Section 6. General Objections - outline of objections
---===---
99. Seventh day Adventists, perhaps even more than most other religious bodies, carry on a vigorous foreign-mission program. But why impose the Christian religion on the people of other countries? Why disturb and disrupt their program of living?
100. It is clear there must be something wrong in the system itself, when so large a number of persons leave the Seventh day Adventists.
101. When Seventh day Adventist ministers go into a community to hold a series of lectures, they conceal, at the first, their denominational connection. They thus hope to draw into their audience people who would never come if they knew that Seventh day Adventists were conducting the meetings. This is a form of deception. There is something the matter with a religious body that is afraid to identify itself as soon as it begins to carry on any activity in a community.
102. Seventh day Adventists hold fanatical views on health reform and vegetarianism, and by such teachings restrict the liberty that belongs to Christians. In fact, the very distinction they make as to what is right to eat and drink brings them under the condemnation of the Bible. (See Rom. 14:2; 1 Tim. 4:3).
103. Seventh day Adventists are proselyters.
104. In their opposition to Sunday laws Seventh day Adventists reveal that they are callous to the needs of the working man and are blind to the fact that the very stability of the country is endangered by the godless course of millions who give no day in the week to God. It seems that they are more concerned to protect themselves against persecution than to give support either to the working man or to the moral uplift of the country.
105. Seventh day Adventists, in their opposition to Sunday laws, show themselves to be in league with the disreputable elements of the country.
106. Seventh day Adventists teach that only they will be saved.
107. Seventh day Adventists are calamity howlers.
108. Seventh day Adventism is a new ism, and holds new and un-Scriptural doctrines.
109. Seventh day Adventists have a prophet like many other of the modern isms, and they make of her writings a second Bible.
Section 6. General Objections - answers
---===—
Objection 99
Seventh day Adventists, perhaps even more than most other religious bodies, carry on a vigorous foreign-mission program. But why impose the Christian religion on the people of other countries? Why disturb and disrupt their program of living?
Strictly speaking, this is not an objection to Seventh day Adventists as distinguished from other churches. Our answer, therefore, is a defense of Christian missions in general. The essence of the charge is that the missionary imposes his religion on the nationals of other lands. Now the word "impose" implies force or compulsion. There are numerous instances where trade and business agreements have been imposed on pagan people by civilized nations. In fact, most of the relationships of the great nations to pagan countries have been built upon some element of force, so that the word "impose" might very accurately be used.
It is in the realm of missions that we find the one shining exception to this grim policy of imposition. The story of missions is a story of lone men and women going out without the strength of a government behind them, generally without even the moral support of the whole church; for too often has the Christian church been lukewarm in its missionary program. These missionaries have gone out with nothing more compelling than a Book and the story contained in that Book. So far from being able to dominate pagan peoples and compel them to accept these new beliefs, missionaries too often have had to live in terror of their lives, indeed, not infrequently to sacrifice their lives.
The Christian missionary goes out, not to compel the heathen to accept new views, but, in the words of Paul, to "persuade men." He has been constrained by the love of Christ to go forth as an ambassador for Christ to beseech men to be reconciled to God. He goes forth to share with them a belief and a hope and a new life that have come to him. He is in the position of one who, having come upon some great good fortune, feels that he cannot selfishly keep it to himself, but must let others enjoy it with him. The missionary is one who, having received freedom from the guilt of sin and the divine promise of everlasting life, feels an irresistible longing to bring the story of pardon to others, that they also may walk in newness of life.
The missionary is one who, having learned the wonderful story that Christ died and rose again and now sits at the right hand of God to make intercession for its, feels compelled in his own heart to tell others this most glorious news. He goes forth, not to impose alien ideas upon heathen people, but to broadcast news, the good news of salvation, which good news is alien to no land. The gospel deals with sin, and sin is a worldwide malady.
That the proclaiming of such news should shake to the very foundations many social and national institutions and practices of pagan lands is only to be expected. There is a power that goes with the gospel, even the power of God.
If no mighty upheaval and betterment of life followed the preaching of the gospel, the skeptic would have the strongest argument in the world that the gospel is a lifeless theory. This very upheaval and betterment is the best proof of the divine vitality and worth of the message that the missionary preaches.
But there is a further point to be made in favor of missions today more than ever before. After two world wars most of mankind is filled with suspicions, hatreds, and jealousies. The world is falling apart under the pressure of these evil forces. The desperate need today is for a display of mutual trust and understanding, a brotherly feeling, a sense of kinship. That is the only kind of cement that can keep the tottering edifice of civilization from collapsing completely.
And what can produce this? The League of Nations tried and failed, and the United Nations seems not to be faring better. Great armaments and large standing armies cannot produce this mystic cement. But let the Christian missionary preach in any corner of the world, and what happens? Men and women begin to call each other "brother" and "sister" in Christ Jesus. And they think of other Christians in the faraway homeland of the missionary as brothers and sisters in the Lord. But you cannot truly think of a man as your brother and yet be suspicious of him and want to turn your house into an arsenal to guard against him.
True, so-called Christian nations have gone to war with other so-called Christian nations. But that sad fact does not prove false what we have just written. We are not talking about so-called Christianity. We are talking about the genuine article. Christ said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one toward another." Genuine Christianity is revealed in genuine love for others. And to the degree that the missionary brings to men in a far land the genuine manifestation of Christian love and teachings, to that degree he is binding the hearts of men together.
Thus the Christian missionary stands out as a great apostle of peace in a world that is already gravely threatened with a third world war. Never was there greater need of Christian missionaries. We are glad that the objector places Seventh day Adventists in the forefront of mission work. We believe we are doing the will of God when we send out missionaries, for our Lord commanded His disciples, "Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15.
---===---
Objection 100
It is clear there must he something wrong in the system itself, when so large a number of persons leave the Seventh day Adventists.
This objection was first raised, we believe, about the year 1890, by a man who left the Adventist ministry, at least present-day objectors credit these exact words to him. They apparently do not know that he, and others in those earlier days, confidently forecast that the Seventh day Adventist Church would soon break to pieces and disintegrate!
Yes, there are those who leave the Adventist Church. How does the objector know? We publish the facts in our statistical reports. Similar reports of all religious bodies contain figures showing apostasies. But we have never heard any Christian believer reason that there "must be something wrong in the system itself when so many people leave the different Christian churches." What a host of people there are who will tell you that they once were members of such and such a church-including the church to which the objector belongs-but that they have dropped out.
There is nothing either strange or new about this situation. Christ gave the parable of the sower to fortify the heart of the Christian minister in this very matter of departures from the church. (See Matt. 13:18-23) That parable forewarns the minister that only a fraction of those who accept the word will endure.
Paul wrote to Timothy regarding the failure of the believers to stand by him at his trial: "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." 2 Tim. 4:16. In that same epistle he said, "This thou knows, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." 2 Tim. 1:15. We have yet to hear any Christian believer reasoning that this fact proved that "there must be something wrong" in the very "system" of doctrine that Paul preached.
Yes, there have been and there will continue to be defections from the Advent movement. Those who look at this movement dispassionately are impressed, not that some leave it, but that so many stay, seeing that its members are called upon to live in accordance with high and inflexible standards of conduct and are ever confronted with the economic handicap of no Saturday labor. Onlookers have often told us that we might gain and hold a host more members if we did not call upon them to abstain from liquor, tobacco, the theater, and other practices that we believe are contrary to Scriptural standards. But then, if we lowered the standards, we would lose the real justification for our existence. We solemnly and humbly believe that it is our business to call men to the highest standards of heaven and to show them that by God's enabling power they can order their lives by those standards, in readiness for the day when all men must meet God face to face.
The objector seeks to give added force to his argument by printing a little group of letters from former Adventists who say they left this church because they no longer accepted the denomination's view of Mrs. White, or the interpretation that she gives to various doctrines. But why should this necessarily prove that either the denomination or Mrs. White is false? That the gift of prophecy normally belongs in the church is evident from Scripture (see Objection 109). That some should refuse to accept a prophet's instruction, while insisting that they believe what the ancient prophets have written, is also evident from Scripture. The Jews, at Christ's time, rejected Him while vowing fervent belief in what Moses had written!
---===---
Objection 101
When Seventh day Adventist ministers go into a community to hold a series of lectures, they conceal, at the first, their denominational connection. They thus hope to draw into their audience people who would never come if they knew that Seventh day Adventists were conducting the meetings. This is a form of deception. There is something the matter with a religious body that is afraid to identify itself as soon as it begins to carry on any activity in a community.
This objection might sound more plausible were it not for certain passages of Scripture. One of the most striking facts that stand out in the Gospels is that Christ concealed His identity on a number of occasions. Note these texts, for example:
"And Jesus said unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." Matt. 8:4.
"And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straightly charged them, saying, See that no man know it." Matt. 9:30.
"Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." Matt. 16:20.
We have yet to hear any devout Christian expressing misgivings and doubts about the ministry of Christ or declaring that He was ashamed or afraid because He concealed His identity for a time. Evidently, then, this much at least may be established at the outset as being proved by these texts: Concealing one's identity is not in itself a proof that one is either ashamed or afraid. There may be honorable and altogether reasonable grounds for such concealment. On Matthew 16:20, Adam Clarke well observes:
"The time for his [Christ's] full manifestation was not yet come; and he was not willing to provoke the Jewish malice, or the Roman envy, by permitting his disciples to announce him as the Saviour of a lost world. He chose rather to wait, till his resurrection and ascension had set this truth in the clearest light, and beyond the power of successful contradiction."
To this explanation most theologians, we believe, would agree. Christ would evidently have cut short His work if He had permitted a premature announcement that He was the Messiah, for "malice" and "envy" blind men to truth.
Those who are Christ's followers may rightly be permitted to use Him as their guide in all matters, including the matter of how best to promote the truth concerning His coming again to this earth. Now, it is a fact that during most of the history of the Seventh day Adventist Church, the very word "Adventist" has conveyed to the minds of most people a picture of a deluded band of fanatics sitting on housetops in ascension robes awaiting the opening of the heavens. This story of ascension robes has become a part of American folklore and been embalmed in impressive encyclopedias. And the ascension robes story is only part of the fanciful picture that has come into the minds of many when they have heard the name "Adventist."
The ascension robes story is a myth, and ninety-nine per cent of the related stories are likewise myth, as has now been proved-but that has not prevented people from believing them. The net result has been that many people have seen Seventh day Adventists only through the distorting mists of slanderous myths. This is nothing new in religious history; witness, for example, the early history of the Quakers and the Baptists.
It should not be difficult, therefore, for any reasonable person to see why Adventist ministers through the past years have sought first to cause people to see them simply as Christian preachers before announcing their Adventist connection. After all, we seek to be first, and before all else, Christian preachers of righteousness. Then we hope to build on that the timely messages from Bible prophecy that may be described in the words of the apostle' Peter as "present truth" for these last days of earth's history.
It has undoubtedly been true in years past that Adventists could not have gotten a crowd out to hear them in certain cities, at least, if they had revealed their identity at the outset. But we think that that proves, not the weakness of the Adventist case, but the strength of distorted ideas founded on fanciful myths. The other side of the picture is that many people, after they have attended Adventist meetings for a time, frankly admit that they have changed their ideas about us and are glad that they first came to the meetings not knowing who was conducting them.
In more recent years our activities have become so much better known that in many places the former distorted picture has been largely corrected. Accordingly, we are increasingly following the plan of announcing at the outset the Adventist sponsorship of the public meetings. That is what we like to do, and what we hope erelong to be able to do everywhere. We are not ashamed of our Adventism, far from it. An Adventist colporteur selling one of our books was asked by a prospective customer as to his religious connections. "Madam," he replied, "I don't want to boast, but I'm a Seventh day Adventist." No, we don't want to boast, we simply want to proclaim to the world a message that we earnestly believe should be given at this time. And if, in order to secure an initial hearing, we must at the first conceal the name, we do so for a brief period only with a view to a clear-cut announcement of our Adventist connections a little later in the meetings. Then those who have been coming may decline to come further, if they desire. They generally decide to stay!
Unhappily, as the literature of many objectors to Adventism reveals, it is they who have often been most active in spreading the distorting myths regarding us. And then they are wont to add, as though to prove conclusively their case against us, that we sometimes fail to reveal our Adventist connections at the outset of a series of evangelistic lectures! If they will help us to clear away completely the slanderous myths that folklore has often thrown around the name "Adventist," we will be most happy to preface every one of our public meetings with the announcement of its Adventist sponsorship! In the meantime we shall, in such instances and areas as the situation necessitates, follow the precedent set by our Lord's instruction to His disciples as regards the time of disclosing our name.
---===---
Objection 102
Seventh day Adventists hold fanatical views on health reform and vegetarianism, and by such teachings restrict the liberty that belongs to Christians. In fact, the very distinction they make as to what is right to eat and drink brings them under the condemnation of the Bible. (See Rom. 14:2; 1 Tim. 4:3.)
When this charge was first made it seemed to have some strength, and we were compelled to answer it alone. But today, after many years of research in medical lines, the scientist meets this accusation for us, and rather generally changes the word "fanatical" to "sane" and "scientific", as regards our views on liquor, tobacco, tea, coffee, et cetera. We hold that certain things that are called "food" are to a greater or less degree harmful to the body. Therefore we believe that they have no proper place in our diet. Paul exclaims, "What? Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." 1 Cor. 6:19,20.
How a Christian can partake of a food or a drink that is in any way injurious and still obey the solemn command to "glorify God in your body," we do not know. The Bible declares that "if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." 1 Cor. 3:17.
Further: We are to cooperate with God in our habits and customs for the development of perfect Christian characters. It is a known fact that right habits of eating and drinking have much to do with a good disposition as well as with a sound constitution. Certainly the reverse holds good.
The apostle Peter clearly shows that there is a direct relation between food and holiness. When he writes, "Be you holy in all manner of conversation [Living-A.R.V.]," he refers to the Old Testament passage containing God's condemnation of unclean foods. (See I Peter 1:15, 16; Lev. 11:44-47)
But it will be urged: Does not the Bible allow us to partake of certain meats termed "clean"? Yes, permission is given. But let us ask, What would you think of a man who, because it pleased his palate, made a part of his diet some herb that science has proved is injurious to the body, and who defended his dangerous dietary course by stating that the Bible said he might eat of any herb? (See Gen. 1:29) You would probably answer him that this statement in Genesis must be considered in the light of the continual degeneracy taking place as the result of the curse resting upon the world. Thus with the eating of what was once termed in the Scripture "clean" meat. Furthermore, flesh food was not a part of the original diet of man. (Gen. 1:29)
However, recognizing the fact that every man must be guided by his own conscience in all matters not explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures, the Seventh day Adventist denomination does not make the eating of the "clean" meats a test of fellowship. But urges its members to study carefully the whole question of their diet in the light of Scripture and scientific findings, so that they will not in any particular "defile the temple of God."
While remembering the Biblical pronouncement that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," we do not fail to keep in mind the inspired command: "Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God." Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 10: 3 1.
Endeavoring to obey this and similar admonitions has led Adventists, contrary to the desires of carnal appetite, to become abstemious in regard to what they eat and drink. We hold that such a course enables us more easily to obey the injunction, "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul," and to follow the practice of Paul, who declared, 'I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection." 1 Peter 2: 11; 1 Cor. 9:27.
Reference is made to Romans 14:1-5. The text in its context reads as follows: "Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eats herbs. Let not him that eats despise him that eats not; and let not him which eats not judge him that eats: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judges another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Yes, he shall be held up. For God is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Earlier (see objection 36) this passage was discussed as it relates to holy days. We there concluded that Paul is considering Jewish holy days and Jewish restrictions as to meats and drinks, though the matter of meats and drinks was not discussed. Jewish ceremonial ritual made various contacts with the diet of the Jews. There were days of fasting, for example. It is easy to see how some Jews who had just accepted Christianity might still feel to honor such days, and hence to refrain from food on those days or to obey other related ceremonial requirements. In writing to the Colossians, Paul says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day." Col. 2:16. Paul is not here discussing the dietetic question of the food value of things that might be eaten or drunk. He is concerned only to free Christians from such restrictions as grew out of ceremonial requirements or out of the false idea that men can gain salvation by a certain diet.
As various commentators bring out, the Jews who were dispersed abroad, as was true of those at Rome, could not be sure that what they bought in the market place was clean, according to Jewish standards; even "clean" meat might not be ceremonially clean. Hence some Jews might refrain from eating any meat at all.
Again, in the pagan cities of the Roman Empire it was often the case that meat was first offered to the idols, in a kind of dedication, and then placed-on the market. Paul talks to the Corinthian church about this very matter. Some Christians were not able to eat such meat without trouble of conscience; others were not so troubled. This leads Paul to offer the same kind of counsel that he gives in Romans 14 regarding forbearance one of another. (See 1 Corinthians 8.) Indeed some commentators believe that 1 Corinthians 8 is really the explanation of Romans 14:1-5.
In the light of these facts what conceivable relation does Romans 14:2 have to Adventist health teachings? The difference between them is as wide as the difference between ceremonial and dietary reasons for eating or not eating certain foods.
Let us look, now, at 1 Timothy 4:3. This text in its context reads thus:
"Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:1-5.
Bible commentators are agreed that this passage finds its primary fulfillment in the Gnostic and related heresies that were already beginning to take shape. And many Protestant commentators believe that the passage finds its further and rather complete fulfillment in the Roman Catholic Church. The proof in support of this belief is both plentiful and persuasive.
The Gnostics, who early made deep inroads into the Christian church, believed that matter is essentially evil and that the food we eat was not made by God but by an inferior deity. They denounced marriage as evil. The Manicheans, another early heretical sect, "held that wine sprang from the blood and gall of the devil." See Lange's commentary in comment on 1 Timothy 4:3.
Later, the Roman Catholic Church, over which, observes Harnack, Gnosticism gained half a victory, established celibacy of the clergy, and instituted prohibitions against meat at various times of the year.
Well might Paul warn against such heresy. To refrain from certain meat or drink for the reasons given by the Gnostics and others would be to endorse their false teachings by one's very course of life. Neither we nor the objector could practice or promote abstinence from wine, for example, on the basis set forth by these apostates. But the objector's denunciation of the reasoning of the Gnostics or Manicheans would not make him any less a believer in temperance, and perhaps in dietary reform as well.
Even so with us, we join with Paul in denunciation of the heresies described in 1 Timothy 4:14, while still believing that it is better, on dietary grounds, to abstain from certain foods and drinks.
In closing, we should add that the word "meats" in 1 Timothy 4:3 is from the Greek word broma, which simply means food. In the old English phrase, "sit down to meat," we preserve the idea of "meat" simply as food. Hence, Paul's discussion does not focus on the question of flesh food versus a non flesh diet. Instead, he is concerned to forewarn against heresies that would lead Christians to "abstain" from various "foods," not because of any valid dietary grounds, but because of false philosophical, pagan reasons. We think that if Paul were resurrected today, he would be more than a little startled to find his words of warning against the already developing Gnostic heresy being interpreted to apply to twentieth century Seventh day Adventist nutritional views!
Seventh day Adventists are proselyters.
---===---
Objection 103
To this charge we plead "guilty," for the dictionary says that to proselyte is "to win over to a different opinion, belief, sect, or party," and that is our work. Christ Himself gave us that work in His command, "Go you therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them." Matt. 28:19, A.R.V. This proselyting was the work of Peter, James, and John, and the mighty evangelist Paul, and we but follow in their steps, continuing the work that they began. To the nominal believers in God the apostles preached that the Messiah of the Old Testament had come. They called upon the heathen to turn "from idols to serve the living and true God." 1 Thess. 1:9. They went to the uttermost parts of the earth in their God-given task of proselyting.
So with us. To the nominal believer we preach that the Christ of the Old and the New Testament, the Christ who came once to die for our sins, will soon return to this earth. We call upon the heathen to turn from their idols to the true God, and to prepare for the soon coining of His Son from heaven.
Everywhere we find men and women holding un-Scriptural beliefs regarding the great events that are just ahead, and failing to worship the Creator of the heavens and the earth, as He has commanded, on the Sabbath. (See Ex. 20:8-11; Rev. 14:6, 7) If we remain true to God, we must use every Christian means possible to turn men from these wrong beliefs-to proselyte them. We are false in our duty to Heaven if we do otherwise. Where would the world be today if Luther and Calvin and others of the Reformers had not gone about preaching to men to turn from their former views on religion-proselyting them? Our task is to complete the work of these Reformers, and we are happy to follow their example and adopt their methods.
---===---
Objection 104
In their opposition to Sunday laws Seventh day Adventists reveal that they are callous to the needs of the workingman and are blind to the fact that the very stability of the country is endangered by the godless course of millions who give no day in the week to God. It seems that they are more concerned to protect themselves against persecution than to give support either to the workingman or to the moral uplift of the country.
One of the evident facts regarding our denomination is that it is composed, not of rich men, but of working men. Yet our whole membership are opposed to Sunday laws! Need more be said on this point?
The next evident fact is that we are far from blind to the moral state of the world. Our literature says much about the woeful state of morality and the godless condition of men. The difference between us and the Sunday law advocates is not in the relative degree of our eyesight but in the methods that we believe should be employed to cure the malady of godlessness. They would bring in the kingdom of God through the gateway of politics, and have our legislators save us from destruction. We would invoke the promised second coming of Christ to save the godly from this evil world, and as we wait for His soon coming we work with earnestness to turn men to God by the preaching of the gospel.
The third fact, which will become evident as we proceed, is that our opposition to Sunday legislation is not prompted by a selfish desire to save ourselves from possible persecution. We do not concede, of course, that there is anything necessarily selfish or evil in a person's invoking his constitutional rights to save himself from persecution. Even the great apostle Paul repeatedly invoked his Roman citizenship to save him from brutal treatment by his erstwhile brethren. Our reasons for opposition are these:
1. As students of prophecy we believe that the day is coming when the principles of religious intolerance that marked the Dark Ages will be revived. That there will be in the very closing hours of this world's history a mighty religio-political combine that will endeavor to dominate the consciences of men. We believe it is our solemn duty to warn men against giving their support to it. Indeed, we have no alternative in the matter, seeing that Christ, through the prophet John, has commanded us to cry out against this movement, so that men may be saved from giving their support to such an evil program.
2. In connection with this warning message that we are commanded to give, we find the injunction to proclaim the great Sabbath message to the world. And what more auspicious occasion could be found for giving special publicity to the true Sabbath than when men are endeavoring to stir up the world in support of the false? In this way our opposition to Sunday laws becomes not a negative but a positive thing. We simply capitalize the occasions of great public interest in Sunday laws to proclaim more fully the true Sabbath message.
As the time of trouble begins, the people of God are to go forth to preach the Sabbath doctrine more fully and more convincingly than ever before. The agitation for Sunday legislation provides a choice illustration of how the wrath of man can be made to praise God; or, to state it in the most charitable form how the endeavors of mistaken zealots can be made to serve a good purpose.
As a result of the widespread campaign that reformers have made through the public press and otherwise in recent years, there are probably more people who have become acquainted with the real facts on the Sabbath question than ever before. Because every agitation by Sunday advocates has made newspaper and magazine editors even more than ready to publish matter giving the other side of the case. We would have been woefully remiss in our duty if we had failed to use these opportunities.
3. We believe that there are many sincere and earnest men in the ranks of Sunday-law advocates. In fact, we are willing to admit that all of them are striving, according to their conception of the gospel, to advance the kingdom of God. But their sincerity does not make their course any the less wrong. If their program is carried out, and the strong arm of the law is drafted in their support, they will thus become persecutors.
We can conceive of no fate more tragic than that of a man whose misguided zeal for God finally causes him to become a persecutor of others who are striving to preach the gospel. Christ foretold such, a tragedy as this when He declared that the time will come when he that "kills you will think that he does God service." This divine forecast was fulfilled during the Middle Ages, arid may be fulfilled again in the last days. In fact, at the very last there will be only two classes, the persecutors and the persecuted-those who give support to the great religio-political combine and those who, because of the opposing stand, are forbidden even to buy or to sell. Not to save ourselves from being persecuted, but to save others from being persecutors, is a chief reason for our stand against Sunday laws. We have endeavored in all our literature to make clear to the reformers the evil direction in which they are going, and it should ever be our zealous endeavor to do this in a spirit of charity and Christian love, making our attack on principles, not on persons.
4. The Scriptures plainly declare that we owe allegiance to the state, and should endeavor loyally and zealously to support it in the carrying out of its proper functions. (See Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:16-21) In this fact is to be found a valid reason for our outcry against the endeavors of reformers to combine the church with the state. Knowing as we do from history and prophecy that such a combine can work only to the detriment of the citizens and to the destruction of the free institutions of the country, we would surely fail to carry out the full meaning of the divine injunction to support the government if we failed to raise our voice in warning against such a menacing danger.
The truly loyal citizen is the man who possesses the moral courage to rise up and sound an alarm, even though he may be in the minority, and his numerous opponents may be the advocates of an apparently good program. And the one who thus sounds the alarm is in no wise violating the principle of the separation of church and state. Instead, he is arousing all men to the need of continuing inviolate that vital separation.
5. Finally, we oppose Sunday legislation because we would protect Christianity from the false conception of it that the masses of the people would have if proposed religious legislation were allowed to go unchallenged. One of the greatest handicaps under which the minister of the gospel labors is the feeling on the part of the man on the street that the church symbolizes an organization that is striving to force its views upon people. Surely there is a historical basis for such a feeling. And when the average individual, who is not a churchgoer, sees the endeavors of present-day militant church leaders to employ the power of the state, the antipathy toward the church is only intensified.
We are jealous to protect the Christian religion from this gross misconception. We would not be loyal to our divine Lord if we did not use every means possible to let men know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a gospel of force, and that He has commissioned His disciples to invite men to believe in Him. We would oppose with equal vigor any attempt to enforce the seventh day Sabbath by law.
---===---
Objection 105
Seventh day Adventists, in their opposition to Sunday laws, show themselves to be in league with the disreputable elements of the Country.
It does not follow that because two individuals or organizations oppose a measure they are actuated by the same motive. Indeed, they often have nothing in common. One man opposes unrestricted immigration because he conscientiously feels that only by restriction can the great mass of undesirables be kept out of the country. Another opposes the same measure for the selfish reason that he does not want to see any competition in the field of labor, for fear he will not be able to demand his own price for his work. How altogether different are the motives prompting these two men! Yet both are on the same side-the opposition-as to the measure.
Again: Some men favor unrestricted immigration, and for the reason that they wish the downtrodden of Europe to have a chance in this country, whereas others-certain unscrupulous employers support such a measure because they feel that it will result in cheap labor for their factories. Philanthropist and profiteer on the same side. Strange? No, a most common occurrence. Do we accuse one of being in league with the other? No-that is, not if we have regard to the truthfulness of our statements and the correctness of our logic.
Thus it is with us and Sunday legislation. We oppose it because it is a violation of the principles of religious liberty. The disreputable elements oppose Sunday laws because such laws take away from them their most lucrative day for business. There is nothing in common between us. In drawing this sharp contrast between ourselves and the disreputable elements, we do not wish to convey the thought that all other opponents of Sunday laws besides ourselves belong to the disreputable group. There are many citizens who for a variety of very proper reasons may oppose Sunday laws.
The stand taken by Seventh-day Adventists is that any business or institution that is sufficiently questionable to justify closing it on one day, should be closed every day in the week. Thus we are seven times more opposed to these evil elements than the most ardent Sunday law advocate with his one-day-a-week closing measure. Take, for example, our militant fight for prohibition through many years. When many church people seemed willing to compromise by seeking only a Sunday closing of saloons, we worked to have them shut up seven days in the week, 365 days in the year.
---===---
Objection 106
Seventh day Adventists teach that only they will be saved.
We do not hold this position. In the writings of Mrs. E. G. White, whom our opponents so frequently declare is our chief exponent of doctrine, are found these words:
"Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God." - The Desire of Ages, p. 638.
Could any utterance be more liberal? We doubt whether the objector would subscribe to such a pronouncement. He would hold that it was too liberal. But surely we cannot be at once too narrow and too broad in our teaching on this vital question. We cannot be expected to Plead guilty to both charges. No. We plead innocent of both, and offer the following as being the teaching of Seventh day Adventists on the matter of salvation.
We agree unreservedly with the inspired statement: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved." Acts 16:31. Yet no Christian would hold that in the Scriptures "saved" means no more than being relieved from the punishment for sin. That is, of course, all-important. But he who would be saved from the wages of sin must first of all be saved from the practice of sin, as promised, "He shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). And again in Romans 8:1-4 it is declared, as summed up in verse 4, that Christ gave His life for man, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Conversion is more than a philosophical change of the mind; it is, as declared in John 3:5-8, a new birth. The first assent of the mind, that recognition of the need of divine help, which prepares the way for conversion, must be followed by wholehearted yielding to the will of God under the transforming power of the Holy Spirit; this is the new birth declared by Christ to be absolutely essential to salvation.
And this must be followed by growth in grace and in "the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"2 Peter 3.18. When we first believe, we are as babes; but as we feed upon God's Word we grow. As we see more clearly the righteous requirements of the Bible and accept them, we become stronger and stronger Christians. This growth is to continue. "He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Phil. 1:6. So long as a Christian continues to grow, that is, to walk in harmony with the fuller light that the Bible seeks increasingly to bring to his heart and mind, he is on the road that leads to the kingdom of God.
---===---
Objection 107
Seventh day Adventists are calamity howlers.
This charge is only a half-truth, since an examination of our books and magazines will reveal the fact that almost all of the so-called calamity howling paragraphs are in quotation marks. And those quotation marks are significant because they enclose the words of some well-known authority in the political, social, religious, educational, or economic world.
You may pick up a representative issue of our papers and read an article portraying the awful increase of crime among the youth of the nation. But you will find that the most doleful portions of it are merely excerpts from authentic and indisputable official records or from the published statements of some judge or leading educator who is an authority on the subject. You may read an article in our journals telling of the dark future before the world, but a close examination discloses that the picture is painted dark, not by our writer, but by the renowned world statesmen whom he quotes. Again, you may perhaps glance through one of our editorials, which brings forward the charge that material advancement is no criterion of moral progress, and that the marvelous scientific inventions of our age are but means to our destruction. But upon rereading, you observe that authoritative quotations form the background of the editorial.
Not to "howl" about calamities, but to give the Bible explanation of them, is our work. When statesmen, presidents, and prime ministers are declaring that there is something wrong with the world and that the future is dark with a nameless dread, it behooves every clear-thinking man to inquire, What do these things mean? To arouse men everywhere to a realization of the seriousness of the times in which we live, and then to give them the solution of the perplexing question, is our task. We endeavor to arouse by quoting from those who are authorities on world conditions; and then we strive, as a people with a message for this time, to prepare men for the climax that is ahead by turning the Bible searchlight on the problem.
In actual fact Adventists are sharply distinguished from the doleful-voiced world authorities, who see only darkness and destruction ahead. We see, through the eyes of Bible prophets, a bright world beyond, even a "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness."
Indeed, as the shadows deepen over the world, and men's hearts increasingly fail them for fear, only those who believe in the Second Advent of Christ can truly be joyful. The great men of the world reveal that they are powerless to grapple with the fearful problems that threaten to take all peace from the world. Only the Prince of Peace can provide a way of escape. That is why we preach Christ's coming. And that is why we are truly happy. If the objector would listen more attentively, he would discover that our emphasis is not on the calamities impending, but on the joyous delivery of the righteous out of those calamities.
---===---
Objection 108
Seventh day Adventism is a new ism, and holds new and un-Scriptural doctrines.
This charge is a half-truth; true as regards the length of time this denomination as such has existed, false as regards the nature of the doctrines it holds.
As to the newness of our denomination, we would state simply that if age is the criterion of relative religious worth, then the Catholic Church is on a much higher plane than all the Protestant churches, and Buddhism still higher than Catholicism. But what fallacious reasoning! As to our teaching new and un-Biblical doctrines, we would say. One of the chief characteristics of our doctrines is their antiquity; and for all of them we have a "Thus says the Lord," as the copious Scriptural references in all our books and papers attest.
Take, for example, our teaching concerning the Sabbath. This doctrine was given at creation (Gen. 2:2, 3) and incorporated in the earliest Scriptural code of laws, the Ten Commandments, fifteen hundred years before Christ. (See Ex. 20:2-17) In this connection it might be added that almost in the same breath most of our opponents charge us with teaching new doctrines and with holding to an "old Jewish Sabbath." How a dogma can be at once both new and old they do not explain.
In teaching the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ, that "the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all," we repeat the words of Enoch, "the seventh from Adam." Jude 14,15. The antiquity of that doctrine, therefore, is not open to question.
Our belief that a meatless diet is the ideal can hardly be termed new. Adam and Eve were given a vegetarian dietary, and by the Lord Himself. (See Gen. 1: 29)
From primitive times God's people have had the blessing of prophets, and have believed in the principle of prophetic guidance. (See Gen. 20:7; Ex. 15:20.) We believe that the gift of prophecy still belongs to the church. Certainly there is nothing new about this doctrine.
We believe that Christians should pay tithe. But we refer to such men as Abraham and other most ancient worthies for our precedent. (See Gen. 14:20.)
Our doctrines of a personal devil, who is responsible for sin, of a creation by the fiat of Almighty God, of a literal Second Advent, and of a punishment by fire of all sinners are in harmony with the teachings of Bible writers thousands of years ago. And mark this too-they are in harmony with the teachings of the founders of most of the Protestant churches, as their creeds and confessions will testify. The evolution doctrine, which banishes creation and finds no room for the Advent; the view that sin is only imaginary, and that somehow all will finally be saved, these are new teachings. Yet they are given out from many Protestant pulpits today. Not Seventh day Adventists, but popular preachers are the promulgators of new and un-Scriptural doctrines.
The reason for our existence as a denomination is not to give out new doctrines but to restate the old and proved ones and to "contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. In doing so we realize that we must often teach contrary to the popular view. But if the extent of one's departure from accepted teaching is the measure of one's heresy, then the early apostles were the greatest heretics who ever lived. Indeed, they were accused by the nominal people of God of turning the "world upside down." (See Acts 17:5, 6)
In giving to men the everlasting gospel and the messages of warning for this time, every Seventh day Adventist is willing to face the charge of heresy, saying with the mighty evangelist Paul. "After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." Acts 24:14.
Objection 109
Seventh day Adventists have a prophet like many other of the modern isms, and they make of her writings a second Bible.
The very way in which this charge is framed would lead the ordinary reader to the conclusion that because certain modern cults have as one of their characteristics the presence of prophets whose messages certainly do not come from God, therefore any denomination possessing a prophet must be in the same class with these isms. They would have us infer that the term "prophet" should always be coupled with "false." But is this necessarily true? Because there are false prophets, does it therefore follow that all prophets are false? Because there is counterfeit money, does it therefore follow that all money is counterfeit? Certainly not. Where there is counterfeit, there is also genuine; where there is false, there is also true.
In an age when such a distorted idea possesses the minds of almost all regarding the relation of prophecy to God's plan of salvation, it is necessary that the history of the doctrine be gone over briefly in order for us to obtain a correct conception of the issue at hand. Unenlightened on it, we shall surely fall into one of two grievous difficulties: either we shall take up with anything that possesses uncanny powers, or else we shall turn down everything that claims supernatural origin. To do the first is to become hopelessly lost; to do the second is to go contrary to the divine command, "Despise not prophesyings." 1 Thess. 5:20. Instead, we should pursue the middle course, and "try the spirits whether they are of God." 1 John 4: 1.
All through the history of God's dealing with His people there have been prophets and prophetesses. From the days of Moses and Miriam, through the times of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, a prophetess "of a great age" in the time of Christ, even to the last years of the apostolic period, when the four daughters of Philip the evangelist "did prophesy". God has seen fit to give His instruction to the church through the agency of men and women upon whom He has placed the Spirit of prophecy. (See Ex. 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8,9.)
Finally, the Bible tells us explicitly that the church in the closing days of its earthly history will possess this gift. (See Rev. 12:17; cf. Rev. 19: 10.)
So necessary did Solomon regard the gift of prophecy that he wrote, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Prov. 29: 18. And there is no reason to believe that in these last days, when every kind of deception and heresy is abroad, when the very elect are in danger of being ensnared (see Matt. 24:24), the statement of Solomon should be any less applicable than in his day.
Further, it is clear that God has given instruction to His church through prophets without adding to the permanent body of Sacred Writings. Have we not many cases in the Scriptures where prophets gave messages, both written and verbal, which most certainly were inspired, but which form no part of the Bible? Assuredly. (See 2 Chron. 9:29; Acts 21:8,9)
With this foundation laid, we are prepared to draw the Scriptural conclusion that the presence of a prophet in the church need not necessarily be a sign that that denomination is false. On the contrary, it may be the best evidence possible that God is especially directing that movement. We may also conclude that one may be a true prophet of God, giving out inspired utterances without stating that which should be considered in any sense an addition to the great standard of truth, the Bible.
It is not within the scope of this short answer to prove that the writings of Mrs. E. G. White, whom we regard as having possessed the gift of prophecy, are of God. The writings themselves furnish the best proof of their divine origin. However, we do not therefore hold that these writings, though inspired, should be considered as a second Bible or an addition to it. In this we are consistent with our foregoing conclusions. "The written testimonies," it is explained in Mrs. White's published works, "are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed. Man's duty to God and to his fellow man has been distinctly specified in God's word; yet but few of you are obedient to the light given. Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given." - Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 605.
In closing, we desire to ask the objector two questions: If you hold that true prophets do not belong to this age, are you prepared to maintain the logical inference that God has acted partially, and has been more gracious to men in past ages than to us who live in this most perilous time of the church? But seeing that the scriptures cited in this chapter clearly show that the gift of prophecy belongs to, and will be found in, the true church in these days, how do you explain its absence from the church of which you are a member?