What Will We Have to Know and Defend?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stewart on January 23, 2012 at 12:01pm

Teresa,

The warning note is clear, distinct, definite. What a wonderful, solemn, theme! I feel grateful that I can add those words to a statement that has said much to me:

"Every position of our faith will be searched into and if we are not thorough Bible students, established, strengthened, settled, [then] the wisdom of the world's great men will be too much for us." (1MR 48)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by teresa on January 23, 2012 at 6:26pm

Yes! 

I try to study more, internalize more, but it seems there are so many distractions competing.  Only by being constantly in prayer, constantly dependent on the Lord!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Macevle on January 23, 2012 at 9:54pm

I agree teresa. For the first time, good post!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by teresa on February 6, 2012 at 6:37pm

For me the start would be knowing thoroughly the foundation of the 2300 days and building from there.  Without knowing that foundation we cannot defend our sanctuary doctrine or even that there is a real heaven and a real second coming.

Ellen White was raised trinitarian which taught that God is,

Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity

1._____The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,

Because of the studies the pioneers did after the disappointment she asked Jesus in vision,

I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, “If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist.” ....{EW 54.2}

I have frequently been falsely charged with teaching views peculiar to Spiritualism. But before the editor of the Day-Star [see appendix.] ran into that delusion, the Lord gave me a view of the sad and desolating effects that would be produced upon the flock by him and others in teaching the spiritual views. I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, “I am in the express image of My Father’s person.” {EW 77.1}

I have often seen that the spiritual view took away all the glory of heaven, and that in many minds the throne of David and the lovely person of Jesus have been burned up in the fire of Spiritualism. I have seen that some who have been deceived and led into this error will be brought out into the light of truth, but it will be almost impossible for them to get entirely rid of the deceptive power of Spiritualism. Such should make thorough work in confessing their errors and leaving them forever. {EW 77.2}

The apparently weak soul, who with a contrite, trusting spirit takes God at His word, and with a sense of his unworthiness asks for help, will be given grace to win victory after victory, and to gain the eternal weight of glory in the future life. The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality. He has wrought out the righteousness that enables human beings to overcome every assault of Satan. He will impute His righteousness to the believing saint who walks as He walked when on earth. {UL 367.4}

Personality and character

The seventeenth chapter of John speaks plainly regarding the personality of God and of Christ, and of their relation to each other. "Father, the hour is come," Christ said: "glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." [John 17:23, 3, 5-11 quoted.] Here is personality, and individuality (MS 124, 1903). {5BC 1145.10}

[John 17:20-23 quoted.] What a wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. In mind, in purpose, in character, they are one, but not in person. By partaking of the Spirit of God, conforming to the law of God, man becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ brings His disciples into a living union with Himself and with the Father. Through the working of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind, man is made complete in Christ Jesus. Unity with Christ establishes a bond of unity with one another. This unity is the most convincing proof to the world of the majesty and virtue of Christ, and of His power to take away sin (MS 111, 1903). {5BC 1148.3}

She urges us to read testimonies 8 and 9.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by teresa on February 6, 2012 at 6:50pm

Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor. {MR760 9.5}

I entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ. {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ray Phillips on February 6, 2012 at 8:35pm

Teresa

 

May I dare say, ignore most of the counsel I read?  Not that it is no good, only in it's place.  But from experience, here is what I have found.

It is God's responsibility to both make us good and keep us in the time of trial. 

Having been a professional salesman, up until I went into the ministry, I know just how important it is to know what you are going to say in any presentation and carefully have it arranged.  And I have worked for some of the largest corporations in America, and have been offered managarial positions in that company.  Plus I have owned my own comany a couple of times.  But, that is all nothing in comparision to what I am about to share.

 

Allow me to share a true story.  Names and places will be kept out of the story in order to protect the "innocent."  But the story is all true.

 

One time I was called into a very important meeting, facing highly educated men and women, on a matter of right vs. wrong.  I had taken a position which some did not agree with me on and they had misrepresented my position, goals and activities.  So, I was called up before the highest group in that setting.  It was not pretty.  So, I prepared my defense and was sitting in the secretaries office, waiting to be called into the "lion's den."  Then a voice; as audible as any you have heard, came to me and said something like this. 

"On that day when you are called up before the chief priests and rulers, take no thought as to what you will say.  For in that day I will put words in your mouth." 

You can only imagine how I felt.  My career, everything was on the line, and I was not to take any thought as to what I would say?  I literally broke out in a cold sweat.  But, finally surrendered and I said: "OK, Lord.  However, when I walk through that door, you are totally responsible for what comes out of my mouth, I take no responsibility for what I might say in there."

 

When I got in there, I was grilled by some of the most well trained men that I had ever faced.  My answers sounded to me to be utterly stupid.  When it was over some hours (it seemed like days) later, and when I walked out, I knew I was finished and told my wife the same when I got home.  I had never heard anything so stupid come out of my mouth in my whole life.  However, as the tension melted away and I recalled some of the questions thrown at me and the answers I gave, I suddenly realized that if I had not given the answers that I gave, I would have really gotten in trouble.  God had given me the very best answers possible.  The next day I recieved a call and I had been exhonorated totally and completely.  (Also, the man who interigated me the hardest and I became very close lifelong friends.)

It is my belief that this is how it will be in the last days.  Oh, the counsel given that we must store these things up in our mind because the Holy Spirit cannot bring out what we have not put in there, is very true.  We must study to show ourselves approved, a workman who needs not be ashamed.  We must trust in the Lord always.  We must get into the habit of trusting God in ever situation of our life. 

However, the bottom line is that we must learn to trust God's way, do what He asks us to do, no matter if it makes sense to us at all.  We are not to reason it out, only obey.  I had only obeyed what the Lord had called me to do and He vindicated me big time.  This will be the final test in the last days.

 

So, study, that is good.  Fortify our minds with truth, that is essential.  Avoid the prattle of those who are wise in their own eyes and have no scripture to support their talking.  Demand a "Thus Saith the Lord" and compare everything, not to our own opinions, but the God's word.  Then after we have done the best we can do, then just follow, "Trust in the Lord always, and He will direct our path." 

 

Everything will turn on the relationship that we have developed with the Lord in times of peace, i.e. now.  When we are on a "first name basis" with Him now.  When His will is supreme in our life.  When our motto is John 5:30.  When He is the love of our life.  When we come to the point where doing His revealed will is more important then anything else.  When His love is sweeter to us then anything else.  Then He will direct our paths and keep us in the hour of trial.

 

May God grant each one who reads this that honor.

Maranatha :)
Ray

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddie-Lee on February 7, 2012 at 1:47am

Amen!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by teresa on February 6, 2012 at 11:18pm

Yes, we need to fortify the mind with truth as well as study to show ourselves approved.  We are not to have any speech prepared in that day but to let the Holy Spirit give us what to say...and He can only bring to remembrance what has been put there.

I think I will take serious heed of the counsel the good Lord gave us.

Getting back to topic, some of our pioneer's thoughts that agree with Ellen White and some of their experiences in the "field".

Prov. 8:21, has been quoted to prove that the saints will not go to Heaven. It reads: "That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance." {1872 JHW, RDAC 72.2}

That is quoted on the supposition that Heaven is unsubstantial; and it would be in point, if God himself, his temple, and his throne, were nonentities, and Christ had gone nowhere. But Paul said to those who suffered loss for Christ's sake, "Knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance." Heb. 10:34. The city for which Abraham looked, "which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God," is there. {1872 JHW, RDAC 73.1}

The faith of Jesus expects a glorious reality, a new heavens and a new earth, a city which hath foundations, the Jerusalem above which is the mother of us all. Can that faith be the faith of Jesus which is based only upon immateriality, a mere shadow, a mere nothing? {April 12, 1860 UrSe, ARSH 166.8}

To illustrate, see Col.iii,1: "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Things above! What! are there things above? No, says the rarefied theology of the present day; there is immateriality above and nothing more. There is an immaterial heaven, an immaterial God and Christ, immaterial angels, and immaterial spirits of dead people. But the text speaks of things above. Can these things by any process be evaporated into the immateriality which the popular belief attaches to them? It cannot certainly be done by the definition of the word; for that signifies any substance, something actual and real, and it cannot be done by its use as applied to any object on this earth; for here it always means something material, something that has body and parts. There seems then to be no reason for the meaning that is attached to the word things when applied to objects above, save the mysterious belief that substance and reality are incompatible with the state of the blessed; and no reason can be given for this belief except the fact of its own existence; but behind this fact it thus entrenches itself; and while it forbids all questioning as to the right of its existence, it holds the theological world in slavery to its mystical demands. {December 10, 1861 JWe, ARSH 12.3}

BRIEF REPLY

…

Eld. P. said if God was a corporeal being, and had eyes, he might become blind; if he had ears, he might become deaf, or might sicken and die. {April 8, 1858 UrSe, ARSH 163.15}

Ans. We thought we might as well have any kind of a God as to have, according to the Elder's creed, an "immaterial God without body or parts," which is exactly no God at all. See 1st Article of his faith. Also hymn 103. He quoted some poetry of Dr. Young's, and said Christ comes quickly at death to give rewards. Quoted poetry on the death of Bishop McKendry, {April 8, 1858 UrSe, ARSH 163.16}

By J. N. Loughborough 1855 Published at the Advent Review Office Rochester, N.Y.

The first mention made of man in the Bible is in the account of the labor of the sixth day, Gen. i, 26. "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion. etc.," Verse 27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." What is meant by saying God created man in his own image? According to the faith of the Church, it cannot be that literally man was made in the form of God; for the Discipline states, "There is but one living and true God, without body or parts," and some say without passions. If this be the case, then man's being in the image of God, must have some other explanation, than that his form was like God. It has been claimed that this was a moral image; that is, man was formed with a character like God; and as God is immortal, man, to be like him morally, must also be immortal. Moral pertains to character. Although the word states, God pronounced all his work very good, yet man, as we shall show, was left to form his own character. {1855 JNL, MPC 23.3}

But in carrying out this matter we wish to inquire further in regard to man's creation. Gen. ii, 7 states, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If the image of God referred to in chapter first is a mortal image, then the dust of the ground was in the moral image of God. Man was in the image of God before the breath of life was breathed into him; afterwards he is called a living soul. We see at once that this image of God in which man is formed cannot be a moral image; for it would involve the absurdity that inanimate matter possessed a character like God. If it be a fact that man was made literally in the image of God, we have been taught wrong in regard to the nature of that God. {1855 JNL, MPC 24.1}

This leads us to the investigation of the necessary inquiry, {1855 JNL, MPC 25.1}

IS GOD A PERSON?

Whatever may be the truth in this matter, it certainly cannot be wrong for us to examine what the Word says respecting it. Many there are that would refrain from the investigation of unpopular truths because the cry of heresy is raised against them. We shall not consider ourselves subjects of the appellation, neither are we prying into the secrets of the Almighty, as we pursue the investigation of this matter. The Bible certainly contains testimony upon this point, and we again repeat, "Things which are revealed belong to us." We inquire then, What saith the Scripture? {1855 JNL, MPC 25.2}

The very testimony we have been examining in regard to man's being formed of the dust in the image of God, proves conclusively that God has a form, although the sentiment is contrary to what we have been taught, while children, from the catechism: {1855 JNL, MPC 25.3}

"Question. What is God? {1855 JNL, MPC 25.4}

"Answer. An infinite and eternal spirit; one that always was and always will be. {1855 JNL, MPC 25.5}

"Q. Where is God? {1855 JNL, MPC 25.6}

"A. Everywhere." {1855 JNL, MPC 25.7}

But we inquire, Is not God in one place more than another? Oh no, say you: the Bible says he is a spirit, and if so he must be everywhere alike. Well, if when man dies his spirit goes to God, it must go everywhere. But the Bible certainly represents God as located in heaven. "For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth." Ps. cii, 19. Then certainly heaven cannot be everywhere, for God is represented as looking down from it. "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings ii, 11. But, says one, does not the Bible represent God as everywhere present? Ps. cxxxix, 8, 9, 10. "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." {1855 JNL, MPC 25.8}

We reply, the subject is introduced in verse 7, as follows: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" The Spirit is God's representative. His power is manifested wherever he listeth, through the agency of his Spirit. Christ, when giving the commission to the disciples, says, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Now, no one would contend that Christ had been on the earth personally ever since the disciples commenced to fulfill this commission. But his Spirit has been on the earth; the Comforter that he promised to send. So in the same manner God manifests himself by his Spirit which is also the power through which he works. "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii, 11. Here is a plain distinction made between the Spirit, and God that raises the dead by that Spirit. If the living God is a Spirit in the strictest sense of the term, and at the same time is in possession of a Spirit, then we have at once the novel idea of the Spirit of a Spirit, something it will take at least a Spiritualist to explain. {1855 JNL, MPC 26.1}

There is at least one impassable difficulty in the way of those who believe God is immaterial, and heaven is not a literal, located place: they are obliged to admit that Jesus is there bodily, a literal person; the same Jesus that was crucified, dead, and buried, was raised from the dead, ascended up to heaven, and is now at the right hand of God. Jesus was possessed of flesh and bones after his resurrection. Luke xxiv, 39. "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I, myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." If Jesus is there in heaven with a literal body of flesh and bones, may not heaven after all be a literal place, a habitation for a literal God, a literal Saviour, literal angels, and resurrected immortal saints! Oh no, says one, "God is a Spirit." So Christ said to the woman of Samaria at the well. It does not necessarily follow because God is a Spirit, that he has no body. In John iii, 6, Christ says to Nicodemus, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." If that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, then on the same principle, that which has a spiritual nature is spirit. God is a spirit being, his nature is spirit, he is not of a mortal nature; but this does not exclude the idea of his having a body. David says, [Ps. cxiv, 4,] "Who maketh his angels spirits;" yet angels have bodies. Angels appeared to Both Abraham and Lot, and ate with them. We see the idea that angels are spirits, does not prove that they are not literal beings. {1855 JNL, MPC 27.1}

It is inferred because the Bible says that God is a Spirit, that he is not a person. An inference should not be made the basis for an argument. Great Scripture truths are plainly stated, and it will not do for us to found a doctrine on inferences, contrary to positive statements in the word of God. If the Scripture states in positive terms that God is a person, it will not answer for us to draw an inference from the text which says "God is a Spirit," that he has no body. {1855 JNL, MPC 28.1}

We will now present a few texts which prove that God is a person. Ex. xxxiii, 18, 23. "And he (Moses) said, I beseech thee shew me thy glory." Verse 20. "And he said, Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live." Verses 21-23. "And the Lord said, Behold there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock; and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen." If God is an immaterial Spirit, then Moses could not see him; for we are told a spirit cannot be seen by natural eyes. There would then be no propriety for God to say he would put his hand over Moses' face while he passed by, (seemingly to prevent him from seeing his face,) for he could not see him. Neither do we conceive how an immaterial hand could obstruct the rays of light from passing to Moses' eyes. But if the position be true that God is immaterial, and cannot be seen by the natural eye, the text above is all superfluous. What sense is there in saying God put his hand over Moses' face, to prevent him from seeing that which could not be seen. {1855 JNL, MPC 28.2}

Says one, I see we cannot harmonize the matter any other way, that that there was a literal body seen by Moses; but that was not God's own body, it was a body he took that he might show himself to Moses. Moses could form no just conceptions of God unless he assumed a form. So God took a body. This throws a worse coloring on the matter than the first position; for it charges God with deception; telling Moses he should see him, when in fact Moses according to this testimony did not see God, but another body. A person must be given to doubt almost beyond recovery, that would attempt thus to mystify, and do away with the force of this testimony. {1855 JNL, MPC 29.1}

Ex. xxiv, 9. "Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in its clearness." They were permitted to see his feet, but no man can see his face and live. No mortal eye can bear the dazzling brightness of the glory of the face of God. It far exceeds the light of the sun. For the prophet says, "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be seven fold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isa. xxx, 26. Notwithstanding this seven-fold light that is then to shine, the prophet speaking of the scene says, "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously." Isa. xxiv, 23. The testimony of John is [Rev. xxi, 23.] "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." {1855 JNL, MPC 29.2}

Infidels claim that there is a contradiction in the testimony of Moses, because he said, he talked with God face to face. We reply, there was a cloud between them, but God told Moses, "No man shalt see me and live." The Testimony of the New Testament is in harmony with that of the Old upon this subject. "Follow peace with all men, and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." Heb. xii, 14. Who with mortal eyes could behold a light that far outshines seven fold the brightness of the sun? Surely none but the holy can behold him, none but immortal eyes could bear that radiant glory. Although the Word says we cannot see God now and live, the promise is, that the pure in heart shall see him. Matt. v, 3. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Rev. xxii, 4. "And they shall see his face, and his name shall be in their foreheads." {1855 JNL, MPC 30.1}

Paul, [Col. i, 15.] speaking of Christ, says, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." Here Christ is said to be "the image of the invisible God." We have already shown, that Christ has a body composed of substance, flesh and bones; and he is said to be, "the image of the invisible God." Well, says one, we admit his divine nature is in the image of God. If by his divine nature you mean the part that existed in glory with the Father before the world was, we reply, that which was in the beginning with God, (the Word,) was made flesh, not came into flesh, or as some state, clothed upon with a human nature, but made flesh. But says another, God is said to be invisible. Because he is invisible now, it does not prove that he never will be seen. The Word says, "The pure in heart shall see" him. Willing faith says, Amen. {1855 JNL, MPC 30.2}

Paul's testimony in Phil. ii, 5, 6, shows plainly what may be understood by the statement, that Christ is the image of God. "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." How can Christ be said to be in the form of God, if God has no form! Rom. viii, 3. "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." Christ is in the form of God, and in the form of men. This at once reveals to us the form of God. {1855 JNL, MPC 31.1}

Daniel speaking of God, calls him the Ancient of days. Dan. vii, 9. "And the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool." This personage is said to have a head, and hair; this certainly could not be said of him if he was immaterial and had no form. But Paul's testimony in Heb. i, 3, ought to settle every candid mind in regard to the personality of God. Speaking of Christ, he says, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his (the Father's) person." Here then it is plainly stated God has a person. Christ is the express image of it. Then we can understand Christ where he says, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." John xiv, 19. He could not have meant, that he was his own father; for when he prayed he addressed his Father as another person who had sent him into the world. He styled himself the Son of God. Then he could not be the Father of which he was the son. When he says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," he must mean, that as he was the express image of the Father's person, those who saw him saw the likeness of the Father in him. {1855 JNL, MPC 31.2}

But we will now return to the subject of The creation of man. We have seen already that man's being made in the image of God, could not refer to a moral image, for it would involve the absurdity that the lifeless clay of which man was formed, had a character like God. We now see the Scriptures clearly teach, that God is a person with a body and form. Then Gen. i, 26, may be understood to teach the fact, that man was made in the form of God. Other scriptures agree with this testimony. See Gen. ix, 6. "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." This testimony cannot apply to a spirit, or immaterial part of man: that which is the image of God has blood. 1 Cor. xi, 7. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God." James [Chap. iii, 9] speaking of the tongue says, "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude (likeness, resemblance-Webster) of God." The foregoing testimony settles the point, that the image of God does not refer to character but to form. {1855 JNL, MPC 32.1}

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by teresa on February 8, 2012 at 11:29pm

Similarity of the Doctrines of Modern Churches and those of Infidels

I HOPE the intelligent reader will not think for a moment that the following remarks were prompted by any ill feelings whatever towards any church; for it is not the case. While I love many persons now in mind, who belong to churches, which have articles of faith similar to those stated below, I regard them as deeply in error. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.8}

The errors which I shall proceed to notice this time, are the views entertained by several different denominations concerning God, and I am sorry that the views entertained by Infidels on this point are so nearly similar to those entertained by orthodox, that there is no contrast between them. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.9}

The applicant for membership in one church is required to believe that "God is without body or parts, circumference, center or locality." The articles of faith of another denomination require us to believe in addition to all this, that God is also "without passions!" so that he cannot even be compared to a stone or a block of wood; for while they lack the attribute of passions, they have all, body, parts, circumference, center and locality. In the above description the reader cannot fail to see a full description of nothing. Let us compare. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.10}

1. God is without body. Just so with nothing. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.11}

2. He is without parts. Exactly so with nothing. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.12}

3. He is without circumference. Precisely so with nothing. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.13}

4. He is without center. Where is the center of nothing? {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.14}

5. He is without locality. Just locate nothing! {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.15}

6. He is not subject to passion! Can you give a more complete description of nothing? I think not. How much then, are you ahead of the heathen? The heathen worship a real, tangible god; you do not! An Atheist can join a church with such articles of faith as these, and not violate his views of God in the least. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.16}

Spiritualists and Infidels have nearly as good conceptions of Deity as that given above. That the reader may compare their views with those of the orthodox, I make the following extract from a letter, written by T. P. Wright, published in the "Age of Freedom," last year: {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.17}

"My conception of Deity is the aggregate intelligence of the universe, - the all permeating principle of life, motion, change, and consequent progression. The all-perfect - or all of present perfection - yet constantly progressing to still greater perfection. The omnipresent, because all-permeating. The all-powerful, - all-wise, - all-just, all-benevolent; because the aggregate of all power, - wisdom, - justice, - benevolence! Am I degraded by the conception or contemplation of such a Deity? Is not my respect, my reverence called out by the discovery and contemplation of a small degree of these attributes in man, - the atom! How infinitely more then should these feelings be called out and expressed towards Deity, - the aggregate!!

I am an atom of his aggregate intelligence, - a spark of Divinity is in me, - I live not by SUFFERANCE, - my right to life is inherent in me, and cannot be taken away, - I cannot be annihilated, - Deity cannot destroy himself, or any part of himself; for, if the minutest particle could be destroyed every particle could, and so the whole could!

But why talk of destruction or fear it? Is the general tendency of intelligence good or evil? Is good destructive? no! It destroys (changes) only to save! - I to, like "Voltaire," "esteem my God too highly to fear annihilation or any other ill, that will not be more than repaid by good, to me or to some of the universal family." {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.18}

No person will fail to see in the above a great many peculiarities of the orthodox church. Very true, he holds that man "is an atom of this aggregate of intelligence," but many of our churches have gone full as far. 

It is frequently held that God inspired Adam with a part of himself. Hence he was immortal.

That the reader may see the legitimate result of this theory, I make an extract from Mr. C. M. Overton, another Spiritualist and Infidel. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.19}

"For myself I am a Pantheist; believing in an All-Present, Esoteric, Life Principle; not the Creator, but the sustainer and invigorator of all that is. I sometimes call this power God; but I can see no good cause for that squeamishness which will not hear the question discussed, whether it be proper to call the All Pervasive Spirit of the universe, God." {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.20}

I am sorry it is the case that notes compare so favorably with the Infidel's. But such is the case, and we must deal with theories as we find them. This theory is not only in opposition to reason but it also arrays itself against scripture. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.21}

Moses was permitted to see a part of God as he passed before him, and Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts vii,55,56. If God was without body, parts, etc., it follows that Stephen was mistaken, and did not see Jesus at God's right hand. So of other scriptures which we often meet with of a like import. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.22}

If God is without passions, he is insensible to love or anger; yet we read that he is angry with the wicked every day. Ps.vii,11. See also Ex.xxxii,22; Job.ix,13; Deut.i,37; ix,20; Mal.i,3; Rom.ix,13. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.23}

In this last quotation we read of two opposite passions. The Bible is full of expressions of the love of God. He loves his own Son; yet he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to die for it, the just for the unjust. The epistles of John abound with the love of God. "God is love," says he, and "love is of God." 1John iv,7-11. But sufficient has been said on this point. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.24}

I had intended to show that the orthodox and Infidel-Spiritualists were at one on other points, but I am already getting too lengthy. I will however make one quotation on the life and death point, and close. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.25}

"Our orthodox brethren may thank Spiritualism for the almost total eradication from the public mind, of the once fast-spreading doctrine of annihilation." {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.26}

The cloven foot is here plainly exhibited. What the Bible failed in establishing, Spiritualism is doing.

D. W. HULL. {July 7, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 50.27}

• ▶ Reply