p. 194 | DISCUSSION WITH ELD. JOHNSON,

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 10, 1868

DISCUSSION WITH ELD. JOHNSON,

By Dudley Marvin Canright

Universalist Minister, at New Portland, Me.

Our meetings at this place closed with a discussion. From the beginning of our meetings here, we have met with the most bitter and determined opposition. The Methodists and Baptists united both in public and private in their efforts against the truth. Being afraid to meet us themselves, they were very anxious to get some one who was able to do it. It so happened that one Eld. Johnson, a Universalist minister, who had formerly lived here, and preached here much, and one whom they regarded as being the ablest man in all this section—it so happened that he came to the place. He was immediately solicited to discuss with us, as he had numerous friends in the place. He attended our meeting at evening, and, as we thought, greatly misused the privilege we gave of making a few remarks. The Methodist minister heartily supported him in what he said, though as contrary to Methodism as to Adventism. As his friends appeared very confident that he could easily put down the truth, we offered to discuss with him. This he was not inclined to do at first; but his friends pressed him so hard that he at length sent us this proposition, “Is there an element in man that never dies?” We saw that the Methodists and Baptists could be united with the Universalists on this question against us; so we objected, and offered this question: “Will all men live eternally?” After some hesitation the Elder accepted it, saying, that it covered the same ground. But we thought that there was quite a difference in proving that one man would live eternally, and that all men would. We were to have five sessions of two hours each, each one speaking half an hour alternately. The discussion was held in the Baptists’ house. At the time appointed it was jammed full. In his first speech Eld. Johnson went into a long harangue about nature and nature’s laws, &c., without ever touching the Bible argument. I could not see that it touched the question at all, hence I said so, and made no reply to it. This gave me the lead, so I laid down the following positions, and brought scriptures to prove them.

(1.) Man is made of the dust. Gen. ii, 7. (2.) Man is mortal. Job iv, 17; Rom. ii, 7. (3.) Death reduces man back to dust again. Gen. iii, 19; Job xxxiv, 15. (4.) Eternal life to be had only through Christ. John v, 26; vi, 39, 40. (5.) No one will have eternal life except those who obtain it by faith through Christ. John iii, 36; 1 John v, 11, 12; iii, 15. (6.) All men do not have faith in Christ in this life, as many die infidels, atheists, &c. Hence my opponent must now show how this class can get eternal life.

In his second speech, Eld. Johnson used a mill to illustrate the nature of man. The mill represented the body and the stream the soul. Destroying the mill does not destroy the stream; so destroying the body would not destroy the soul. I accepted the illustration as a good one. The mill is complete. Every wheel is in its place. Every band is in order. The

wheat in the hopper, but no flour is ground. Now turn on the water and the mill starts, and the flour is ground out. So with a man’s body. All the parts are in order, the brain, the lungs, the heart, &c.; but no thoughts are produced. Now add the breath and the machine begins to move, the brain begins to act, and thoughts are produced. Cut off the breath and the machine stops, just as the mill does when the water is cut off. But he insisted that destroying the mill did not destroy the stream, so destroying the body did not destroy the soul. I replied that when he could show me a stream grinding flour without a mill, then I could believe that the soul could produce thoughts without a body. This he did not answer.

He then brought forward Acts xxiv, 15; 1 Cor. xv, and Luke xxii, 36, to prove that all will be raised, both the just and the unjust, and that all who are raised from the dead can die no more. This was very plausible indeed. To this I replied by showing that there was a first and second resurrection, one thousand years apart, and that the scriptures which he quoted as applying to all only applied to the righteous. I made a very strong argument on this and fortified it so strongly with proof that he did not dare to touch the argument during the whole discussion. This position he was not prepared to meet. It took from him the main proofs upon which he had manifestly depended.

He said that this world did not satisfy man’s desires, his soul reaches out for eternal life. Has God placed desires in our natures which cannot be gratified? The leaf reaches out for moisture and air, and the root for nourishment in the soil, and they find what they desire within their reach. I answered that God had provided eternal life for all, and that they could have it by seeking it through Christ. If roots seek for moisture in dry ashes they will not find it, so if men seek for eternal life in the wrong way they will not find it.

He then quoted Isa. lxv, 22–24 to prove universal salvation. “Every knee shall bow,” &c., I showed by Rom. xiv, 10–12, Phil. ii, 10, 11, that this applied at the Judgment, when the wicked will confess, the same as criminals do when they are about to be hung. He quoted Eph. 1, 10, which I showed would be fulfilled after the wicked were destroyed. This ended our first session. Now the battle was fairly open. I expected that the next day the Elder would attack my positions with his biggest guns,—that he would bring forward his Greek and Hebrew, and criticise the text which I had used as proof; but I was greatly mistaken, for he made no such attempt. He did not attempt to disprove, or even to deny the two resurrections which virtually upset his whole theory. He attempted to gain the sympathy of the Orthodox by saying that he had rather burn eternally in hell fire than to be annihilated. In the discussion between the Sadducees and Christ, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Luke says, “They that shall be accounted worthy, &c.” The other two do not use the term worthy; hence he took occasion to say that Matthew and Mark were more responsible than Luke, and hence their silence proved Luke’s statement incorrect! I replied that Luke was inspired by God to write the same as Matthew and Mark were, and hence, if Eld. Johnson’s position was correct, God was more responsible while writing through Matthew and Mark, than he was while writing through Luke!

He took the position that the resurrection takes place when a man dies,—that there is a germ, “a germ of an angel” as he expressed it, a spark of divinity, a part of God, in every man. When the body dies this angel germ leaves the body and goes to Heaven; this is the resurrection. He founded this argument mostly on 1 Cor. xv, 37. “Thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain.” I answered this that the germ then had to go into the grave and have a resurrection from that place. Hence if it was the soul, here was positive proof that the soul went into the grave. And again, in the resurrection the corruptible was to put on incorruption, and the mortal was to put on immortality. How could he reconcile this with his theory of the resurrection? How could the angel germ in man, the immortal part put on immortality? This he could not answer. These arguments he produced in his third speech. When I came to answer he began to interrupt me, to contradict, to deny that I quoted him right, to object to the position that I took, &c. He would not allow me to speak five minutes without interrupting me. He carried it to such a length that it became manifest to all that he was fully determined to break up the discussion. As the president was not prepared to meet such things in a minister he hardly knew what position to take, so that Eld. J. virtually confused and broke up the second session. However I was bound that the discussion should not end upon any consideration. This same man had once had a discussion with Eld. Grant, and took a similar course, and succeeded in breaking it up, and then boasted that Eld. Grant ran; so I was resolved that he should not do that here. As soon as I learned his course I only referred in general terms to what he had said, and gave him no chance to interrupt, so he had to get into the traces again.

In the third session he made another attempt at the same thing, but failed very signally, as the president decided against him, and called him to order. I quoted Malachi iv, as applying to the destruction of the wicked in the Judgment. He ridiculed this idea, and said that it applied in the days of Elijah, because in that chapter it says, “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet.” But we showed that the prophecy was not written until 500 years after Elijah’s time. This appeared to be news to him, and he could not answer it. He attempted to quote Malachi iv, but misquoted it. I demanded that he should read it. Here it was amusing, indeed, to see him undertake to find the last chapter in the Old Testament. He spent several minutes while we all waited in profound silence for him, and at last he had to have it found for him. He said that God was the father of all men, and that a father would be cruel to treat his children as we said God would the wicked. By turning to John viii, 41–44 we found that the Pharisees put forth the same claim, namely, that God was their father; but Jesus denied it, saying, “Ye are of your father the Devil.” So of all wicked men.

Of course he tried to make a strong point on 1 Cor. xv, 22, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” And in the same chapter those who are made alive have immortality, &c. This, Universalists consider their strong fort; but I took the position that it did not apply to the wicked at all. 1. The whole chapter is addressed to the “brethren.” 2. It refers to those who are asleep in Christ. 3. The term all is frequently used in a limited sense. 3 John xii; 2 Tim. iv, 16. 4. If the 22d verse applies to wicked men, it is the only one in the whole chapter that does. 5. The term all is here particularly limited by the verse, “Christ, the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming,” showing that there will be some who are not Christ’s, but this chapter refers to them only who are his.

Eld. Johnson said that God was in all men, that every man had a part of God in him. To this I answered that in wars and fighting, we have God arrayed against God, God fighting God, &c. This he did not attempt to answer. I asked if man could only be saved through Christ, how he would get Tom Paine into Heaven. He answered, easily enough, but did not prove it. To be asleep in Christ, 1 Thess. iv, 13, he said was rejoicing in the love of Christ. He quoted 1 Tim. ii, 4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” He dwelt largely on this, asking if the will of God would not be done? I showed, by different passages, that wicked men did not do the will of God. Men steal, commit murder, and do all manner of wickedness. Now is this the will of God? If so then he is responsible for it all. This was at the close of next to the last session.

At the commencement of the last session he came in evidently much excited. He opened by saying that I had taken away his Bible, his God, his Saviour, his all. Then he talked largely about the will of God being done, and tried very hard to produce a great sensation. Said he did not suppose that he was discussing with an infidel, atheist, &c. He said that man could not alter the will of God, taking this illustration: “A father makes his last will and testament; in that he wills to his children his property, so and so, then he dies. Now their conduct after his death will not alter the will in the least; whether they are good or bad.” In closing his speech he said that I had said “The will of God is not done,” and said he should not allow me to read a word from the Bible till I had cleared it up. Hence, the moment that I began to reply, he objected, would not allow me even to read the text over which the controversy had arisen, would not allow me to make any explanation, would not allow that I had qualified the term by anything I had said before or after it. I had said the will of God was not done, and now I must clear it up without any explanation or I could go no farther. I must not even open the Bible to read one word from it. Here he thought he had me where I could go no farther, because according to parliamentary rules, if the president decided in my favor he could appeal to the house, and we should have to abide by their decision, however unreasonable it might be. I was a stranger here. The doctrine I advocated was new to the people, and unpopular, and their prejudices were against it. Mr. Johnson was right at home in the heart of his people, where he had lived and preached for years. His friends were there for miles around. He very naturally supposed that a vote could only go in his favor. Thus he opposed, and disputed, and did everything in his power to break up the discussion for nearly an hour. It was evident that he considered himself defeated, or the argument, and took this course to get out of it. However, at length a vote, on this question was put to this effect: Shall Eld. Canright be allowed to proceed with his argument? When the votes were counted, what was our surprise to find that we had 49 majority! This seemed to come like a thunderbolt upon him. He had not expected it. This cured him of objecting any more, and I was allowed to give my last two speeches without interruption. We considered this vote a victory gained right in the midst of his friends.

With regard to the will of God being done, I answered it with his own illustration. A father makes a will, in which he tells that John shall have the farm, provided he takes care of his mother, faithfully, till she dies. James shall have a thousand dollars on condition that he spends $200 of it in getting an education. So the father wills to each one of his children a certain amount of property, but puts in conditions upon which they are to have it. If they do not comply with these conditions a different disposal will be made of the property. Now, although the father is dead and buried and the will unalterable, yet the conduct of those children determines wholly whether they shall have the property which he willed to them or not. Now it is manifestly the will or the desire of that father that those children should do as he says, and that each of them should have the property as he mentioned. If they fail to do as he desired, they would fail to do their father’s will. In this sense his will would not be done. They would fail to do their father’s will. But would not his will be executed? Oh! yes, the property would be disposed of in some other way as he had willed. Now for the application. God has made known his will to man. The last will and testament to man is contained in the New Testament, sealed with the blood and death of his Son. Heb. ix, 15–24. Testament means will. Hence, when we are reading from the Testament we are reading the last will of God to man. There is more than one clause to this will. Universalists seem to think that there is only one clause in the will of God, and that is contained in 1 Tim. ii, 4, “God will have all men to be saved.” Yes, this is the will of God. This is what he desires; but are there no conditions in his will upon which men are to be saved? I read another clause from this will of God, found in Mark xvi, 15, 16. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Again, I read in another clause found in Rom. ii, 6–9. “God will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” Here we find some conditions stated in the will of God on which men are to be saved or lost. These conditions Universalists totally ignore.

In his last speech, Eld. Johnson presented a good illustration of what he had tried to ridicule so often, namely, that man was nothing but body and mind. He was manifestly much excited, and wished to make a great impression, but did not know how. I employed my last speech in showing that the wicked would suffer an everlasting or eternal punishment. Matt. xxv, 46. That the punishment of the wicked was to last as long as the life of the righteous, that one was right the opposite of the other,—one was eternal life, the other eternal death. The original word rendered punishment, signifies, to be cut off; hence, while the righteous go into eternal life, the wicked are eternally cut off from life. The English word punishment, signifies, pain or loss. The righteous will gain eternal life, the wicked will lose it. This was confirmed by 2 Thess. i, 7. “Punished with everlasting destruction.” Mark iii, 39. “In danger of eternal damnation.” Matt. xii, 30, 31. “Hath never forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come.” Mark ix, 40, 43. A hell “where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” I never saw the force of this passage so clearly before. I thank God that the Bible reads just as it does. Thus our discussion closed. I firmly believe that God helped us during this discussion, and that it will result in good to the cause of truth. I feel well satisfied with it. It has already raised us up numerous friends where we had none before. The Methodists and Baptists who were so anxious for the discussion, hoping that we would be put down, received no aid nor comfort from it. Eld. J.’s efforts were almost entirely to prove Universalism, and ours to prove the Advent doctrine. As we foresaw, the question led to this. This pleased us much. I am more than ever impressed with the fact that the best and only consistent way for us to discuss with opposers of the truth, is for one to speak one evening, and the other the next. Then if men are disposed to be mean and tricky, they can take no advantage. We could not expect that many would decide to obey the truth in the midst of so much opposition, and discussion.

We go to New Vineyard, five miles from here, to commence a course of lectures, and shall in the mean time help them here all we can.

D. M. CANRIGHT. New Portland, Me.