BASELESS REASONS | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Jan 10, 1906

BASELESS REASONS.

It matters not to some minds how strong may be the positive testimony against a long-cherished belief, a few seemingly plausible inferences in its favor are stronger. They are honest in these convictions; for when a long-standing dogma is supported only by inference and not by positive testimony, multitudes still cling to the old belief, foundationless tho it is. They always believed it true, and the belief becomes the evidence. What makes it seem stronger is ignorance of what may be said on the other side; and many persons are so prejudiced they will not hear. Lorenzo Dow, we believe it was, truly said: "Prejudice is like a cork in a bottle; it lets nothing either in or out."

Prejudice is one of the greatest foes to the truth of life alone in Christ Jesus; and upon tradition and influence is based the opposite doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul. The arguments generally adduced in favor of the soul's immortality are, (1) the majority of the Christian church believe it; (2) it is an old dogma; (3) it is in harmony with man's aspirations and desires; (4) the opposite has been popularly considered materialistic and atheistic; and (5) it is supported by inferences drawn from certain scriptures. It is freely admitted by its ablest exponents that there is no positive Bible evidence in its favor. More than this, the Bible is very emphatic in setting before us the great fact that our only hope of continued life is in Jesus and the resurrection. But let us notice the above "arguments:"

1. "The majority of the Christian church believe that the soul is immortal and conscious in death." But this is not proof that it is so. If there are any people on earth who ought to look with suspicion on mere majorities, Christians are that people. The history of the people of God in all ages has shown the adherents to truth to be a "little flock," while those who have opposed it were a great multitude. Noah and his adherents were few at the time of the Deluge; many were those who did not believe him or his message, and they numbered among them mighty men, "men of renown." Yet Noah was right, and what he believed was truth. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were pilgrims and strangers, few in number among the surrounding idolaters. The entire people of Israel at their best were few in number compared with the corrupt world. Daniel stood alone in Babylon, Ezekiel in the valley of the Chebar, Elijah in Israel. Jesus and His disciples were few, and in His darkest hour our Lord stood alone. And since that time the true disciples of Christ have not been the great multitude, but the "little flock," and such Jesus assures us they will be when He comes. Luke 12:32-36. Were majorities of earth to rule, we would all become Catholics, and then pagans. After all, he who has the truth is in the majority, for God is on the side of truth, and if God be for us, who can be against us?

2. "The immortality and consciousness of the soul in death is an old doctrine." Yes, it is. But all error is very old. Salvation by works, or by man's righteousness, is nearly as old as the race. Cain believed it, and slew his brother to vindicate it. The foundation of the immortal-soul belief goes back farther than Cain. It can be traced to the Garden of Eden, to the utterance of one known and noted, "Ye shall not surely die. . . . Ye shall be as gods." Gen. 3:4, 5. Christians, however, can hardly accept the foundation or the immense but fabulous superstructure which is reared upon it. A doctrine is not better for being old; in fact, it is worse, for it more easily deceives, just as well-worn counterfeit bills pass as genuine. But the bill is not the less counterfeit tho it may have been accepted as genuine a thousand times, any more than it would be genuine if detected in the first attempt at passing. So a doctrine is no better tho it may have been believed by the good for ages; neither is the truth the worse for having been hidden.

3. "The immortality of the soul is in harmony with man's aspirations." And what of that? Can we say that mankind in general desire immortality, therefore all are immortal? As well might we say that mankind in general desire perfect health, therefore all have perfect health; mankind in general desire happiness, therefore all are happy. We know that in these cases the reasoning is false; is it not just as false in the other? God has planted in men's minds aspirations, longings for the ultimate good, and He has made it possible for man to reach that; but that possibility does not come through any inherent qualities, but through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

4. "The immortality of the soul has been considered a Christian doctrine, while conditional immortality has been considered materialistic and infidel." But this charge does not prove the doctrine to be so, or does not make it so. Many good things have been ruined by a term of contempt. For instance, the Sabbath has been contemptuously called, "the old Jewish Sabbath," while it is never thus termed in the Bible. Yet it has been called so so frequently that many believe it. It is called by Inspiration, "the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God." So men have brought reproach against the doctrine of life only in Christ. It has been called by every reproachful term possible, and those who believe it have been characterized as unchristian, materialists, soul-sleepers, infidels. But this is no test of truth. Elijah was called the troubler of Israel. Jesus was said to cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils, was classed with wine-bibbers and sinners, and died at last as a malefactor. When nothing but terms of reproach can be brought against a doctrine by those who profess better things, we may, on general principles, count it worthy of investigation. Truth has something better to advance either for or against a doctrine than names of reproach or ridicule.

5. "Inferences from certain passages of Scripture are in favor of the immortality of the soul." This may be true, but our inquiry here must be, Are these inferences just?

On the other hand there is the direct, positive testimony that God "only hath immortality." Why not accept of that? Why not rest on the plain testimony of the Word?