| Related sites: daviscru.com | campuscrusadeforchrist.com | psw.org | ccci.org | |||
|
|
|
||
|
The Seventh Day Adventist View of Annihilationism Research Paper for Christology/Soteriology Class Submitted by Dave Lowe Since its beginnings in 1855, the Seventh Day Adventist Church has taught the doctrine known as Annihilationism. Annihilationism is "the view that unbelievers are finally annihilated and thus do not experience torment that is eternal in duration." [1] Because this doctrine has, in recent years, gained favor among a few well-known evangelical leaders, it seems prudent to examine the claims of this doctrine. Specifically, this paper will analyze and respond to the Seventh Day Adventist position on the doctrine of Annihilationism. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, professor of theology and church history at Seventh Day Adventist's Andrews University, states that "the belief in the final annihilation of the lost is based on four major Biblical considerations: (1) the punishment of sin is death, (2) the language of destruction of the wicked, (3) the moral implications of eternal torment, and (4) the cosmological implications of eternal torment."[2] This paper will endeavor to examine and respond to each of these considerations. THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN IS DEATH A major component of the Seventh Day Adventist view of Annihilation is their view of death, which they believe to be the cessation of life. Adventists arrive at their view of death largely due to their view of the nature of man and man's soul. While traditional Christianity has asserted that man is a dualistic creature with a finite material body and an immortal immaterial soul, Adventists teach that man is a single unit. "The Scriptures teach that the soul of man represents the whole man, and not a particular part independent of the other component parts of man's nature; and further, that the soul cannot exist apart from the body, for a man is a unit."[3] Therefore, Adventists reject the traditional definition of death as separation because they do not view man as a being who can be divided into material and immaterial components. Instead, they opt for a definition of death that is equivalent to "non-life" or "cessation of life". Given this definition of death, it is not hard to see how one could arrive at the Adventist position for it necessarily leads to annihilationism. The Adventist resource Questions on Doctrine explains that the doctrine of eternal torment is rejected "because everlasting life is a gift of God (Rom. 6:23). The wicked do not possess this--they 'shall not see life' (John 3:36); 'no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him' (1 John 3:15)."[4] Hence, those who do not have life experience death; they cease to exist. The Adventist view of annihilation is also influenced by their doctrine of soul sleep. Simply explained, this doctrine teaches that after physical death, all people enter a state of unconsciousness, where they will await the resurrection. According to Adventists, it is the resurrection that assures us eternal life. At the coming of Christ, believers are resurrected and then enter into eternal life. The unjust also are resurrected but are said to experience a second death, the lake of fire. Since there is no resurrection from this death, it is concluded that the unjust cease to exist, that is they are annihilated. This is Bacchiocchi's point when he says, "Death, as we know it, would indeed be the cessation of our existence were it not for the fact of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:18). It is the resurrection that turns death into a sleep, from being the final end of life into being a temporary sleep. But there is no resurrection from the second death. It is the final cessation of life." [5] This view, that only believers will inherit immortality, is known as Conditional Immortality. RESPONSE It is apparent that the Adventist's anthropology is a major influence in arriving at their understanding of death. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to review the anthropology of Seventh Day Adventism, we can evaluate their view of death. The question is whether or not death is synonymous with "cessation of life" in the Scriptures. Dr. Walter Martin, commenting on the Seventh Day Adventist definition of death, said, "The root meanings for the words 'death' and 'life' in the New Testament usage ('death' thanatos, in its verb from apothnesko, and 'life' zoe or its verb form zac) are respectively 'separation or to separate,' from communion or fellowship." [6] Martin is supported by Vines which defines death (thanatos) as "the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the material part), the latter ceasing to function and turning to dust."[7] In addition, Vines defines the verb die (apothnesko) literally as "to die off or out" and says that it "is used (a) of the separation of the soul from the body, i.e., the natural death of human beings, (b) of the separation of man from God; all who are descended from Adam not only die physically, owing to sin, see (a) above, but are naturally in the state of separation from God."[8] Furthermore, Vines flatly refutes the annihilationist view of death when it says, "As life never means mere existence, so death, the opposite of life, never means non–existence."[9] Not only is the Adventist definition of death unwarranted, but their view of Conditional Immortality is also flawed. As has already been stated, Adventists teach that at physical death, all people enter a state of unconsciousness, or "soul sleep". This death is remedied only by resurrection. Believers are resurrected unto eternal life. Unbelievers are also resurrected but are said to endure a second death. Since they are not subsequently resurrected, it is concluded that they cease to exist. However, Dr. Walter Martin, aptly demonstrates from 1 John 5:11-13 that eternal life is a present reality rather than a future hope. "In the grammar and context of this passage eternal life (eionion zoes) is the present possession of every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and if the term eternal life does not include conscious fellowship then the whole New Testament meaning is destroyed…Thus we see that the believer, having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, already possesses never-ending life as a continuing quality of conscious existence."[10] The implications here are clear. If believers now have eternal life, it must be conscious, even upon physical death. If this is true, then physical death does NOT yield to a state of unconsciousness. If physical death does not yield unconsciousness, then the second death which unbelievers endure, does not refer to a permanent unconsciousness. THE LANGUAGE OF DESTRUCTION IN THE BIBLE The second argument Adventists employ in support of their view of annihilationism is the language of the Biblical terms. Adventists contend that the Biblical language argues for annihilationism rather than mere separation. Indeed, a host of Biblical verses are cited as examples to support their position. Among them are "Psalm 37: 'yet a little while, and the wicked will be no more.' Or Malachi 4:1, which speaks of the future time 'when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up.' " [11] Annihilationists also point to the New Testament language in support of their position. "Jesus says that 'the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire' (Matthew 3:12) and in his warning to 'fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell' (Matthew 10:28). They also cite St. Paul's teaching that 'the wages of sin is death' (Romans 6:23) and 'if any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him' (1 Corinthians 3:17)."[12] Adventists contend that phrases like "perish", "destroy", "stubble", "burn up", and "will be no more" are strong arguments for annihilation. In addition, annihilationists argue that when Jesus speaks of "eternal destruction" in Matthew 25:46, he is speaking about the permanency of the results rather than the duration. Samuele Bacchiocchi explains, " It is evident that the destruction of the wicked cannot be eternal in its duration, because it is difficult to imagine an eternal, inconclusive process of destruction. Destruction presupposes annihilation. The destruction of the wicked is eternal, not because the process of destruction continues forever, but because the results are permanent. In the same way, the 'eternal punishment' of Matthew 25:46 is eternal because its results are permanent. It is a punishment that results in their eternal destruction or annihilation." [13] RESPONSE Proponents of Annihilationism unload a myriad of biblical references and terms to demonstrate the weight of their position. However, as Alan Gomes points out, "many of the words…do not even merit examination."[14] For example, words like "tear" and "tread down" are often offered up as proof of annihilation; "as if a torn piece of paper has been removed from existence!"[15] Three words which demonstrate the best possibility for the Adventist position of annihilation are "perish", "destroy" and "consume". It is worth examining each one separately. The word "perish" is sometimes rendered "corrupt" and does not imply annihilation. Speaking of verses such as 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3, and 2 Thess 2:10, which speak of "those who are perishing" Stott states: "It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed;...it is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing."[16] Though the word "perish" has strong connotations, it does not imply annihilation. "This participle is in the present tense, which, as Robert Reymond rightly notes, 'describes existing people who are presently perishing. The verb does not suggest that their future state will be non-existence.' " [17] Concerning the word "destroy" (apollumi), Vines states that it "signifies to destroy utterly; in Middle Voice, to perish. The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well–being."[18] One wonders how annihilation is inferred when the word is used "to describe the lost but existing coin (Luke 15:8-9), the lost but existing sheep (Luke 15:4, 6) and the prodigal (but existing) son (Luke 15:17, 24). [19] It is at this point that Gomes quotes Charles Hodge, who "explains how 'destruction' or 'ruin' differs from annihilation: 'To destroy is to ruin. The nature of that ruined depends on the nature of the subject of which it is predicated. A thing is ruined when it is rendered unfit for use; when it is in such a state that it can no longer answer the end for which it was designed....A soul is utterly and forever destroyed when it is reprobated, alienated from God, rendered a fit companion only for the devil and his angels.' "[20] Annihilationists contend that the word "consume" in conjunction with fire, must infer annihilation, since the purpose of fire is to utterly consume its fuel until it is all gone. However, as Gomes points out, "the fire of judgment is no normal fire: it is described as an eternal fire (Jude 7) which is unquenchable (Mark 9:48). The fact that the smoke is said to rise 'forever and ever' is not evidence that 'the fire has done its work,' as Stott wrongly infers, but rather that the fire is doing its work through a process of endless combustion."[21] Hence, linguistically, the Adventist doctrine of annihilation cannot be demonstrated conclusively. THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF ETERNAL TORMENT A third argument offered up for the Adventist view of annihilation is that the doctrine of eternal torment violates God's attributes of Love and Justice. Bacchiocchi makes his case, stating "The notion of a God who deliberately tortures sinners throughout the endless ages of eternity, is totally incompatible with the Biblical revelation of God as infinite love. A God who inflicts unending tortures upon His creatures, no matter how sinful they may have been, is far more like Satan than like the loving Father revealed to us by Jesus Christ." [22] Similarly, Alan Gomes quotes Clark Pinnock as stating, "If the 'outrageous doctrine' of the traditionalists were true, God would be a 'cruel' and 'vindictive' deity. In fact, He would be 'more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards....' Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a 'bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die.' "[23] God's Justice is also compromised by the doctrine of eternal torment, according to annihilationists. Bacchiocchi agrees with John Stott who believes that the idea of eternal torment creates a serious disproportion within God's justice system. Stott is quoted as saying, "Would there not, then, be a serious disproportion between sins consciously committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity? I do not minimize the gravity of sin as rebellion against God our Creator, but I question whether 'eternal conscious torment' is compatible with the Biblical revelation of divine justice."[24] RESPONSE Is it true that God's love and justice would be compromised by a judgment of eternal torment? Annihilationists say yes. The problem is that their reasoning is based on their own moral reasoning which has been marred due to sin. We simply cannot determine what would be ultimately moral or immoral based on our own ideas of what would be fair. "Only a holy and just God (not sinful human beings) is qualified to determine the consequences of sin." [25] With respect to God's love & justice being compromised, Gomes adeptly demonstrates that the heinousness of a crime is not based on the finite amount of time it takes to commit but is based instead on the nature of the object against which the sin is committed. "Stealing in general is a crime, but stealing from one's mother is even more despicable because one owes special allegiance to one's parents. Torturing an animal is a crime, but torturing a human being is an even greater crime, worthy of greater punishment…How much more serious, then, is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious." [26] Eternal torment is perfectly logical when one considers the gravity of man's sin towards an infinitely holy God. Man's sin demands an infinite payment. Aquinas insists "that sins against an infinite God deserve infinite recompense."[27] Logically, if God's judgment is not eternal then one could argue that once God's wrath has been finally appeased and payment finally rendered, there is nothing that would prohibit these now-cleansed sinners from entering into the company of the redeemed. In other words, once they have paid for their sin, why annihilate them? Why not let them join the party in heaven? This is clearly not possible and is not even hinted at in the Scriptures. Yet this is a logical conclusion. Perhaps the reason some feel that eternal torment is unloving and unjust is because they, as Anselm said, "have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin."[28] THE COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ETERNAL TORMENT The last argument used to contend for the Adventist position of annihilationism concerns the cosmological implications of eternal torment. Adventists reason that because sin is never completely abolished, God's purposes to eradicate sin are never fully realized. The Adventist theological resource Questions on Doctrine outlines the official teaching, "We reject the doctrine of eternal torment…because eternal torment would perpetuate and immortalize sin, suffering, and woe, and contradict, we believe, divine revelation, which envisions the time when these things shall be no more (Rev. 21:4) [and] because it seems to us to proved a plague spot in the universe of God throughout eternity, and would seem to indicate that it is impossible for God Himself ever to abolish it."[29] [inserts added] Bacchiocchi elaborates on the official Adventist position, saying, "eternal torment presupposes an eternal cosmic dualism. Heaven and hell, happiness and pain, good and evil would continue to exist forever alongside each other. It is impossible to reconcile this view with the prophetic vision of the new world in which there shall be no more "mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Rev 21:4). Bacchiocchi also intimates that the existence of a place where eternal torment takes place would undermine the peace and happiness that is promised for those in heaven. He states, "How could crying and pain be forgotten if the agony and anguish of the lost were at sight distance, as in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)? The presence of countless millions forever suffering excruciating torment, even if it were far away from the camp of the saved, could only serve to destroy the peace and happiness of the new world. The new creation would turn out to be flawed from day one, since sinners would remain an eternal reality in God's universe and God would never be 'everything to every one' (1 Cor 15:28)." [30] RESPONSE The idea that an eternal punishment would somehow negate God's purposes or contradict his plan is simply not substantiated in Scripture. In fact, Revelation 21:8 demonstrates that the lake of fire exists along with the new heaven and earth. This is why traditionalists "insist that God will reign over heaven and hell and be glorified in both places."[31] In response to the assertion that the existence of hell will somehow taint one's experience in heaven, Geisler's words are particularly relevant. "It supposes that we are more merciful than God! God is perfectly happy in heaven, and He knows that not everyone will be there. Yet He is infinitely more merciful than we are. What is more, if we could not be happy in heaven knowing anyone was in hell, then our happiness is not in our hands but someone else’s. But hell cannot veto heaven! We can be happy in heaven the same way we can still enjoy eating knowing others are starving. And remember, just as bad memories can be healed here on earth, God will "wipe away all tears" in heaven (Rev. 21:4)."[32] Likewise, Packer observes, "the feelings that make people want conditionalism to be true seem to me to reflect, not superior spiritual sensitivity, but secular sentimentalism which assumes that in heaven our feelings about others will be as at present, and our joy in the manifesting of God's justice will be no greater than it is now."[33] THE TRADITIONAL POSITION Not only do the Seventh Day Adventist arguments for annihilation not hold up to scrutiny, but the Scriptures clearly teach that there will be an eternal punishment for the unrighteous. Many verses could be used to demonstrate this, but there are two sets of passages that clearly teach against annihilationism. The first passage is Matthew 25:41, 46 where Jesus says "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [34] This verse clearly states that punishment will be eternal. As previously stated, annihilationists argue that it is the finality of the punishment that makes it eternal. However, this explanation does not make sense. The plain meaning of the text is that the punishment will last forever, not that its result will last forever. As Ron Rhodes explains, "By no stretch of the imagination can the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear on this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness." [35] The second set of passages that argues forcefully against annihilationism are found in Rev. 14:9-11 and 20:11. These verses respectively say, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."[36] Also, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."[37] It is hard to escape the clear teaching of these verses that say "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" and "they have no rest day and night." To say that punishment is eternal only in the sense that it is final violates the plain meaning of the text. Clearly, this passage demonstrates that the punishment endured is an ongoing ceaseless activity, rather than a final end. Adventists and annihilationists in general cannot get around these passages. CONCLUSION It seems clear that the Seventh Day Adventist view of annihilation is developed primarily from their view of man and from moral reasoning, rather than from strict Biblical exegesis. Adventists argue for annihilationism from four different angles. First, they say that the punishment for sin is death. There is general agreement on this point, but as has been shown, their view of death as meaning "cessation of life" is not warranted and violates the accepted meaning of the term, which is separation. Secondly, Adventists argue that the Biblical language implies annihilationism. It has been demonstrated that many of the words of which they speak simply do not teach annihilationism and are used throughout the Bible in ways that argue against annihilationism. Thirdly, Adventists point to the moral realm, arguing that eternal torment violates God's love and justice. This is an argument rooted in the emotion with very little Biblical substance. Further, it has been demonstrated why it is necessary for punishment to be eternal in order for God's justice and holiness to be maintained. Fourthly, Adventists argue that an eternal torment would create a cosmic dualism that would make heaven a less pleasant place. Again, this argument is not based on Biblical exegesis but on a presupposition that man's emotional state of being in heaven will be no different than it is now. Lastly, this paper briefly demonstrated from just a few passages that the Scriptures clearly teach against the Adventist position of annihilation. Based on the research and discussion, this paper must conclude that the Adventist teaching of annihilation is not the Biblical teaching.
|