Newspaper Page Text
6
THE ANNIHILATION OF “ANNIHILATION”
A Powerful Refutation of the Doctrine of “Russellism,” “Adventism” and Many Other Isms That Try to Argue
Away the Doctrine of Hell.
(Editor’s Note: Some months ago the Editor of
The Golden Age met on the train a friend who vig
orously discussed with him the widespread effort be
ing made to refute the Bible doctrine of eternal pun
ishment. “Here is an article I have written on the
subject. If you count it worthy you can publish
it,” he said. But, strange as it may seem, in the
whirl of so much work and travel, the name of that
friend has been “annihilated” in memory. The
article, however, is so original and striking that we
feel constrained to give it without the name of the
author.
It so completely annihilates the doctrine of “Anni
hilation,” that it shall be given the widest possible
circulation.—The Editor.)
ANNIHILATION REFUTED.
HE real question at issue is, what
is the penalty of the law? or, what
is the penalty that God’s law in
flicts for sin? If we can obtain
the right answer to this question,
we will know whether or not the
wicked will be annihilated; for no
one will contend for annihilation,
only on the supposition that anni-
T
hilation is a penalty of the law. What, then is
the penalty of the law? It must be one of
the three following things:
First. Annihilation without conscious suffer
ing, or
Second. Annihilation and conscious suffer
ing combined, consisting in part of both; or
Third. It must be conscious suffering with
out annihilation.
It will not be denied that the penalty of the
law must be found in one or the other of these
three propositions. And if it can be proved
not to be either the first or the second, it must
follow that it is the third —conscious suffering
without annihilation.
The penalty of the law is not annihilation
without conscious suffering, or endurance of
other evils and simple loss of existence. The
simple loss of existence cannot be a penalty
or punishment in the case of the sinner after
the general resurrection. All punishment
must consist in pain or loss, but the proposi
tion that the penalty of the law is annihilation
without suffering, excludes the idea of pain and
the penalty of the law is made to consist in loss
only, loss of existence. Punishment is an evi l
but to have existence taken away is not an
evil in the case of the sinner. The
punishment of loss supposes the depriva
tion of something valuable, but to
have existence taken away is not valu
able in the case of the sinner, and therefore
deprivation of existence cannot be a punish
ment. To cease to exist cannot be a punish
ment, only as far as existence taken away in
volves happiness. But the existence of the sinner
which shall be such after the general resurrec
tion, will not involve happiness, but misery,
therefore, to cease to exist will not involve a
loss of happiness, but an exemption from suffer
ing, and cannot be a penalty or punishment.
All Must Be Punished Alike.
First. —Suppose the penalty of the law is an
nihilation without conscious suffering, will not
admit of any degree of punishment. All must
be punished, if it be called punishment, pre
cisely alike and with the same degree of punish
ment. If the penalty of the law be annihila
tion none can be punished less and none can
be punished more, than what amounts to anni
hilation, and annihilation admits of no degree
of punishment. Some have sought to avoid
this difficulty by making the degrees of punish
ment consist in the different degrees of loss sus
tained by different persons according to their
respective degrees of capacity to enjoy happi
ness. This would have some force in it if an
nihilation stood opposed to happiness, but it
does not, it is urged against endless suffering.
Taking this view of it, as the mind that is ca
pable of enjoying a greater amount of happi-
The Golden Age for November 14, 1912.
ness is also capable of a greater amount of suf
fering, instead of sustaining a greater loss by
annihilation, he is saved from a greater amount
of suffering. It is clear then that there can
be no degrees of punishment if it be annihila
tion, without suffering. And this, itself, is
fatal to the theory. Reason teaches us that
some men are greater sinners than others, and
justly deserve more punishment. Hence, if
annihilation be the penalty some must be puni
ished more than they deserve, and some must
be punished less than they deserve. Moreover,
the Scriptures teach that there will be degrees
of punishment. Christ said to the Pharisees,
for a certain cause, “Therefore shall ye receive
the greater damnation.” Matt. 23:14. And
again: “He that knoweth his Master’s will
and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many
stripes; 'while he that knoweth not his Master’s
will and doeth it not shall be beaten with few
stripes.” Luke 12:47, 48. That the penalty
of the law is not annihilation without conscious
suffering, is further proved by these Scriptures
which teach directly that sin is punished by
suffering or conscious pain. Matt. 25:30: “Cast
ye the unprofitable servant into outer dark
ness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth.”
Luke 13:28: “There shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the
kingdom of heaven, and ye yourselves thrust,
out. ’ ’
“In hell he lifted up his eyes being in tor
ments. ” Luke 16:23.
These texts prove, beyond a doubt, that sin
is punished by conscious suffering. Hence, the
penalty of the law cannot be annihilation with
out conscious suffering.
Second: The penalty of the law is not anni
hilation with conscious suffering as a part of
the same. First: It is liable to the first ob
jection, urged against the former position, that
annihilation under the circumstances cannot be
a punishment. The objection of the annihilation
ist in combining suffering with annihilation is
to escape two objections urged against the
above, viz: First, that annihilation without
suffering does not admit of any degrees of pun
ishment, and second, the Scriptures teach the
doctrine of positive conscious suffering for the
sinner. If, then, the law inflicts the pain, fit
ly represented by the “worm that dieth not”
and the “fire that is not quenched,” which pro
duces weeping and gnashing of teeth, annihila
tion must be a relief and cannot be a punish
ment under the circumstances. Second, to
suppose that punishment consists in punishment
in part, and annihilation in part, renders an
nihilation exceedingly insignificant as a punish
ment, supposing it to be a punishment in any
degree, supposing it to be a punishment even in
part, as a penalty of the law, it must be inflict
ed upon all who are punished in any degree.
We cannot suppose a sinner to be half annihil
ated, hence, he must be absolutely and entirely
annihilated, if annihilation be even a part of
the penalty of divine law.
Take the case of two sinners; one is as guilty
in the least degree that a sinner can be, still
he deserved punishment; the other is guilty to
the greatest extent that a sinner can be, and
so far as annihilation is concerned, both must
be punished precisely alike. The excess of the
punishment which the greater sinner receives
over the less guilty sinner must be made up in
actual suffering, and this must constitute the
principal portion; so that annihilation is a
mere tittle. One dies as soon as he is capable
of knowing right from wrong.
His first act of sin is his only one, and that in
volves as little guilt as any wrong can, and yet
he must be annihilated. Another lives to be
a hundred years old, and fills up the entire
time with crimes of deepest dye; he goes to his
retribution as guilty as a sinner can make him
self in one hundred years, and can be no more
annihilated. It is said that he suffers for his
greater guilt before he is annihilated! granted
that there is almost no comparison between the
guilt of the two, so there is almost no compari
son of the punishment due them. Nearly the
whole of the punishment of the one most guilty
must be made up in conscious suffering; in pro
portion to the amount of suffering a sinner has
to endure is annihilation rendered less fearless,
or rather more to be desired, and the more
guilty gain by annihilation, and the less guilty
a sinner is the more does he lose, and the less
does he gain by annihilation. Such absurdi
ties and contradictions are involved by suppos
ing the penalty of the divine law is to be com
posed of suffering in part, and annihilation, in
part. The penalty of the law is an evil, a
curse, and yet this view supposes one part of
the penalty of the divine law renders the other
part desirable.
It Cannot Be Both at the Same Time.
Third: To maintain that penalty of the law
is both suffering and annihilation, consisting in
part of each, is to fritter away the penalty of
the divine law into the mere' pangs of a com
mon death, or a moment’s pain, or represent
God as unnecessarily severe and cruel, and pun
ishing for the sake of punishing. If loss of
existence be the penalty of the law, then does
reason say it involves only so much suffering
as is required to dissolve our being.
It may be presumed that if God annihilates
and takes away our being as a punishment, He
will have some uniform method of doing it.
This is believed to be by fire. All who insist
that the wicked will cease to exist, insist that
God will burn them up. Admitting this the
punishment is only so much, and should be
only so much, as a person endures while burn
ing to death. Understand, the theory is, that
the wicked will not be raised immortal, with
undecaying natures, but they will be raised
as they are now, mortal, subject to the action
of fire. Admitting then, that they are to be
burned up, it is not possible to see how they
can suffer more than an ordinary death by fire.
The pains of hell, according to this view, are
less than many good people have suffered by
fire, for they have been roasted in slow fires,
which did not burn them up as quick as the
fires of the judgment will. Some, for Christ’s
sake, have had their flesh picked from their
bones with red hot pincers, which must have
caused more pain than to be burned up in a
hot fire. All this follows from the frailty of
our being, on the supposition that sinners will
be raised as they are now, —mortal and subject
to the action of fire and death; and unless they
are thus raised, fire will not burn them up, and
the argument is at an end.
The material organism like the human body
can endure but a limited amount of heat and
pain without dissolving, and that amount must
fix the limit to the pains of hell. To escape
this aspect of the subject, annihilationists in
sist that the sufferings of the wicked will be
long and fearful before they cease to exist. This
is not possible unless God in the resurrection
constitutes them different beings from what
they are in this world, so as to require the ac
tion of fire, ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred
years to burn them up. To say the least of it,
this is without proof. There is not the slight
est evidence or shadow of proof that a man
will be raised from mortal death or capable
of being burned up. But we are not prepared
to say that God cannot produce an organism
just such as this theory supposes, or that He
could not suspend laws of nature, so as by His
powep so hold the sinner in existence with his
(Continued on Page 7.