropriate that the writer placed an "exclamation point" at the end of this sentence, which, as we learned it, is "a mark of wonder and surprise."

We hold that it is equally unreasonable that God should create any devil at all. It is equally unreasonable to believe that he created thieves, adulterers, and murderers. We commend to our correspondent our argument on this subject in our book on "Modern Spiritualism." The question we should ask is this: Does our correspondent deny that legions of devils or demons existed in Christ's time? If not, then we ask, Has he better reason to believe that they were the spirits of dead folks, than we have to believe that they were "the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" (Jude 6), and sinned? 2 Peter 2:4. See also Matt. 25:41. Further he says:—

"Again it would seem unreasonable to me that the good, whose time is so precious here, should sleep so long when there is so much to do. While you may not agree with me that the saints are angels, I think it cannot be proved by the Scriptures that they are not. In speaking of the angels (Heb. 1:14), Paul says they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister unto them which shall be heirs of salvation. I believe also that there is work for the saints; that none are idle nor asleep in Paradise."

There are several points in the above which demand notice.

1. He thinks it is unreasonable that the saints should sleep, when there is so much to do. And (1) the Scriptures positively say they are asleep. Here we may safely apply his first principle: It does not matter what he believes about it; that cannot alter the facts. The Scriptures saying that they sleep makes it certain that they do, whether or not it looks "reasonable" to him. All the Scriptures appear unreasonable to some people, but that does not destroy their truthfulness. The saints in death "sleep in Jesus." 1 Thess. 4:14. This is equivalent to the expression in verse 16, "the dead in Christ." In A. D. 59, Paul said that some of the witnesses of Christ's resurrection were "fallen asleep." 1 Cor. 15:6. He also said that, if the dead rise not—if there is to be no resurrection of the dead—"then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." Verse 18. And the sleeping saints shall awake—not when they die! but—when "the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God;" 1 Thess. 4:16; "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear." Col. 3:4.

(2) There is, indeed, "so much to do," but the living, not the dead, do this work. See Ps. 6:5; Eccl. 9:10; Isa. 38:18, 19. And Jesus said: "The night cometh, when no man can work." John 9:4. This is taking Jesus at his word, but there is no place in the theory of our friend for this text.

2. We think it can be proved that the saints are not the angels; but not a word or hint of proof can be given that the spirits of the dead are angels. Jesus said: "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels." Luke 20:35, 36. Now it would be an absurdity in science to say that a thing is equal to itself; hence it is the truth that equality disproves identity. And hence the words of Jesus, that the saints shall be equal to the angels, disproves the assertion that the saints are the angels. If this is disputed by any, will they give some evidence—not a supposition—that the converse is true?

3. Our correspondent says that he believes that the saints (meaning the dead) have a work to do. It is quite a stretch of the signification of belief. Many assert that they have faith when they only have conjecture or opinion. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Hence, where the word of God is silent, there can be no faith; it is only conjecture. And this is true in all matters of belief concerning Scripture questions. We may believe what the Scriptures say; we have no ground for belief when they are silent. But on this question they are not silent; only they contradict the opinion of our friend, for they assert positively that the dead do not praise God, and know nothing and can do nothing.

One more point we must notice, and then make the application of the whole. Our friend, referring to what is written in Job, David, etc., in the Old Testament, says:—

"But we have good reason to believe that Christ knew more of the next world than either Job or David."

We are not disposed to deny the fact as stated, but we emphatically deny the inference intended to be drawn from it. It is not whether Christ knew more than Job and David, but did he know to the contrary of what they wrote? The indorsement of these Old Testament worthies in the New Testament proves that they spoke by inspiration. The professor of mathematics may know a thousand times more of numbers than the little boy who has to count by his fingers; but when the little boy learns, by counting his fingers, that two and two make four, can the professor disprove the result by his superior knowledge? Peter said that David was a prophet, and Christ said he spoke in the Spirit. Acts 2:30; Matt. 22:42-45. Job was indorsed by Jehovah in Eze. 14:14, 20; and in James 5:10, 11. We consider it no virtue to have "charity" for or patience with the prevalent custom of arraying one part of the Bible against another; of determining "by feeble sense" which part of the word of God is most highly inspired, and which is less reliable. We fully assent to what Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. We know it is counted worthy of the "advanced Christian thought" of the age to make concessions to infidelity by reducing the reliability of certain parts of the Scriptures; but we hope never to be found a party to such a transaction. We invite our correspondent to review his ground, and see if he has not, in a measure, belittled the work of God's Spirit by instituting a comparison of the value of its utterances.

Now as to the practical bearings of the question. We believe that Spiritualism is the monster delusion of the age; this is conceded by thousands of intelligent Christian teachers, and, what is far more important, is proved by the Scriptures. Now our friend concedes everything that the Spiritualists claim as the foundation of their system, and denies or discredits those scriptures which prove that their claim is unfounded. Is this a matter to be covered by the plea of "charity"? We think not. The reliability of God's word, and the safety of "the elect" (Matt. 24:23, 24), are involved in the question, and we cannot hold our peace.