p. 24 | IS IT WISE?

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, January 8, 1880

FromThe Review and Herald, Vol. 55, No. 2

“IS IT WISE?”

If Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists do not learn what is wise in reference to their relation to each other, it will not be because the question is not extensively discussed. In the Sabbath Recorder of Jan. 1 appears another article under this heading, this time by Eld. J. Bailey, containing some propositions which look to us like a singular sort of wisdom, to say the least of them. The opening paragraph reads thus:—

“The fraternization with the Adventists involves an acceptance or endorsement of their faith. Are we prepared to do it in the following items?”

The word “fraternization,” rigidly defined, may perhaps sustain this declaration; but we were not aware that any such fraternization had ever been proposed or sought by either denomination; but when taken in its obviously intended sense as commonly employed to signify merely friendly or cordial relations with each other, it will be news to most of Eld. Bailey’s readers to learn that they cannot sustain such relations to S. D. Adventists without endorsing all their faith!

Having drawn out this extreme principle for a foundation, he proceeds to enumerate the items which they must “endorse” if they “fraternize.” The first is a quotation from Experience and Views, as presented in “Thoughts on Revelation,” p. 320, on which he comments in the following strain: “The prophetess of the Advent faith claims,” etc.

The next is that “an adhering Adventist” told him “that Ellen G. White, the prophetess of Adventism, said that ‘if any one who had received the Advent faith apostatized from it, they could not be saved.’”

The next is that a “good spiritual brother” told him, “that a leading Advent preacher taught that the visions of Ellen G. White were as sacred as the writings of Paul or John, and further that if he should go to the brother’s house and drink tea in which he had put poison, it would not hurt him if he did not know the poison was in it.”

Isn’t this so far a beautiful showing? Isn’t here a peck of trouble with the “visions of Ellen G. White,” in reference to whom he is careful to ring the changes on the word prophetess? Where did he get that word in connection with her name? Did he find it in any of our published works? Did he ever see such a claim put forth by any of our writers, or ever see it from her pen, or hear it from her lips? It is not a word which we claim or use in connection with her work. But there is a class of opponents to the visions, wicked, no-Sabbath fellows, who, whenever they wish to raise prejudice, ring in the word “prophetess.” We are sorry Eld. B. has suffered himself to adopt the same style, as he thereby places himself in a false, or at least an unenviable, light. He, with all others, has every opportunity of knowing how the visions are held by this people; that they are regarded simply as manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit, which according to Paul were “set in the church,” and that in their matter they are to be tested by the Bible, Isa. 8:20; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:19-21, and as to their nature and origin, are to be judged by their fruits. Matt. 7:15-20. Hedged about by such safeguards, there need be no serious cause of alarm, surely.

Now as to the view of the tree of life, Thoughts on Revelation, p. 320, we see no contradiction, but rather an explanation, of the language of John. As to the statement about those who apostatize from the Advent faith, whoever reports it had better get it from the lips of Mrs. White herself. There is a world of gossip afloat in regard to her teaching which has no foundation either in reason or fact, for which she is in no way responsible. A report is no evidence. Where has she written it, or who has heard her say it? But it yet remains to be seen whether any of the class spoken of will be saved or not. It isn’t a subject on which any demonstration exists on either side, and hence is a poor subject for controversy. As to the sacredness of the visions compared with the writings of Paul or John, the reader can judge for himself which occupies the higher position: that which is the standard by which to test all other writings, or those other writings which are to be tested by it. And as to the tea with poison in it, all our “leading ministers” have taken the teetotal pledge, and do not drink tea, so of course they would not be hurt by any poison placed therein! But, seriously, does Eld. B. suppose that any one who fraternizes with S. D. Adventists is obliged to endorse what a good spiritual brother told him that he understood a “leading Advent preacher” to teach, and to believe that poison would not have hurt him if he had drunk it? Isn’t it possible that Eld. B.’s brother, “good and spiritual” though he be, might misunderstand what the “leading Advent preacher” taught, or be a little inclined to overdraw, and so give him an incorrect story to repeat? Or, on the other hand, isn’t it just possible that some may have come into our ranks who are ignorant, narrow-minded, and perhaps superstitious and fanatical, for whose rash assertions the body is not to be held accountable? But when it comes to gathering up these hearsay declarations, or taking what one supposes another

to teach, and putting them in as argument, and representing that every one is required to endorse them, we ask, not only, Is it wise? but, is it a manifestation of that fairness and courtesy which gentlemen, to say nothing of Christians, have a right to expect from one another?

Eld. B. continues: “They teach that man, made in the image of God, is material, and that he does not receive eternal life till after the resurrection. Christ says, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.’ If this eternal life is not received till the resurrection, we are yet unregenerated and in our sins.”

Do we understand this last declaration? Are the unregenerate destitute of eternal life? and when a man is converted does he then receive his immortal soul? This is what the language asserts. And if the regenerate man backslides and is cast away, what becomes of his eternal life? And what about the person who ever remains unregenerate? He of course never has eternal life. This is coming to our side on the more weighty branch of this great question. We, too, believe that when a man is regenerated he receives eternal life, not in absolute possession, but where John says it is, in the Son of God. “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son.” John 5:11. We quote another paragraph as follows:—

“A leading Advent minister, after persuading certain Seventh-day Baptists to unite with an Advent church, said to them, ‘You must give one-tenth of your income, or you steal from the Lord.’ Under this pressure one man pledged ten dollars who could not pay his debts, and had not bought his wife a dress in eight years. Another one, who had to borrow grain to sow, and go barefoot till he could sell his crop, was required to pledge one-tenth of his crop. These statements I had from an adhering Adventist. Did Christ direct the gospel to be preached to the poor in this way? I ‘trow not.’”

These are interesting cases. We shall seek to learn more of them. But the assertion that one was required to pledge one-tenth of his crop, we venture to deny. The duty of paying a tithe is preached, but it is left to each one to act voluntarily in the matter. But it seems these persons had not succeeded very well before they adopted our faith. The one who as a Seventh-day Baptist had not bought his wife a dress in eight years, we anticipate will make a better record as a Seventh-day Adventist, paying both his debts and his tithe, and buying his wife a new dress perhaps as often as once in four years! We shall look with interest to see how the matter comes out.

Again he says:—

“In connection with a four months’ labor in a Seventh-day Baptist church to convert them to Adventism, they were told ‘all the honest would join them’ (the Adventists). Is honesty dead with all but them?”

If we thought honesty was dead with all others, we should certainly expect no more accessions to our ranks. The fact that we do set before others what we believe to be truth, with the expectation that some will receive it, is a refutation of the inference, if not of the assertion. But who says this? Is it the action of any of our Conferences or the declaration of any of our books or papers? We would like to know, really, by what we are to be judged.

And finally, Eld. B. refers to the “conjecture” concerning the seven thunders, in Thoughts on Revelation 10:3, 4, and asks, “Does that mean that God defeats his own purposes by revealing them to his people?” By no means. The object of the “conjecture” was only to show that where it would defeat his purposes he did not reveal. But we have never pressed any one to “endorse” a “conjecture.”

And is this all? All. Or at least the best and strongest, which would of course be brought forward first.

Let not these remarks be misunderstood. We are not pleading for S. D. Baptists to endorse our faith on points wherein we differ; neither do we propose to adopt theirs. But we think it would present a better appearance to the world and tend more to promote the best interests of the Sabbath cause, if the two bodies should maintain a friendly attitude toward each other than otherwise. But some on their side seem unwilling to do this; and we simply wish our readers to understand the reasons which they offer in justification of their position. We shall probably have no occasion to refer to this subject farther.