MISSIONARY LECTURE.

Southland Times, Issue 21648, 9 March 1932, Page 9

MISSIONARY LECTURE.

To the Editor. Sir.—lt is evident that Mr Sampson sees the' weakness of his “hindrance issue,” and now wants to leave it and discuss the law. He strays from his subject and then teils the public that his opponents do the very thing that he himself has done. How wonderfully true the words of scripture, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” Roni. 2:1. The sacred scripture is a bulwark too strong for Mr Sampson. I quoted the scripture, “For we can do nothing against the truth” (II Cor. XIII :8) Mr Sampson had been telling how Protestant missions had been hindered. As the scripture says we can “do nothing against the truth, but for the truth” Mr Sampson now probably sees that what he has been saying amounts to telling us that Protestant missions do not have the truth, except that section which is not hindered, for the truth cannot be hindered. Tlie Devil has his agents at work, but the chaff, not the wheat, is blown away. For instance, now and again someone like Mr Sampson assumes the role of the critic. In the city of Lisbon, Portugal, a critic arose and told certain people not to listen to the Adventist preacher. But intelligent, honest-hearted people think and act for themselves. They do as told in scripture, “prove all things.” So they did in Portugal. One of these honest truth seekers who had partly believed the lies of the critic, was happily surprised to find the clear plain gospel being preached by the Adventist preacher. And now he is Pastor Renfrew a brother minister preaching the same pure, full gospel of Jesus, as did the preacher to whom he listened, regardless of the critic. He was led closer to His Saviour, and thus closer to the Kingdom of God. And what are critics compared to the Kingdom of Heaven? A tree is known by its fruits, not by the reputation given by its critics, which is generally false. AU Mr Sampson has done by way of producing evidence in his hindrance issue, is to quote what others have written. I have quoted equally as good evidence from various Protestant authorities. He insinuates that my evidence is worthless. But he fails to see that by parity of reasoning his own evidence of the same nature is equally worthless. Perhaps he thinks the public cannot see the weakness of his position. However, Mr Sampson is evidently tired of his own “hindrance issue,” and now wants to start on one of the many subjects into which he has wandered. He wants me to follow him around the course and set up a school for definitions. May be, he is fond of them. He wants to see if we can manage to define the term “law.” He appears to be very concerned about definitions; like the evolutionist who is concerned about the age of rocks, but knows little about the Rock, of Ages. Jesus Christ is the centre of the Gospel, and when we are rightly related to Christ, we will not be so anxious to define the word “law,” as to heed lhe words of Christ, “If ye love me keep my commandments.” I am prepared to meet Mr Sampson on any public platform in any building in Invercargill, to discuss the unchangeableness of the love of God and the Ten Commandments of God. But my conditions are that the plain English Bible, the guidebook for us all, without anything else be the rule of discussion. The plain authorized version, the common Bible available to all is the perfectly reliable guide. No fanciful definitions are needed. The Bible is not a sealed book, it is its own interpreter, where the mind of the populace is concerned I would refuse anything that had to be supported by definitions from any language, but the plain English. The plain English Bible and it alone, letting it be its own interpreter is my rule of discussion. Mr Sampson is now fleeing from his “hindrance issue” like an unfortunate soldier fleeing from a bursting bomb. He wants to shelter under definitions, but apart from meeting him on the public platform, with the open English Bible and it alone, stripped of all else, I propose to let him flee to his cover of definitions alone. To waste lime over definitions 'when the word of God is plain and simple and explains itself, is not a sign of education learning, or erudition, but is sheer folly and childishness; and more than that it is suggestive that the English Bible is not reliable and able to explain itself. The public is invited to frequent .the Seventh-day Adventist church in Eek street, and hear for themselves the whole gospel of the Sacred word, and Jesus Christ as the centre and circumference of that gospel. And it may lie that additional lectures can be arranged to which we warmly welcome you. Watch for them. You will there hear the full pure gospel preached in the power provided by the Holy Spirit, and the false criticism regarding the Adventist teaching will be seen to have eminated from the adversary of truth. Unless Mr Sampson will meet me on the public platform I am now finished with his “hindrance issue.” But I desire to thank the public for the generous support given, to advance the noble work done by our noble medical workers in the foreign fields. We have reached our set aim for missions in a considerably shorter time this year than last year, in spite of depression, and this is further evidence that all Mr Sampson’s criticism has been helpless, for he was fighting against the truth, and the truth cannot be hindered.

With regard to Mr Sampson and his cover of definitions, I would urge that he take the plain word as it is written and leave human speculations and definitions to take care of themselves. It is written, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I though as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”—l Cor. 13:11. lam etc., "A LOVER OF TRUTH.”