p. 2 | With Our Inquirers by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · May 22, 1907

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 33, No. 21.

With Our Inquirers

By Editor

"If ye will inquire, inquire ye."

[All questions to this department will be answered which to the editors will minister to the general good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. The same question can not be answered repeated in the same volume. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. It is well always to enclose a stamp for reply.]

2084.—Matter of a Creed.

Have the Seventh-day Adventists a creed? If so, what is it? B. N.

The only creed the Seventh-day Adventists have is the word of God. They have no other; they desire no other.

2085.—Question Concerning Mr. Gamble.

Was Mr. Gamble at one time a Seventh-day Adventist? B. N.

No; he was not. He has been a regular orthodox Methodist, so far as we know, all his religious life, and yet there are a great many orthodox Methodists who can hardly approve his aberrative views on the Sabbath question.

2086.—Sodom and Gomorrah; Is Their Punishment Completed?

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Gen. 19:24; Luke 17:29); "and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6); "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7). In view of these scriptures and Rev. 20:9, have not the inhabitants of the cities of the plains that were alive and consumed with their overthrow met their punishment? H. P. F.

No. Passages in Eze. 16:53, 54, and Matt. 11:23, 24 would indicate that the people of those cities are coming into judgment in the last day. The cities themselves are utterly destroyed and will never be restored. In that way they show an example to the world of what the eternal fire will do; it will consume all that upon which it preys. The final punishment of the incorrigible is in the second death. Rev. 20:12-14.

2087.—Cursing the Fig-tree. Mark 11:13, 14.

Please explain Mark 11:13, 14. Why would the Saviour curse a tree for not having fruit when it was not the time for fruit? S. A. S.

The very apeariance of the tree indicated that it bore fruit. It had leaves, and the fact that it had leaves indicated that it ought to have fruit, as the fruit on the fig-tree appears before the leaves. In other words, it made a profession of fruit-bearing, but bore no fruit. In that way it was a type of the Jewish Church, and as a type of the Jewish Church it was cursed by our Lord. In fact the very curse was in it in the very nature of things, not in the fig-tree but in the church, and what Jesus did to the fig-tree shows just what would come to a church which made high professions but bore no fruit.

2088.—The Resurrection.

Is it correct to say that the resurrection of Christ did not establish the resurrection of the dead, but was the evidence of it? Was Christ's body immaterial after the resurrection? S. A. S.

What established the resurrection of the dead was not the resurrection of Jesus, but the power that was behind that resurrection, and that is the righteous life. "In the way of righteousness is life." Prov. 12:28. He was raised from the dead because it was not possible for the grave to hold Him. Acts 2:24. And all that were ever raised before Him were raised by virtue of what Christ did and was doing—the offering that He made. So, taking His resurrection to stand for the power over sin, as set forth in Rom. 1:1-4, it did establish the resurrection of the dead; and thus the apostle Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15, "For if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished."

In answer to the second question we would say that it depends altogether on what is meant by immaterial. If by material is meant this gross, earthly, sinful, mortal body, Christ's body was not material. If by material is meant composed of substance, then Christ's body was material; it was a substantial body. He could say, "Handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." Sometimes we would be able to agree with people if we knew just what they meant; so one of the first things to learn is the meaning of the terms used. In heaven we have a more "enduring substance," and those who enjoy that substance are themselves substantial, more so than the corrupt, material earth; but when this earth shall have been freed from sin, it will be material in the sense of having substance, but it will not be corruptible material; it will be a living earth.

2089.—The Holy Spirit.

Do Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Holy Ghost is the third person in the Godhead, and is therefore God, as the Methodists believe, or do they believe that the Holy Spirit is only an essence or attribute? Which does the main body believe? S.

It is impossible for us to define the belief of the Seventh-day Adventists in regard to the Spirit of God. Without question they believe the Holy Spirit to be the third person of the Godhead, but as to just how that person is to be understood is a question we can not answer for the body. There has been no definite, formulated belief regarding the Spirit. In broad terms Seventh-day Adventists believe the Bible and what the Bible says of the Spirit of God. Wisely they have not attempted to define just exactly what that great, infinite Power is. The great anxiety of Christians ought to be to be possessed of the life-power of God thru the Spirit.

2090.—The Moyer-Haywood Case.

Is it the duty of a Christian to refrain from expressing sympathy for the accused, who, it would seem, are being persecuted for the sake of principle, rather than prosecuted for crime? Being ourselves a liberty-loving people, I feel as if every man's liberty is equally dear. V. S.

It is very difficult to say anything on such a question as this without being misunderstood. As to the guilt of the men named we do not express any opinion. We do not know. We believe they ought to have a fair trial before the law. They are presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty. It would seem that the way they have been taken and held is altogether irregular. On the other hand the inflammable utterances made by the organization to which they belong, before and since their arrest, does not tend to a peaceful settlement of the question. We have personally heard men talk who are in sympathy with the organization to which these men belong until one's blood would run cold as to what they think should be done to this one and that one and the other one who were possessed of money or who differed from them. With such sentiments as that no true Christian can sympathize. It was at a time when the worst of the Cæsars were ruling that the word of God came to Christians, "Fear God; honor the king." We believe of the men that they ought to have a fair trial, the same as every other citizen, and as truly as any other we sympathize with them in their suffering, and especially with their families. We have no sympathy with principles which would overturn government in general and weaken proper authority. The worst of governments is better than anarchy. But the Socialists and anarchists have just as much right to express their principles as have the Antinomians in religious circles, for really the worst of all anarchists is the one who contends that God's law is abolished and that man is law to himself. Presumably this will not help our inquirer, yet we can not take sides in the matter.

2091.—The Serpent of God. 3:1.

Does the word of God really teach that Satan employed a beast of the field as a medium in the temptation of Eve? Rather, is it not one of the names given to Satan himself, indicative of his low, beastly, and dangerous character? A SUBSCRIBER.

The account of Genesis clearly indicates to us that the serpent was used as a medium. In that way the woman was thrown off her guard. Yet it was not the serpent but the devil behind the serpent who did the work. In using the serpent as his first medium, however, the term is applied to him, and is so used in Rev. 12:9, as "that old serpent," because he was the real tempter.

2092.—The Archangel.

Is not the Archangel Michael the executive of the Holy Spirit, the one that overshadowed the virgin Mary, etc.?

If you will read the account in the first chapter of Luke it was not the angel Michael but the angel Gabriel. Michael means "who is like God." Archangel means "chief of all the angels." Such was the Son of God before He became man. He "who is like God" became the Archangel, and then stepped lower down and became the Lord Jesus among men. Jude 9; 1 Thess. 4:16, and Dan. 12:1 show very clearly that Michael is Christ. Gabriel is doubtless His angel (Rev. 1:1-3), the one who instructed the prophets. But as to saying that any one angel is executive of the Spirit of God, that is limiting it to the capacity of that angel. All God's angels are ministers, and all God's children upon whom and in whom is placed His Spirit are also ministers or servants, just the same as every member of the whole body of man is the executive of the mind of man.

2093.—Is It Right to Buy Smuggled Goods?

I have seen professed Christians buy goods that were smuggled from foreign countries to this country, getting them so much cheaper than if they purchased them at the store. Now is it right or is it wrong to purchase such goods? D.

The word of the Scripture is, "Render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom." "Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection [that is, to earthly powers], not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For for this cause ye pay tribute also." See Rom. 13:5-7. "Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." 1 Peter 2:13. There are those who do not count smuggling crime, and yet the government has so made it, and Christians ought to heed the ordinances of the government and pay to the government the tribute, unjust tho it may seem, that is due. We may buy smuggled goods not knowing, and in such a case we are not responsible, but if we buy smuggled goods knowing that they are smuggled, we are by that made partakers of the crime.

2094.—A Matter of Tithing.

Is it the duty of a wife who has an unbelieving husband to tithe the funds put into her hands for general use when he bitterly opposes it?

No. If she has funds that are her own she has a right to tithe them. Funds which are not her own, but are considered her husband's and for the general use of the household, it would be a great deal better for God's cause to leave untithed rather than bring unnecessary strife in that way. While the loyal heart is always pleased to render to God that which is His own, and feels deprived of a blessing if it can not do it, at the same time it is not wise for a wife to go contrary to the will of her husband in these respects. God's cause can better get along without the small amount of means that would thus be given than to have the duty made compulsory. Of course it is the duty of every one to render to the Lord the tithe, but for that the husband is chiefly responsible, and the Lord does not demand it of him against his will.