The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 75

July 26, 1898

“Editorial” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 30, p. 474.

THE Book of Acts is the record of the work of the Holy Spirit in the line of “the early rain.” And we are “in the time of the latter rain;” therefore, the Book of Acts is the record of what we may all have, only in greater abundance and power. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.1

Then they were told to “wait for the promise,” and that they should “be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” They waited. And as they waited, they asked. And as they asked, they received. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.2

In this time, just now, “in the time of the latter rain,” we are told to ask for rain. And “every one that asketh receiveth.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.3

In the time of “the early rain,” on that great day of wondrous filling and of power, all the multitude were told, “The promise is unto you, and to your children.” “Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.4

In this “time of the latter rain” this “promise” is to us and to our children, to the whole multitude, as certainly as it was then to them; yes, even “to all that are afar off.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.5

None are excluded. The promise is to all, far and near. We are in the time of the promise. We are told by the Lord himself to “ask” in this time. And we are told by him that “every one at asketh receiveth.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.6

O, will you not ask? “Ask, and it shall be given you.” “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.7

“Present-Day Theological Teaching” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 310, p. 474.

IN a note a week or two ago we mentioned the rejection of a candidate for the ministry at North Cambridge, Mass., by a Congregational council, on account of his views of salvation, and of the inspiration of the scriptures. Fuller reports, strictly authentic, show that he rejected “the idea of an equally perfect and authoritative inspiration of all the books of the Bible, insisting that some parts are to be regarded as purely legendary or mythical. He affirmed categorically, in reply to a question, his belief in the salvation of all men, which he regarded as a logical necessity from belief in the immortality of the soul and the love of God. What he regarded as the only possible alternative—the annihilation of the wicked, or conditional immortality—He rejected.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.1

And such views as this he holds after having spent “fourteen years of study in preparation for the ministry.” And that such should have been the result will not be so surprising in view of the startling statement of the Outlook, that “similar views are taught in several, if not in a majority, of the Congregational Theological seminaries in the United States. His view respecting the Bible has been publicly, and in printed utterances, taught by such well-known Congregational clergymen as Lyman Abbott, of New York; Washington Gladden, of Ohio; and William Rader, of California, not to mention a host of others. His view respecting future salvation has been recently expressed quite as explicitly by Dr. George A. Gordon, of Boston.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.2

When theological seminaries and “hosts” of pulpits teach that parts of the Bible are “legendary or mythical,“—and the Congregational Church is not exceptional in this,—then what kind of Bible, what kind of word of God, have they? When the only “word of God” that they have is such as they themselves select and frame, then who is their god? and whose word is it that they preach? ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.3

Is it not high time that there should be schools in which the Bible shall be the word of God, and in which it shall have the full place that belongs to it as the word of God? ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.4

“Believing the Word of God” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 30, p. 474.

ONE of the leading preachers of the United States has published a book on the “puzzling” books of the Bible, of which he has found seven. This book is written not so much to tell how puzzling these Bible books are to him, nor why their puzzling to him, as it is to make it appear to other people that these Bible books are puzzling books to them. Another thing that may be noted is that in this book he has dealt only with the books—old books—that are puzzling to him, and therefore, as a matter of course, are, or ought to be, puzzling to everybody else; he has not touched the particular passages or verses of the Bible, outside of the special books, which are puzzling. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.1

But why should even a preacher think that because certain books of the Bible are puzzling to him, this fact can be of so much importance to other people as to call for the publication of a book on it? Does it certainly follow that because something is puzzling to him, it must be puzzling to everybody else—especially as soon as it is known that it is puzzling to him? ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.2

Now the only possible way that any book, or any passage, of the Bible can be puzzling to anybody, is by his not believing it. And there are many things, even outside of the Bible, that puzzling to the person who does not believe them. The A B C’s are exceedingly puzzling to any man who does not believe them. And neither the Bible, nor any book or passage in the Bible, is any more puzzling to the person who believes it, than are the A B C’s to the person who believes them. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.3

But that is just the trouble with all these “critics,“—they do not believe the Bible, they do not accept it as the word of God. They are critics of the word of God, not believers of the word of God. They do not receive the word of God for what “it is in truth, the word of God.” They hold it off, and criticize it, and puzzle over it; and so it can not work effectually in them, because they do not believe it. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.4

That they do not accept it as the word of God, even when they believe it to be true, is clear from this: Ever since 677 B.C. the Bible has said that “the captains of the host of the king of Assyria took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon.” One of the critics have said that until lately “this passage have always been a stumbling-block to the critics.” And the only means by which it was ever a stumbling-block to the critics was solely because they did not believe it. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.5

The stumbling-block that they found in this passage was in that it says that the Assyrians brought Manasseh to Babylon; while it was known that Nineveh was the capital of the kingdom of Assyria. The critics thought that it should have said that they brought Manasseh to Nineveh; and because it did not say what they thought, it was a stumbling-block. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.6

But what caused this passage to cease to be a stumbling-block?—Why, the records of Esar-haddon, who was then king of Assyria, were discovered; and these records told that Babylon was subdued and possessed by Assyria, and that Babylon was his residence in those years. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.7

But now the point,—they did not believe, before, that the passage told the truth, and of course did not believe it to be the word of God. Now, however, they admit that the passage tells, and always did tell, the exact truth; but why do they believe this now?—Not because it is the word of God, but only because of what Esar-haddon said. If they had not yet found these words of Esar-haddon, or others to the same effect, they would not yet believe that the passage tells the truth; it would still be to them a stumbling-block. Therefore, as they believed it now only on the authority of Esar-haddon, and not on the authority of God, it is perfectly plain that though they now believe it to be true, they do not so believe it because it is the word of God. The authority which they accept rest upon for the truth of the passage is the authority of a man, not of God. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.8

And whoever accepts the word of God on the authority of a man, has only the word of the man; to him the word of God is only the word of the man: the word of the man is put above the word of God; the man is put in the place of God. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.9

To the person who accepts the Bible as the word of God, that passage never was, and never could be, a stumbling-block. It was the truth. And it was the truth because it was the word of God. True, he might not be able to explain it to the critics, or even to himself; nevertheless, he knew that it was the truth; and he rested there. And now he is no more sure of the truth of that passage than he was before. Now he knows exactly how it was done; but that it was done, he knew as well before as now or ever, because he had the word of God for it, and “the word of our God shall stand forever.” ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.10

“Please Rise and Explain” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 30, pp. 474, 475.

IT will be recalled that just as the war was declared between Spain and the United States, the self-appointed guardians of Sunday sacredness petitioned the President “to have as little army work done on the Sabbath [Sunday] as possible,” and even asked that no fight be begun on Sunday, presumably because they believe that such an engagement would prove disastrous. We have not heard that the President ever offered any of these suggestions to the army officers; but we call attention to an interesting fact or two:— ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.1

We know that Admiral Dewey met the Spanish squadron at Manila, and utterly destroyed it, without the loss of a single man; and he did it on Sunday. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.2

We know that on the morning of July 3, Admiral Cervera attempted to escape from Santiago harbor; and his fleet of six powerful war vessels was annihilated, and seventeen hundred men were killed or taken prisoners in two hours’ time, with a loss of only one man on the American side; and that was also on Sunday. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 474.3

We know, further, that on July 17, Toral and all his forces surrendered Santiago, and marched as prisoners of war from the city, which they were compelled to do on threat of bombardment; and this was likewise on Sunday. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 475.1

These are not all the successes that have attended the American army, the climax of which took place on Sunday; but they are sufficient to raise the query whether the success of the American so far in this war has been materially injured by “Sabbath fighting.” Rather, has not the success been due to the superior ability of the commanding officers and men behind the guns? Will Mr. Crafts and others who have made such dire predictions please rise and explain? ARSH July 26, 1898, page 475.2

“Editorial Note” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 30, p. 476.

WE have long maintained that there was much in our school system that might be improved; that there should be less “cramming” and more practical work, even in the lower grades. We are heartily glad that some of our teachers are awake to the situation, and are adopting advanced methods. As an illustration, we give an extract from a letter received this week from a teacher who is conducting a select school in the vicinity of one of our churches. She says:— ARSH July 26, 1898, page 476.1

My school is closed, and the last-day exercises were pronounced a success. Instead of the old way of having dialogues, we had recitations that were all on the order of creating a sympathy for the poor, the outcasts, and the downtrodden,—the objects of Christian Help work and love. We also had samples of our every-day work in school. The two physiological classes gave a drill, showing what to do in emergencies. One boy was “crowned;” a girl “had her clothes on fire;” one young lady “had a broken arm,” which was bandaged and put in a sling; one “fainted;” one had a “cut artery;” another had a “bad case neuralgia,” etc. In each instance the pupils went through the drill without a break. Within a minute after the crew began, every visitor was on his feet, anxious to watch every move. It was better than any dialogue I ever saw. Then we had exhibitions of kindergarten work, which displayed so much skill and taste that some of the parents could hardly believe their children did the work over their signature. Following this, a short Bible exercise was conducted, to give an idea of our work in that direction. I am persuaded that the light that has come regarding church schools, and what should be taught in them, is opportune, and if heeded, will result in great good. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 476.2

“Back Page” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 30, p. 484.

HOW often, when success crowns our efforts in carrying out a cherished plan, we are inclined to say, “Surely the Lord’s hand was in that.” Perhaps so; but do we think the same when reverses come?—We ought to, if we have truly given up to do his will, for “all things [good or bad] work together for good to them that love God.” Then if we really love God, all his dealings with us are but the working, out of his eternal purpose; and all that is necessary for this purpose to be fulfilled in us is to give him a chance to work. Do it. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 484.1

In a late editorial in the Independent it is claimed that English freedom and English conscience had their grandest assertion in the wars of the commonwealth. In support of this view the editor quotes a noted historian, who said: “What made Calvinism so much better able to hold its ground than Lutheranism, for example, was its attitude toward war, or, in other words, its recognition of war as the awful instrument of righteousness in the world.” We leave it with our readers to judge how much of the religion of Jesus Christ there is in that doctrine. ARSH July 26, 1898, page 484.2