How can I convince a Seventh Day Adventist of the errors of their doctrines, particularly annihilationism?

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 1991.

It may be a hard thing to say, but I am not altogether surprised that the Seventh Day Adventist you are concerned about has all kinds of counter-arguments. It is a feature of erroneous systems of theology that, when a person is enticed and entrapped in them, the theological system often dominates their thinking and makes them, for a while at least, impervious to any evidence that goes contrary to it. Even the plain statements of holy Scripture are filtered through the theological system that they have espoused, and are thereby not allowed to mean what they plainly say. Only the Holy Spirit can renew such a mind at this point, and we must pray that it shall be so.

The SDA Prophetic Seminars are a case in point. Not one of their arguments in favour of the papal system being the antichrist is a clear-cut, explicit statement of Scripture. They are merely suggested interpretations built upon possible, but highly improbable, comparisons between the statements of Scripture and their particular reading of historical events. Even their main plank of interpretation—namely that, in prophetic matters, one day is to be counted as a year—is completely arbitrary. Scripture nowhere says that a day is equal to a year. If, then, we are at liberty to arbitrarily adopt our own interpretations in this manner without the control of explicit statements of Scripture, we can prove anything; and when we have proved it in this manner, no contrary arguments can have force against our own arbitrary decisions. Arbitrary decisions are arbitrary, and they are impervious to counter-arguments; even if those counter-arguments themselves are in fact explicit statements of Scripture. Arbitrariness knows no other umpire than itself. That, of course, is the original meaning of arbitrarium.

With regards to their doctrine of annihilation, it is disturbing to see how many otherwise orthodox evangelicals are now going over to that ancient heresy. It seems to me significant that their motivation appears not to be clear doctrinal statements of Scripture, but their emotional revulsion at the idea of 'God allowing humans to be tortured for ever and ever'. It surely is right that we listen to our finer human feelings; but, on the other hand, we must remember that our emotions, like our intellects and moral sense, are not perfect. They have all been distorted by our sinfulness. An infinitely better guideline would be to observe the emotions of our Lord. He wept over recalcitrant and disobedient Jerusalem; but it is he, more than any other in the New Testament, who speaks of hell and eternal torment.

Emotion cannot be the final guide. We surely must be ruled in our thinking by the explicit statements of Scripture; and on this matter Scripture is explicit.

However, there is another side to consider. In addition to the active wrath and displeasure of God against impenitent sinners—what I may call 'the penalty of sin'—there is the other question of 'the consequences of sin'. We know from our experience in this limited life that a person who nurtures resentment will injure themselves psychosomatically. All sin is injurious to the human personality, and therefore impenitent sinners will suffer the consequences of their own sinfulness. Imagine the torment of a person consumed with lust that is forever insatiable; with envy that knows no assuaging.

Scripture points out that, when Pharaoh's obstinacy brought down on his head increasingly severe plagues that were designed to bring him, if possible, to repentance, he reached the stage where he realized that his own obstinacy had brought him to the position of a living death, and he pleaded with Moses: 'Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only' (Exodus 10:17). But when God took away that 'living death', Pharaoh showed that he had still not genuinely repented.

Similarly, Revelation 9:20–21 tells us that the rest of mankind who survived the plagues 'repented not of the works of their hands', and again, 'Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts'. What would you have God do with these people? Would you have him act the tyrant and, overriding their free will, annihilate them? The God of the Bible, the God who loves and is loyal to his creatures to the extent of giving his Son to the sufferings of Calvary to save them, will, in his very love, be loyal to the free will that he has given his creatures, and will respect their choice to all eternity. The God of the annihilationists is in fact a tyrant, who stands over men and women and announces, 'You will agree with me, or else I will annihilate you'.

We must consider our Lord\'s solemn statement in Mark 9:49: 'For every one shall be salted with fire'. Salt is a preservative; it stops meat decaying. In the context, our Lord is talking about the fire of hell. His words show that, far from destroying the impenitent, the fires of hell will preserve them in the state that they themselves have chosen.

Have you read Ajith Fernando's book on hell? It is called Crucial Questions About Hell, Kingsway Publications Ltd., ISBN 0-86065-770-1. You may also find books of serious systematic theology helpful on this issue, such as those by A. H. Strong.

Very sincerely yours in Christ,