A False Dependence

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 27, 1882

A False Dependence.

No THOUGHT is to us more terrible than that of indulging a false or vain hope; to go through life—to exhaust the period of probation—with the belief that we are Christ’s and heirs of his glory, and find at last, when it is too late to correct the mistake, that we have been deceived; that we have leaned upon a false prop, and made lies our refuge. We can bear the worst disappointments in this life with complacency; but to be disappointed beyond this life—to come to the Judgment-seat with bright hopes, and be turned away and driven suddenly to dark despair,—this would be terrible indeed. There would be anguish beyond expression, beyond our present power to conceive.

In our remarks on the subject of the immortality of the soul, we said that the doctrine of conditional immortality shuts us up to faith in Christ for a hope of future life. Of course the doctrine of natural immortality leads to the indulgence of a hope without faith in Christ—outside the gospel. As there is but “one hope”—the hope in Christ,—that which is based upon our natural immortality is a vain hope; a false dependence. The ruin which this doctrine has entailed upon mankind is awful to contemplate. Millions are staking their eternal destiny on this miserable substitute for gospel truth. And who is responsible for this wide-spread ruin?

Jesse James, the noted murderer and desperado, had recently meted to him the measure he had given to others. He had no penitence for his crimes; he was petted by such an element as is daily haunting our jails and making heroes of the vilest criminals, and leading the basest murderers to forget the blood they have shed, while they rejoice in the prospect of a speedy transference to the glory of Heaven. He was proud of the dark record of his life. When one of his gang—trained to murder under his own teaching—coolly shot him down, his mother, while calling down the deepest vengeance on his murderer, consoled herself with the thought that her “dear Jesse is better off in Heaven!” What kind of a place must Heaven be?

But, it may be said, this is an extreme case; this is an abuse of a truth which is valuable in itself. We reply, this is not an extreme case. It is rather a usual case—a case quite on the average. Take the following as an instance of the manner in which this doctrine is used religiously: A man and his brother were running a piece of machinery; for some trifling cause he became very angry with his brother, and commenced cursing him in the most blasphemous terms. While the oaths were upon his lips, a stick of wood fell into the machinery and was thrown with great force, striking him under the chin. He was killed instantly. We were present at his funeral, at which a Methodist minister officiated. As the subject of immortality had been brought before the people in that community, the preacher improved the occasion by giving, what he considered, an argumentative discourse to prove the immortality of the soul; and at the close of his sermon, in his address to the mourners, he said that he had consolation to offer them in their bereavement: it was found in the great truth that the soul is immortal and cannot die!

It may be that we should not often find such a presentation of the doctrine, under such circumstances. But such a dependence, such a substitution of a dogma for a gospel hope, is quite general. And if this is not the proper use of the doctrine, pray tell us of what use it is. It is called a valuable doctrine; an important doctrine. If no substantial benefit is to be derived from it, wherein is it important? But if it is useful, what objection can be raised against the use of it as noticed above? We repeat what we before said: The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is no part of the gospel. It is a remedy for nothing.

But it is injurious. It is an offense against the government of God. It is but a repetition of the first falsehood ever promulgated upon the earth; a falsehood which “brought death into the world, and all our woe.” The enemy said to “the mother of all living,” when tempting her to disobey God, “Ye shall not surely die.” You may eat with impunity and without fear. God has said you shall die if you disobey. It is not so. There is something within you—“that better part”—which is far beyond the reach of such a penalty. There is “a spark of divinity within you;” the inbreathing of God’s own immortality is in your constitution; your intelligent part—“the real man”—(of course the responsible part), is as incapable of death as is God himself. Why should you fear a penalty from which you are exempt, being clothed in the dignity of your inherent immortality?

Is this an abuse of the doctrine? If so, wherein? It is the use that is constantly being made of the doctrine, and which will continue to be made of it as long as it is preached and believed. And again we ask, Inasmuch as it is no part of the gospel, if this is not the proper use of the doctrine, what is the use of it?