Not" Yet "Satisfactory

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 20, 1864

"Not" Yet "Satisfactory."

So we are compelled to exclaim on reading the reply of Eld. J. V. Himes, to our remarks in No. 14 of present volume, headed, "Not satisfactory." He represents to his readers that we made the following points in our article:

"1. Holy time or the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week to us, wherever we may happen to be on the globe. He [the editor of the Review] keeps a seventh part of time. So do we."

This is true so far as it goes; but it is not all the truth. And the truth only partially stated, often amounts to an absolute falsehood; for by suppressing a part, an idea is often conveyed just the opposite of what would be expressed were the whole truth stated. The above represents that our view of the Sabbath amounts only to an indefinite seventh part of time, and that whoever keeps a seventh part of time obeys the commandment equally with ourselves; whereas it is well known that we believe that a particular seventh part of time shall be kept, and that any one day in seven, other than the day specified in the commandment no more meets the requirements of the commandment, than it would to observe no day at all. The keeping of Sunday or Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day but the seventh, in place of the seventh, is doing what is not enjoined in the commandment: and those who persist in this, must not be surprised if they find themselves at last speechless before the solemn question, "Who hath required this at your hand?" When God has been so particular as to specify concerning the duties of mankind, he wants them to do just as he has said. Any efforts on their part to improve upon his commandments or to construe them to suit their own notions, will not be recognized or accepted. As an illustration see the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. x, 1. They offered strange fire before the Lord, and the Lord consumed them. They were commanded to offer the particular fire of the altar; in place of this they offered common or strange fire, which God had not commanded. They might have reasoned like this: "Fire is fire. Our father Aaron offers fire, so do we. What is the difference what kind of fire it is?" But it did make a vast difference with God, as they learned at the expense of their lives. And just as those sons of Aaron, under the influence of wine, offered to God strange fire under pretense of obeying his commandment which specified a particular kind of fire, so the great mass of Christendom, under the influence of the wine of Babylon, Rev. xvii, 2, offer to God the observance of the first day of the week, under pretense of obeying his commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh. We would point them to the fate of Nadab and Abihu, and bid them beware.

"2. That Sunday-keepers have not 'the mark of the beast,' and are not liable to the terrible threatening of the third angel's message (Rev. 14) unless 'they wilfully shut their eyes to the truth.'"

What we did say on this point was this: We are accused of denouncing all Sunday-keepers as worshiping the beast, and having his mark. We replied that we do not accuse all Sunday-keepers of now doing this, in the sense of that prophecy; for we believe the prophecy contemplates those who have had light on the subject, and deliberately choose an institution of the beast, in place of one of God's own appointments. Such become subjects of the fearful threatening of that message. But as the case now stands, all Sunday-keepers have not the light on this question, and until the light comes, their course is comparatively free from condemnation. We therefore made the statement that we did, and we still adhere to it, in view of this declaration of our Saviour, by which we think that we are fully justified: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light." John iii, 19. But all rejection of the truth after the light has been clearly set forth, we must regard as a wilful rejection, and we believe the people will be fully tested on this question.

"3. That the Bible is an insufficient rule of faith and life for the church, and that the 'visions' of Sister W. are 'Heaven ordained means to bring them to the unity of the faith.'"

We are truly grieved that Eld. H. should utter against us so grave a charge as that we deem "the Bible an insufficient rule of faith and life for the church;" not only because it is false in itself, utterly and entirely so; but also because it places us on the same ground with that power which has found it necessary to discard the Bible, in order to sustain its dogmas of Sunday-keeping, purgatory, worship of images, and kindred traditions.

Standing on the doctrine of "the Bible and the Bible alone," as firmly as any Protestant, we think we have given no ground for the above accusation. The charge is apparently based on our allusion to the visions as a "Heaven-ordained means" to bring us "to the unity of the faith." Eld. H. is doubtless aware that God has placed certain means in the church to bring them to the unity of the faith. At any rate the apostle so declares in the scripture to which we referred, Eph. iv, 11-13.

Now can we not avail ourselves of these means which God has placed in the church without exposing ourselves to the charge of discarding the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith and practice? If we cannot, why were they placed in the church? And if we can, does not the charge of Eld. H. recoil upon himself? The Saviour promised his disciples, that after his departure he would send them the Spirit of truth to lead them into all truth. Paul declares to the Corinthian brethren that the Spirit of God operates in a diversity of ways, but that it is one and the same Spirit. We presume Eld. H. has often prayed to be guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth. Now shall he or we presume to dictate to the Almighty in what way his Spirit shall operate in giving us the light for which we seek? Shall we say that if the Spirit of God shall operate upon our own hearts in impressing us with the truth, or leading us to an understanding of his word, that we will receive it; but that if he sees fit to accomplish the same objects through vision in some other member of the church, we will reject it with scorn and contempt? For our own part we can but exclaim, God forbid! Eld. H. can take that course which to him seems most consistent. We take the Bible, and the Bible alone as our rule of faith and practice; but the Bible declares that these agencies shall exist in the church; and hence whenever we see any manifestation which gives undoubted evidence of being the work of the Spirit of God, if we reject it, we do just so far, instead of taking the Bible, reject the Bible. There is no avoiding this conclusion. To make his charge consistent, and save it from recoiling disastrously upon himself, Eld. H. should no more ask the guidance of the Holy Spirit for himself; he should like some who have fallen far into the slough of infidelity, reject the idea of the Spirit, and discard all its operations, under the plea, that the revealed word is sufficient, and we have no need of the enlightening and guiding influence of the Spirit at all. But hold! if he takes this view, he rejects the Bible; for that plainly declares that the Holy Spirit will exist and operate in the church in a diversity of gifts. One horn or the other of this dilemma, he is obliged to take.

One thought more on this point. Should we, because he seeks the "Heaven-ordained means" of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to an understanding of the scriptures of truth, charge him with thereby holding the Bible as an "insufficient rule of faith and life," how would he regard it? There was a little rule laid down by the Saviour on a certain occasion, which has been called the "golden rule," probably on account of the value of its principles; with double appropriateness might it be called "golden" at the present day, on account of its scarcity.

"4. That we have no commandment to 'refrain from worshiping images, swearing, lying, or stealing, except it be found in the Decalogue.' And he adds, 'that he (the editor of the Voice) does not do these things because they are forbidden by the ten commandments, we are well persuaded.' The reason why these things are unlawful for us, [not 'the reason why we do not do them'] is because they are forbidden by the gospel of Jesus Christ."

The editor of the Voice may have penned this statement in all sincerity, but it cannot be correct; for the gospel of Jesus Christ contains no command to us to "refrain from worshiping images." He cannot find it there. It forbids the practice only by enforcing the original law which contains the prohibition.

"5. We are accused of 'changing the issue,' because by an inadvertence, the word 'such' was left out of the following quotation from the Review. 'We never heard of any who kept the seventh day getting into any such difficulty.' We have only spoken of one difficulty, and the whole connection shows what difficulty was referred to."

A reference to our remarks will show that Eld. H. is laboring under an entire misapprehension here. The omission of the word "such" had nothing to do with the change of issue which we pointed out to him. But it was just this: The question that first came up was, how a definite day could be kept for holy time, in view of the fact that time is gained or lost in going round the world, and that some missionaries on a certain occasion found themselves one day apart in their Sabbath.

We replied that this was a question for Sunday-keepers, not Sabbath-keepers, to settle; for they keep just as definite a day as we do, and they were the ones who got into the difficulty. In reply to this, Eld. H. turned right aside to the question of the commencement of the day here, and to the fact that the question had once come up among S. D. Adventists, whether the day should begin at six o'clock or at sunset. Now it seems to us that any one must see that this is entirely another question, from the gain or loss of a day in going round the world. Then he added, "To say that this is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, not Sabbath-keepers, does not meet the case." But we did not say that this is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle. Whether the day should begin at six o'clock or sunset, we have never proposed to Sunday-keepers to decide. We settled that ourselves, by the word of God, satisfactorily too. Now we say that this is changing the issue completely, and applying to this new issue, language which we used solely in reference to the gain or loss of time east and west. And to this false issue, in which the visions have been made the main object of remark, he has strictly adhered, making no reference whatever to the original and real question under discussion.

There are other points which we might notice, such as its being "very kind" in God "to add a special revelation to what was already revealed so plainly" [isn't it "very kind" in him to give us his Holy Spirit to aid us in understanding "what he has already revealed so plainly" in his word? This remark has perhaps a wider application than was intended], and about the difficulty being "removed by the vision," which has now become "a law" with the S. D. Adventists, &c. But we fear a continuation of this controversy would accomplish nothing. While the remarks of the editor of the Voice must place us in a very wrong and unfavorable light before his readers, but few, if any, of them would see our reply. Hence we leave it, with an abiding confidence that truth will progress and triumph, and that its future agitation will give opportunity for all misapprehensions to be corrected, and all the honest in heart to see the light.