Resurrected Wicked.

 Resurrection of the UNJUST. (You'll want to read this lengthy article if you are a serious student of the Bible. If you are not a serious student of the Bible, and prefer to be given milk fit only for babies, and not meat for adults, then you won't like the following. Only the serious Bible students are willing to study, searching scripture for truth, contemplating all they are learning, praying, seeking spiritual guidance from the Holy Spirit Himself. Only the serious Bible students want truth as if it were a hidden treasure! Seeking it, finding it, holding fast to all the knowledge God desires to give to them. Those who aren't serious about their eternal life, will not seek God's truths as treasures, but will ignore the weighty matters of the Word, preferring simple things, preferring to be spoon fed with as little chewing as possible. If you're a serious Bible Student, pray right now, pray that God only allows you to know His truth, that God will give you the wisdom you need. God help us all!)

*******

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust (Excerpt 1)

By J.H. Waggoner

"And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."- Acts 24:15.

The following pages contain a clear, concise, and able argument in vindication of the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked. It is proper to state that an earnest effort is being made by a considerable portion of the first-day Adventists to promulgate the doctrine that the wicked dead are never to be resurrected. No thoughtful reader of the Bible will pronounce this question one of small consequence. It involves the interpretation of a very large part of the Bible.

The doctrine of the judgment, and of final retribution, of which the Scriptures say so much, is entirely changed in character according as we decide that the wicked shall or shall not be resurrected. 

We can hardly imagine what special good would grow out of the doctrine could its truthfulness be established. For the doctrine that the wicked shall be resurrected that they may each receive such measure of indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, as their crimes severally deserve, satisfies our sense of justice. And the doctrine that this torment, or anguish, shall result in death, relieves the subject of all sense of disproportion between the crime and the punishment that burdens the doctrine of endless torment. But this theory of the non-resurrection of the wicked leaves our sense of justice on the part of God toward impenitent men entirely unsatisfied, and is no measure called for as our only escape from the unreasonable doctrine of endless torment.

But, if this doctrine be false, it is certainly a very serious error. To teach wicked men that they shall never be called forth from their graves to receive the second death, will prove to such persons an awful mistake should the Son of God actually call them forth to final retribution. The fact, therefore, that the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the wicked is

being extensively and zealously promulgated at the present time, makes it a matter of great importance that this subject should be fairly and thoroughly canvassed. We commend the following work as an able vindication of the doctrine of the resurrection of the unjust.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST

Will the wicked dead be raised? This question is exciting considerable interest in certain localities; and some are embracing the view that the wicked will not have a resurrection. The opinions of the parties for and against this view may be briefly stated, as follows:

I. For: 

1) The wages of sin being death, when the wicked die, the full penalty of the law is inflicted upon them; and it would not be just for God to raise them up to execute the same penalty upon them a second time. 

(2) Life is promised only through Christ, and obtained only by faith; and therefore those who reject Christ will not have life given to them in a resurrection. 

(3) The Scriptures say they shall not see light; shall not see life; shall not rise; etc.

The first two points embrace the principles on which they profess to base their faith. The third embraces the facts or Scripture declarations supposed to sustain the principles.

II. Against:

(1) All mankind die on account of Adam's transgression, and not on account of their personal sins.

(2) Justice demands a resurrection of the wicked, in order to the infliction of the penalty of their personal sins.

(3) The Scriptures declare that there will be a resurrection of the unjust; of them that have done evil; all shall be made alive; they shall die the second death.

Eld. George Storrs, of New York, who has in a manner led off in the nonresurrection  theory, being the only one who has published any considerable work on the subject, commences his argument with an effort to establish a "principle." To this no one would object; indeed, it is the best of all methods of reasoning to first establish the principles of a doctrine. But in reasoning upon the Bible, we must be careful that our principles are in harmony with its plain teachings; for it is frequently the case that men announce as "principles" the mere expression of their own ideas. So Prof. Finney, of Ohio, in his discussion with Charles Fitch, laid down principles to prove the millennium, by which he endeavored to make that doctrine a necessity to vindicate the benevolence of God; but in so doing he contradicted some of the plainest declarations of the Bible. So Calvinists or fatalists found their "principles" on their own limited ideas of God's foreknowledge and decrees, and thereby set aside the abundance of Scripture testimony which shows the freedom of the human will in choosing or rejecting eternal life. I think Mr. Storrs has erred in precisely the same manner, allowing him to be the expositor of his own principle. To understand his exposition, we must read his principle. It is as follows: "Gifts may exceed the promise; but punishment cannot justly exceed the threatening. Thus, a prince may give to a worthy subject ten thousand dollars as a gratuity; but a just prince cannot, and will not, inflict a punishment more severe than the clearly expressed penalty, or inflict a thousand stripes gratuitously. So God may give a revival into life, and make that life eternal to a faithful servant, even though he had never clearly informed him that he would do so; but he could not, in punishing, justly exceed some known penalty, or penalty clearly indicated."

With this I find no fault; but unfortunately he has not reasoned in harmony with it, but has assumed a penalty never indicated in the Scriptures; and his conclusions are drawn, not from any just principle, but from his own assumption in regard to the penalty. In his argument he says: "The wages of sin, then, is not suffering, but death. It is not dying, but death. It is not the pain of dying, but to have life extinguished-to be dead: that only is

death. . . . No pangs, no struggles, nor agonies, connected with dying, are death, or any part of death." In this I think Mr. Storrs has departed widely from Bible truth; and in his effort

to prove what God must or ought to do, in order to be just, he has directly contradicted what God says he will do. And if it shall appear that his exposition is thus defective, the conclusion drawn therefrom may well be called in question. Let us consider it: 1. Our ideas of the penalty of the law must always stand corrected by the exposition and practice of the divine Lawgiver. His first announcement of the penalty was this: "Thou shalt surely die." But Mr. Storrs says it is not dying, but "to be dead." If so, it should read, Thou shalt surely be dead. The soul that sinneth, it shall be dead. The wages of sin is to be dead. But such terms are never used in the Scriptures. The phrase, shalt die, clearly points to the process

whereby he should become dead. I am aware that this statement of Mr. Storrs' is often reiterated in controversies on the subject of life and death; but it is erroneous nevertheless. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"-not shall be dead. Now if Mr. Storrs could devise some means whereby the sinner can be dead without undergoing the process of dying, then with more show of reason might he endeavor to disconnect the "pangs, struggles, and agonies, connected with dying," from the penalty. But the divine expressions include the process of dying- shalt die-and his assertion contradicts both reason and Scripture. I do not deny that the penalty reaches to the state of being dead; for there is no such thing as death, unless that consummation be reached. But I do deny that it excludes the act of dying, with its pangs and agonies. Both are included in the penalty.

2. If "to be dead" were alone the penalty, and the pangs, etc, of death, were "not the penalty or any part of it," then all the "pangs, struggles, and agonies, connected with" the infliction of the penalty, death, are so much over and above the penalty, and of course, according to Mr. Storrs' showing, so much of manifest injustice on the part of the Being who inflicts the penalty! And it would therefore be necessary for God to insure an easy, peaceful death, to the sinner, in order that he might be dead, in accordance with justice, that is, without having added to the "penalty clearly indicated," "pangs, struggles, or agonies," which are no part of the penalty, and cannot, therefore, be justly inflicted! But against this I say,

3. God has not only threatened death to the evil-doer, but he has also threatened "tribulation and anguish," torment with fire and brimstone, plagues, with grievous sores and pains. And all the illustrations given in the Scriptures, of the justice and wrath of God against sin, include such ideas as these. Now these are the desert of sin, and part of its penalty, or they are not. If they are, then Mr. Storrs' exposition of principles is without foundation in truth. But if they are not, as Mr. Storrs asserts, then, according to his theory, these threats can never be fulfilled without God thereby proving himself unjust!

Such is the tendency of Mr. Storrs' position on which he bases his nonresurrection theory. As said before, we may well call in question any argument based on such premises, or conclusion drawn from them. In regard to principles, the question first to be settled in this controversy is this: Do mankind now die because of their own sins, or because of the sin of their representative head, Adam? There are, I think, weighty reasons to be offered on both branches of this question; that is, that they do not die on account of their own sins, and that they do die on account of Adam's transgression. And this conclusion is deducible from the principles of just reasoning, from the statements of the Scriptures, and from the admissions of those opposing. "In Adam all die," are the words of inspiration. This certainly does not admit of any exceptions. All men stood in Adam, their representative. So says Mr. Curry, a

leading advocate of that faith; "Every one having this Adamic nature, dies. In Adam: every one who has that Adamic condition must necessarily die by virtue of that condition." Debate with Grant, p. 24.

 But all classes and ages have that Adamic condition; hence, all classes and ages "die by virtue of that condition;" and this, of course, without any regard to their character. Mr. Storrs denies that 1 Cor. 15:22, has any reference to "all men;" yet he does not deny the fact that all men do actually die in Adam, but states it in the following words: "And though it is

a truth that all men die by a connection with the first Adam, yet that is not the truth the apostle now proceeds to state." Life from the Dead, p. 48. And again, the same is admitted on page 49, as follows: "It is by connection with Adam, as descendants from him, that death came to those whose personal sins are forgiven." In these statements, both Mr. Curry and Mr. Storrs admit that mankind do not now die on account of their personal sins. For if

the present prevailing death is the penalty of personal sin, by what principle of justice do they suffer that penalty after their personal sins are forgiven? Do they really believe that God executes the penalty of sins after they are forgiven? If so, in what consists their forgiveness? And here, against this non-resurrection theory, I bring this charge, that it entirely ignores the gospel doctrine of the remission of sins, and contradicts every statement of the Scriptures in regard to forgiveness. In this it stands in direct opposition to the gospel system. In some States, the death penalty stands against murder; but do they ever hang a man after he is pardoned? The words, or offer, of pardon in such a case would be senseless, cruel mockery. According to the theory we call in question, the righteous, or justified, suffer the same penalty that the wicked suffer. Do they first receive the pardon, or forgiveness, of their sins, and then suffer, to the full extent, their penalty? Is this the manner in which justice is administered in the divine government? That this is no misapprehension of the non-resurrection dogma, no unjust conclusion drawn from the premises of an opponent, will appear by a quotation from Mr. Curry, "Debate with Grant," page 101: "The life that now is, is under the law, goes down under the law; the law holds it. There is no way to escape the penalty." And therefore, if this penalty is the penalty of personal sins, as he elsewhere avers, there is no way to escape from the penalty of personal sins; and therefore, again, there is no such thing as forgiveness. And so it is in direct antagonism to the gospel. But, it may he objected, the penitent believer does not remain dead; he is

resuscitated, and eternal life is given to him. But that does not meet the case; that result comes under another head. The question now before us is this: Is there any forgiveness in the gospel? Mr. Curry said, "There is no way to escape from the penalty;" which is equivalent to declaring that there is no way to obtain forgiveness. For I assert, without any fear of contradiction, that the forgiveness of sin and the execution of its penalty cannot exist together. Whatever may be granted by way of gift after the penalty is executed, cannot interfere with the statements here made; for such gift is not mercy, not forgiveness-it is benevolence. "The soul that sinneth it shall die;" the soul that is forgiven its sin shall also die. And it does also die, and very often under far more agonizing circumstances than the other. How can the Scriptures be reconciled, and the justice of God's government be vindicated, if the same death is threatened to the sinner that the justified saints are daily suffering? The full penalty of the law is executed upon both alike. There is no forgiveness to any. Conceding that faith will procure a revivifying after the penalty is inflicted, it yet remains that faith and repentance will not avert the infliction of the penalty. Such is the tendency and unavoidable result of this doctrine of the non-resurrection of the unjust.

In justice to Eld. Rufus Wendell, of Salem, Mass., editor of the Bible Repository, I ought to say, that when, by request, I presented this objection to a company in the "Life Tent," on the Springfield Camp Ground, he promptly repudiated the view held by Elders Storrs and Curry on this point. In so doing he made the proper distinction between benevolence and mercy. I hope all of that party will soon do themselves the justice to renounce a theory so utterly subversive of the essential characteristics of the gospel of Christ.

The points of the argument on the reason of the present death may be stated as follows:

1. Present or "first death" is not the penalty of personal transgression to infants, as they have no personal sin to die for; they die "in Adam," or by virtue of their relation to him.

2. Present or "first death" is not the penalty of personal sins to the justified, their transgressions having been forgiven, and, of course, are not punishable. Therefore this death is to them also solely the result of their relation to Adam.

3. All the wicked sustain the same relation to Adam that do infants and saints; they are subject to the same "Adamic condition." This is conceded. And therefore they die "by virtue of that relation," as do infants and saints, and not on account of their personal sins.

They who deny this third point, or maintain the contrary, are justly held to prove that the wicked do not sustain that same relation to Adam, and are not subject to its consequences, as are infants and saints. This we do not think they will undertake. But they must see that a failure on their part here involves their whole system.

4. Present or "first death" cannot be both the penalty of personal sins, and the result of our relation to Adam; for we are offered the remission of personal sins through repentance and faith in Christ, but never the remission of that Adamic condition-no degree of repentance and faith will change that relation, or avert its consequences. This, all will and must admit. But the punishment of personal sins may be averted, according to the plain declarations and promises of the gospel. What may be predicated of one cannot be predicated of the other; therefore one death cannot stand for both. Any effort on their part to avoid our conclusion on this point, must involve them in the following contradiction: That which is visited upon all men by reason of a certain relation, is visited upon one class solely by reason of that relation, and upon another class not by virtue of that relation at all, but for an entirely different reason! Mr. Curry, as well as Mr. Storrs, professed to place his first and chief reliance on "principles." The following is one laid down by him: "God cannot be just and restore to man his animal or blood life, as that life is forfeited to the law." Debate, p. 91.

The same idea is held out by Mr. Storrs. But they must certainly have singular ideas of justice, as announced in such a "principle;" for they have every one of the justified paying the same forfeit that the condemned have to pay! Now "justification" and "condemnation" are terms expressing different relations to law; and I assert that where there is no condemnation there can be no forfeit required according to justice. This must be granted-it is self-evident. Therefore those who advocate this non-resurrection theory, must admit that this forfeit is not because of personal sins, or, otherwise, maintain that a person is both justified and condemned at the same time, which is an evident absurdity. I do not see how the "Judge of all the earth" can be honored by the announcement of such a "principle," subversive as it is of the plainest principles of justice. For let it be remembered, that God is just in justifying the believer (Rom. 3:26), but not according to their position. There can be no justice in the infliction of penalties without discrimination; visiting the same judgment upon the condemned and the justified; upon those accountable and guilty; and upon those unaccountable and those whose sins have been pardoned. But if all die-old and young, just and unjust-on account of their relation to Adam, and all personal sins are referred to that day when "God shall bring every work into judgment," then all is clear, and God's justice is vindicated. And if, as I think is clearly the truth, the present or "first death" is the result of our relation to Adam, and not the penalty of personal sins, then it follows that the penalty of personal sins will never be inflicted if there shall be no revival or resurrection of the wicked, who have exposed themselves to divine justice by their actions. And so justice points unmistakably to a "resurrection of damnation," and to a "second death," to such as have neither sought for immortality, nor died for their own personal sins. So far as a dispute on "principles" is concerned, I claim precedence for those advanced in favor of the resurrection of the wicked. And the admissions of opponents that all now die by reason of their relation to Adam are, virtually, admissions that the justice of God remains to be vindicated in regard to their personal sins. (TO BE CONTINUED)