p. 52 | NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS.-EIGHTH SESSION

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 15, 1877

NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS.—EIGHTH SESSION.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THIRD PROPOSITION.

Do the Scriptures teach that the wicked will be annihilated? I affirmed, he denied.

Some who believe in the destruction of the wicked are a little tender about using the word annihilate, but without any reason, because it is one of the prominent definitions of the word destroy, and means no more, properly, than destroy does in its fullest sense. We maintain that the wicked, as persons, will cease to exist. Of course the material which composes them will not be annihilated, but as individuals they are annihilated, in the same sense that a house is annihilated when it is burned up, or a forest is annihilated when it is burned down. The house as a house does not exist. Annihilate is thus defined by Webster:—

“Annihilate. 1. To reduce to nothing; to destroy the existence of; as, no human power can annihilate matter. 2. To destroy the form or peculiar distinctive properties, so that the specific thing no longer exists; as, to annihilate a forest by cutting and carrying away the trees, though the timber may still exist; to annihilate a house by demolishing the structure.”

“Destroy. 1. To demolish; to pull down, to separate the parts of an edifice, the union of which is necessary to constitute the thing; as, to destroy a house or temple; to destroy a fortification.”

2. “To ruin; to annihilate a thing by demolishing or by burning; as, to destroy a city.”

3. “To ruin; to bring to naught; to annihilate; to destroy a theory or scheme; to destroy a government; to destroy influence.”

4. “To lay waste; to make desolate. ‘Go up against this land and destroy it.’ Isa. 36.”

5. “To kill; to slay, to extirpate; applied to men, or other animals. ‘Ye shall destroy all this people.’ Num. 32.”

6. “To take away; to cause to cease; to put an end to; as, pain destroys happiness. ‘That the body of sin might be destroyed.’ Rom. 6.”

7. “To kill; to eat; to devour; to consume. Birds destroy insects. Hawks destroy chickens.”

8. “In general to put an end to; to annihilate a thing or the form in which it exists.”

Now, in defining the word destroy he frequently gives annihilation as its meaning. I explained what we meant by annihilation, to which my opponent took no exception. I remarked that it is plainly declared in many places that the wicked should be burned up. Mal. 4:1; Rom. 6:23; should perish; 2 Pet. 2:12, &c. Then I pictured the horrors of an endless, burning hell, with the additional fact that the righteous in glory shall see the punishment of the wicked. I called attention to the fact that the great majority of the race would be lost. You have all the heathen world, Rom. 2:11, all the infidels and unbelievers of Christian countries, and all sinners of every land and every age. Frequently very young persons who have not been very sinful, but yet have committed some sins, have died without repentance. Many such must be lost; and shall they endure eternal, unending torture?

This doctrine of hell has made millions of infidels and spiritualists, and is the chief argument in the hands of the Universalists. It dishonors God by representing him as an implacable tyrant. It was invented by heathen priests to scare the people, and was adopted by Catholic priests to extort money from the ignorant. Protestants coming out from the mother church brought this monstrous error with them, and, until lately, taught it in all its native ugliness; but the light and progress of the last quarter of a century has compelled them unwillingly to greatly modify and almost entirely change their mode of teaching upon this subject. None of the ministers of the present day preach a literal hell as they used to. They refer to it but seldom and then in very modest terms.

The annihilation or utter destruction of the wicked is sensible. Why should God keep a sinner alive in torment eternally? Will God take delight in it? Will it add to the joy of the angels? Will it add to the happiness of the righteous? Whom would it benefit? No, let them be blotted out and cease to pollute the universe of God. The penalty for sin is simply death, forfeiture of life. Gen. 9:6; Heb. 9:22.

Eld. Shick claimed that hell was not literal, there was no literal fire, no literal burning, &c. It was all figurative. It simply meant that they would be banished from the presence of God, separated from him and from the righteous. I remarked that this is just what the wicked would like. The farther they could get from God the better it would suit them. Go unto that low gambling hell; see them drinking and carousing; hear them cursing; look upon their brutal faces. Now tell them, Gentlemen, I have come to announce to you that unless you reform you shall never see God, you shall never enter Heaven, you shall not be with the righteous; but you shall live a real life, not in fire and brimstone, but far removed from the presence of God, and associated with the evil like yourself. How would they receive that? They would throw up their hats and give three cheers, saying, That is just what we want. Nothing would suit us better. Such is the hell which Eld. Shick proposed.

Here he endeavored to bring in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, though it had no bearing upon the present question, the destruction of the wicked, because it in nowise intimates anything as to the length of time which the rich man was to remain there in torment. We believe that they will be in torment just as this says, but that they will finally be destroyed; and this parable does not say they will not. So I refused to pay any attention to it, more than to make this statement.

He was very anxious to read Josephus upon this question, which was out of order; but I granted him the privilege, and gave him the book. He read at great length Josephus’ article on hades, and endorsed it. This says that hades is a hollow place under ground, divided into two apartments, that all the righteous are there in one apartment, and all the wicked in the other. Eld. Shick placed patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, all there waiting for the resurrection. This was a fatal position for him when he came to the kingdom question, as I will show. I should remark that the article on hades in Josephus is admitted by all scholars to be a forgery. Josephus never wrote it. Hence it is no proof on any question.

The Elder made one assertion on this parable, which I did not there notice; but as it is a very common one, I call attention to it now. He said that all the parables of Christ were based upon facts, never upon fiction; hence, granting that this was a parable, there must have been in the past, facts just like it upon which to found it. But this assumption is entirely false. It is evident that the most of his parables were not founded upon facts, but simply gotten up as parables always are, merely to illustrate a point. Furthermore, many of his parables are founded upon that which never could have been a fact. Notice a few.

In Matt. 7:15, we have the parable of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, going among the flock to devour them. Question, Did that ever literally happen? Did a wolf ever put on a sheep’s skin, and go among the sheep to devour them? Again in Luke 6:41, we have the parable of a man with a beam in his eye, trying to pull the mote out of his brother’s eye. Here is a man, not simply with a splinter in his eye, or a stick of wood, or a rail, but a beam, a great heavy stick of timber, actually sticking right into his eye. With this he walks around and endeavors to wipe a little mote out of his brother’s eye! That was real, was it? So the Elder said.

Again, in Matt. 15:14, we have the parable of one blind man leading another blind man. Did that ever occur? Whoever saw it? Non-sense. Again we have the parable in Luke 14, of the king who made a great supper, and bid many; and when they would not come, he sent out for the poor, lame, and blind to come in. Not obtaining enough this way, he sent unto his servants to compel them to come in from the highways and hedges. Evidently no such thing ever occurred. It is merely a parable. So with regard to the rich man and Lazarus. No such literal fact ever happened. The very parable itself shows this.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

(To be Continued.)