DEBATE ON CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 4170, 5 November 1883, Page 4

DEBATE ON CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY.

The debate between Mr G. A. Brown and tho Rev. T. W. Dunn on the question, " Does the Bible Teach Conditional Immortality ?" was continued in the Theatre Royal on Thursday night, Mr Laishley again presiding, and the audience being numerically as large as that of the preceding night. Mr Dunn set out with the contention that man was almost invariably identified with his spirit by the sacred writers, and he affirmed that the doctrine of man's immortality was supported by Paul's faith, the belief of the early Church, and of Christ's own teaching, as set forth in Luke xxiv., 36-38. —Mr Brown taxed his opponent with an unfair application of texts, and then went on to show by quotations that Paul's teaching was uniformly in tho direction of conditional immortality ; that Christ's positive teaching was to the same effect; and that the early Church held the same belief in Conditional Immortality until an infusion of the heathen philosophy took place, when the present doctrine of inherent immortality was elaborated. During tho next lialf-an-hour the disputants closely questioned each other upon such points as the meaning of "soul," "spirit," "immortality," "life," "sheol," "nados," "man," "neshamah," "runch," the transfiguration, the belief of tho Pborisees, &c. Mr Dunn, in his closing address, proceeded to disprove tho ■ repeated assertion that the orthodox belief in immortality was derived from Plato, or any of tho Grecian, Egyptian, and Buddhistic philosophers; and then ho passed on to show that the doctrine of man's annihilation at death was taught by Aristotle, Epictetus, and Lucretius, and that its watchword was Seneca's, famous dilemma, " Ant beatus aut nullum " ("Either happiness or nothing.") Mr Brown replied that his contention was that the idea of inherent immortality was derived from Plato and modified ; whereas, if any of the old philosophers had taught Conditional Immortality, he had simply to say that their teaching squared with tho Bible, which was the only authority. He then proceeded to prove that this was the Bible teaching, and in doing so he asserted that while the words, " soul " and " spirit" were used over 1,600 times in tho Scriptures, God had never seen fit to call either " immortal." The takings amounted to £7 Us Gd, the use of season tickets accounting for the apparent decrease.

Tho debate on "Conditional Immortality" was resumed in the Theatre Royal on Friday night, the audience being almost as numerous as on the two previous evenings. The chair was occupied by Mr G. W. Griffin, American Consul, but the gentleman scarcely appeared to be in his element. He failed to get the audience under control, and the consequence was that several times during the evening disorder and confusion were rampant, threatening to bring the meeting to an untimely end. The discussion was opened by Mr Brown, who replied to various arguments adduced by Mr Dunn on the previous evening. He then proceeded to further discuss the terms "immortality," " soul," and "spirit." With regard to the latter words and the authorised translation, he said the translators had been guilty of some awful tinkering with God's Word, and he wished to God the people knew it. Mr Dunn followed, recapitulating somo of the arguments he had previously brought forward. He referred to a dispute on the previous night as to the words "phantasma" and "gehenna," in order to show that he was right in his contention on that occasion. In tho course of his remarks he alluded to Mr Brown's reference to the Rev. A. Reid's discourse of last Sunday night, and said : — " Mr Reid is as far above Mr Brown as a scholar, a gentleman, and a Christian—' Hero there was a burst of mingled hisses, stamping, groans, and applause, which the Chairman was unable to quell. It was renewed again and again, but at length subsided, and Mr Dunn continued his speech. Several interruptionssubseqnently occurred, and during one of them tho Chairman threatened to vacate his position. Mr Dunn was then questioned by Mr Brown on the use of the presenttensein the Bibleandonthe terms "death," "spiritual death," "spiritual life," "judgment/'"resurrection,"&p., and Mr Brown was questioned by Mr Dunn as to the "new birth," the words "spirit," "beth," "manna," &c. Mr Brown then entered into a further criticism of Mr Dunn's arguments, and Mr Dunn devoted his closing speech to proofs that there was much confusion among the various writers on Conditional Immortality, as to the resurrection, tho judgment, and the future fate of the wicked. At the olose of his speech another unseemly disturbance occurred, several of the audience apparently deeming it their duty to take Mr Dunn in hand themselves. Mr Brown asked permission to say a few words, and then expressed his regret that there should havo been such interruptions during tho ovening. He hoped that no further disturbances would occur in the course of the debate. Tho passing of a vote of thanks to the Chairman brought tho meeting to a close. The course of events last night showed conclusively that party feeling ran high between the Orthodox and the Conditionalists, and the rancour and illfeeling called forth by the discussion suggest the idea that such debates servo rather to excite bigotry than to advance truth. The discussion will be resumed next Tuesday evening, when it will be for Mr Dunn to take up the positive argument that the Bible does not teach Conditional Immortality, and for Mr Brown to disprove