Walter Martin and the Nature of Man: Part 1

* This is an unsolicited reply to statements in the book The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism on the nature of man.

One of the chapters in the new book The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, by Walter R. Martin, attempts to refute the Adventist doctrines of conditional immortality and the annihilation of the wicked, by showing that the Bible teaches conscious existence after death and the eternal tor­ment of unbelievers.

All true Christians hold that God is the Creator of all things, including conscious existence. Mr. Martin believes this, and we believe it too. Hence, this is not the ques­tion that divides us. Nor is it the question of whether God could sustain life forever or annihilate it if He so ordained. The crux of the matter is: Has God given man, irre­spective of his character, conscious exist­ence that He will never take away? Mr. Martin teaches that God has. Seventh-day Adventists maintain that God has not.

We fail to see any reason why God should have willed that man must have an end­less conscious existence, whether regenerate or unregenerate, and we do not believe that the Bible so teaches. On the contrary, we hold that the Scriptures plainly teach that God created man with the possibility for endless existence, but that this depended on man's obedience to the divine will. When man sinned, endless existence be­came possible only through acceptance of eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Mr. Martin holds that the soul or spirit, which he equates with man's "cognizant, immaterial nature" (page 127), has an end­less existence regardless of character (see page 139), for he declares: "Conditional Immortalitists try to answer Dr. Hodge's argument [that unbelievers are punished forever] by declaring that the soul is not eternal by creation; but the Bible emphat­ically teaches that it is, since we have seen that the word 'death' does not imply unconsciousness as Adventists declare" (page 132).

This declaration shows that Mr. Martin believes that the Bible teaches that the soul is eternal by creation. Since Mr. Martin's argument would have no force unless God had willed that the soul must exist end­lessly as a conscious entity, we conclude that this is what he means when he says that the soul is eternal by creation. This much is clear. His reasons for so believing are not so clear. In fact, we cannot help wondering if Mr. Martin could afford to make them clear. Let us see why.

Our friend declares that because "death" does not imply unconsciousness, he has, therefore, proved that the Bible emphati­cally teaches that the soul is eternal by cre­ation. This appeals to us as a rather un­usual method of adducing proof. In essence we are asked to believe that the lack of an implication constitutes emphatic proof. We fail to see how this constitutes proof, let alone emphatic proof.

We shall now proceed to examine the evidence, which Mr. Martin says "we have seen," which is supposed to prove that " 'death' does not imply unconsciousness." In order to facilitate comparison we shall follow Mr. Martin's outline of presenta­tion.

I. Textual Analysis

On pages 118 and 119 of his book, Mr. Martin, commenting on 1 John 5:11-13 says, "In the grammar and context of this pas­sage eternal life (eionion zoes [sic]) 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. The Holy Spirit used the present indicative active of the verb echo, express­ing present, continuous action. 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." (Italics his.)

In the first place, it seems to us utterly superfluous to bestow upon believers "a continuing quality of conscious existence" if all men regenerate and unregenerate, pos­sess conscious existence that is eternal by creation.

In the second place, it seems to us pass­ing strange that anyone would try to prove conscious existence after death on the grounds that believers possess eternal life. Let us see why. If believers possess "a con­tinuing quality of conscious existence" by virtue of the fact that eternal life has been bestowed upon them, by the same token unbelievers do not possess "a continuing quality of conscious existence," since they do not have eternal life (1 John 5:12; 3:15). It is evident that this argument proves too much, and hence proves nothing for Mr. Martin's contention. But this is not all. Our friend has yet to establish that the whole New Testament meaning of "eternal life" includes "conscious fellowship." We sub­mit that he has given no proof for this as­sertion.

Under this same section Mr. Martin says that a case parallel to 1 John 5:11-13 "ob­tains in the context of John 5:24, where the Holy Spirit informs us that a spiritually dead man, passes by faith into spiritual or eternal life, but with no change in his physi­cal nature, thus indicating the dualism of body and soul" (page 119). We fail to see how this passage necessarily indicates the dualism of body and soul, but Mr. Martin hastens to declare that "this completely re­futes the general Adventist contention that everlasting life or immortality is bestowed upon the believer only at the resurrection of his body" (ibid.). This is a rather star­tling bit of logic. In essence, we are asked to believe that an indication, which Mr. Martin does not even claim to have estab­lished, completely refutes a contention.

What is this Adventist contention? Mr. Martin says it is that eternal life or immor­tality is bestowed upon the believer only at the resurrection of the body. But this is not an Adventist contention at all. We do not equate the terms "eternal life" and "immortality." This fact is singled out in the "statement," by H. W. Lowe, an Adventist, appearing on page 15 of Mr. Martin's book. In this statement Mr. Lowe points out that Mr. Martin is "incorrect when he says that Adventists equate eternal life with immortality." Thus we see that Mr. Martin completely refutes something we don't even teach.

What Seventh-day Adventists teach on this point is made abundantly plain when Mr. Lowe says, "We emphatically teach that a true believer in Christ has eternal life abiding in him now, 'and this life is in his Son,' 1 John 5:11. We believe that im­mortality, or that quality of being which makes death impossible, is something be­stowed on the believer at the resurrection when our Lord returns" (page 15).

The second text offered to prove the conscious fellowship of the believer after death is John 11:25, 26, the main point be­ing that going beyond Lazarus, who be­lieved on Jesus and had physically died, "Jesus lifts the veil and reveals that, in the realm of the physically alive, whoever be­lieves in Him shall never experience the greatest of all terrors, spiritual death" (page 121). The next paragraph shows that by "spiritual death" our friend means "loss of communion of fellowship as a spiritual entity." The fallacy of this argument is that Jesus said nothing about "loss of com­munion of fellowship," let alone about a "spiritual entity," and these are the very points that need to be established.

As with the preceding arguments, the ar­gument based on 2 Timothy 1:10 and Ro­mans 2:7, to the effect that "eternal life" is "a conscious quality of spiritual existence" (page 122), also assumes what it is under obligation to prove, hence proves nothing.

We now come to Philippians 1:21-23. Again, Mr. Martin assumes what he is un­der obligation to prove, namely, that Paul "desired to depart from his body and to spiritually enjoy the presence of his Lord" (page 124). Our friend may think that Paul desired to depart from his body and go to the presence of Christ as a spiritual entity, but, as he realizes full well, "the Bible does not say so" (page 122).

Adventists insist that "the Bible does not say so," not out of stubbornness, but for the simple reason that this passage of Scrip­ture says nothing about leaving the body and spiritually enjoying the presence of the Lord. Not only this, but we believe that there are sound contextual reasons for holding the position we do, Mr. Martin's protestations to the contrary notwithstand­ing.

It is a curious fact that while Mr. Mar­tin lays great emphasis on the grammar of Philippians 1:23, which he claims "is gram­matically devastating to the Seventh-day Adventist position," he passes lightly over the context and exegesis of the passage un­der consideration. Now, we do not for a moment admit that the grammar of the phrase "to depart and be with Christ, which is far better" is at all devastating to our position. On the contrary, we believe that it is devastating to Mr. Martin's posi­tion, for the simple reason that the pasage says nothing whatsoever about depart­ing from the body and spiritually enjoying the presence of the Lord, and this is what Mr. Martin is trying to prove.

But more than this, he significantly ig­nores certain portions of the context in which this phrase is found. In the statement that precedes this phrase Paul declares that he is "in a strait betwixt two." The con­text shows plainly that by "two" Paul means "life" and "death." Therefore, the strait Paul was in was choosing between life and death (verses 21, 22). Now ac­cording to Martin the believer "can never experience loss of communion of fellow­ship as a spiritual entity, though his body may 'become' dead" (page 121). Therefore, according to Mr. Martin's theory, whether Paul lived or died "communion of fellow­ship" would continue right on, regardless. Mr. Martin implies that since Paul enjoyed communion with Christ in life, and would continue to enjoy the same fellowship after death, he was in a dilemma. This conclu­sion would be logical were it not for the fact that there is something that Paul de­sires "which is far better" (verse 23). Far better than what? Obviously, far better than life or death. What was it? Paul says that it was "to depart, and be with Christ" (verse 23). Now, since departure to be with Christ is better than either life or death, it is evident that death would not usher Paul into the "presence of his Lord" (page 124), as Mr. Martin says it would.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that Paul is here referring to translation, that is, to being taken bodily to heaven without see­ing death, as was Enoch (Heb. 11:5), Eli­jah (2 Kings 2:11), and as will be the liv­ing saints at the Second Advent (1 Thess. 4:17). This would truly be "far better" than either this present life or death. It would take Paul from this present mortal state to the ultimate state without dying.

The final passage that is cited to estab­lish the conscious existence of the believer after physical death is 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18. Mr. Martin says, "In verse 14, the Holy Spirit tells us that God intends to bring with Him (sun auto), that is, with Jesus at His second advent, believing Chris­tians who have experienced physical death" (page 125). Let us see how else Paul de­scribes these "believing Christians" whom Jesus brings with Him. In verse 14 Paul informs us that they are those which "sleep in Jesus." What does Paul mean by "sleep"? Mr. Martin volunteers an answer. He avers, "In every instance where the word 'sleep' is used to describe death, it always refers to the body and cannot be applied to the soul, especially since 'sleep' is never used with reference to the soul" (pages 125, 126).

This statement makes it crystal clear that our friend believes that in "every" instance where sleep describes death it "always" refers to the "body." Since the Bible plainly teaches that our Lord comes from "heaven" at His second advent (1 Thess. 4:16; Phil. 3:20), Mr. Martin seems to have taken the rather incongruous, not to say absurd, posi­tion of placing the sleeping bodies of be­lieving Christians in heaven, for it is those who "sleep in Jesus" that God will "bring with him," and Mr. Martin insists "categori­cally" that sun must mean "together with." This is an impossible situation for our brother, for he must either admit that sleep describing death does not "always" refer to the body in "every" instance, or that the phrase "bring with Him" does nor perforce mean "bring together with Him" from heaven. Thus we see that rather than re­futing "the SDA teaching on the intermedi­ate state of the dead," our friend has placed himself in a dilemma of his own devising.

One thing is clear: Whichever horn of the dilemma Mr. Martin takes, his conten­tion that the souls of the dead in Christ enjoy conscious fellowship in the inter­mediate state is not sustained.

II. "Saul" and "Spirit"

As Mr. Martin correctly informs us, the original words from which the terms soul and spirit are translated are, respectively: Nephesh and ruach in the Hebrew, and psuche and pneuma in the Greek. These words occur about 1,600 times in the origi­nal text and are used with a wide variety of meanings and nuances. Among the vari­ous meanings are, "principle of life," "breath," and "consciousness."

Since the main issue under discussion is whether man's soul or spirit is eternal, we need only consider these words as they re­late to man. A study of nephesh, ruach, psuche, and pneuma shows that when these words are used in reference to man, not once are they even remotely connected with the idea of endlessness. This is a sig­nificant fact, one which any layman can verify with the aid of an analytical concord­ance. Mr. Martin says that he quite agrees with the Adventist conclusion that "a care­ful study of all the adjectives used in Scrip­ture to qualify the word 'spirit' as ap­plied to man indicates that not one even remotely approaches the idea of immortal­ity" (page 130). "But" he objects that " 'im­mortality' refers only to the resurrection bodv of the saints and to the nature of God
Himself" (ibid.). Be that as it may, we wonder whether our friend agrees that the idea of "endlessness" is never predicated of the words soul or spirit. If he does, and we cannot see how he can help but agree, he has no Biblical basis whatsoever for his claim that the soul or spirit is eternal.

Mr. Martin claims that "such verses as Isaiah 57:6, Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 55:3 and Genesis 35:18, belief the Adventists' cri­terion for determining the spiritual nature of man" (page 127). This is interesting. The only trouble is that it is not true. Sev­enth-day Adventists are fully aware that the Hebrew words translated "soul" and "spirit" frequently refer to man's intellectual and spiritual nature when used in ref­erence to living persons. But this is not the point at issue. The point is: Where is the evidence that the original words refer to man's "cognizant, immaterial nature" after death? In other words, since the Bible says that nephesh can die (Eze. 18:4, etc.), and ruach can refer to the principle of life (Gen. 6:16; 7:22; see marginal reading), it must be established that nephesh and ruach have the meaning of "consciousness" or "cognizance" before Isaiah 57:16, Zech­ariah 12:1, Isaiah 55:3, and Genesis 35: 18 can be used as proof that the soul or spirit has an independent conscious exist­ence after death.

What has been said about the original Hebrew words for "soul" and "spirit" is equally true of psuche and pneuma. The New Testament teaches that psuche can die (Rev. 16:3; Acts 3:23) and pneuma is the principle of life (John 6:63). Therefore, it must first be established that these Greek words mean conscious personality after death, before Matthew 10:28, Luke 8:55, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, and Revelation 16:3 can be used to prove our friend's contention.

Mr. Martin uses Philippians 1:23 as evi­dence that when the soul or spirit, meaning conscious personality, leaves the body at death it goes either to the presence of the Lord or into the place of punishment. In the first place, these passages do not even use the words soul or spirit. In the second place, we have shown that Philippians does not prove that Paul desired to die that he might enjoy the presence of the Lord as a spiritual entity. As for Luke 16, we agree with Mr. Martin that "one does not develop a doctrine from a figure of speech" (page 121), and for this reason we believe that one should not develop a doctrine from a parable, either.

(To be continued)