Elder John R. Daily's First Speech
on the First Proposition

Proposition: The scriptures teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of the dead of the Adamic race, some of them to endless life and some to endless punishment.

Affirmative - John R. Daily
Negative - T. E. Ballard

In September, 1895, some Baptist brethren, of Carroll County, Indiana, were at my Association and told me that the Universalists of their county were challenging the Old Baptists for a discussion, and they said they wanted me to meet them. I refused to do so, assigning as my reason that I did not think a debate with them was at all necessary. The next September, they came to me with the same request, but I again refused. The next year they insisted still stronger, reporting that the Universalists had become so boisterous that nothing would do them but a debate, and they said I was their choice but if I would not defend them they would call on some other one of our preachers to do so. I then told them that if the Universalists would not be satisfied without a debate I would meet them. I requested them to tell the Universalists to select the best man they had and have him write to me, as I would not waste time in corresponding with anyone except my opponent in the proposed discussion. Mr. T. E. Ballard, of Crawfordsville, was chosen by them, and after a brief correspondence we agreed to two propositions to be discussed two days each. At Mr. Ballard's request the debate was postponed until the following June.

When the time came, my son Harvey and I drove in a buggy to the place, a nice grove in Carroll County, where preparations had been made by the Universalists. The debate opened May 31, 1898, and lasted till June 3d. inclusive. The first two days we debated the following proposition: The scriptures teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of the dead of the Adamic race, some of them to endless life and some to endless punishment.

I will give a brief synopsis of this debate as published in Zion's Advocate soon after I became its editor. The first speech is almost as it was delivered, but the others are given only in brief outline.


Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: - In opening the discussion to which I am now committed, I beg leave to offer a few remarks relative to myself, and I trust, in doing so, no one will think that I am departing from the proprieties due this occasion. I have never regarded myself as possessing that peculiar gift or talent necessary to qualify one to engage in public debates. To conduct discussions of this kind successfully requires a mind characterized by the power of ready comparison, quick apprehension, and close discrimination, together with that facility of expression that would enable one to present his thoughts in a free and forcible manner. These qualifications I am sure I do not possess to the extent that a successful debater should, but my weakness in these respects is fully compensated by the strength of my cause, and so I enter this debate fearlessly, without any disposition to shrink from the responsibilities of the position I have assumed. In engaging in discussions of this kind I do so in opposition to the notion of some of my best and most valued friends whose opinions I am bound to respect. They think that such discussions are unprofitable, and I confess that I have had doubts myself in regard to their propriety. I am sure that unless they can be properly conducted they had better not be held at all. My mind is set at ease, however, and my sense of duty enables me to rise superior to the judgment of friends, when I remember that Jesus did not hesitate to dispute with the Scribes and Pharisees, and thus expose their fallacies in the hearing of the people, and that Paul disputed with the Jews and Greeks.

There are some considerations that render this occasion one of pleasure to me. It is a pleasure to me to believe that I appear before an audience of candid persons who have come here to learn what is the truth relative to the questions in dispute. It is also a source of pleasure to me that we have been able to secure the services of the gentlemen who are to act as our moderators. I have the utmost confidence in their intelligence and believe that the whole business of this debate, so far as they are responsible for its conduct, will be carried on to the satisfaction of all parties. It is also a source of great pleasure to meet as an opponent, Mr. T. E. Ballard of Crawfordsville, the acknowledged champion of Universalism of this county. His ability is admitted by all to be of a superior order, and if his cause is not sustained in this debate it will not be because of the weakness of the man chosen to sustain it.

I shall now proceed to define the terms of my proposition. By the term Scripture I mean the revealed word of God, including the Old and New Testaments; the sacred canon containing the books found in the translation of King James. This is to be my only source of direct proof. While I may draw argument from other sources, and occasionally refer to the opinions of men for the sake of argument, yet for proof of my positions I propose to rely solely upon the sacred word of God. By the term "general resurrection" I mean the bringing to life that which had died; the raising up from a state of death the very thing that had gone down in death. By the term "bodies of all the dead" I mean the material bodies; that which God had created of the dust, into which he breathed the breath of life; and all these visible, tangible bodies that shall have died will be raised according to the preceding definition. By the term "Adamic Race" I mean the progeny of Adam in contradistinction of the brute creation. By the expression "Some to endless life" I mean that in a future state they shall be made spiritual like Christ the second Adam, and that they will then possess a holy and spiritual life in a glorified state that shall never end. By the term "endless punishment" I mean punishment that will never cease. As to the nature of the life or punishment I shall have nothing to say as that is no part of the issue. The issue is whether or not they will be raised to endless punishment, and that they will is what I am to affirm and what he is to deny. This punishment is expressed in the Scriptures by various terms, such as torment, damnation, shame, and everlasting contempt, punishment and death. The term death, when thus employed, I understand to signify separation from God and from holiness, and not destitution of vitality. I shall argue that this state will be one of wretchedness and misery that will never end. In thus plainly and boldly defining the terms of my proposition, I throw myself frankly and fearlessly upon its merits to sustain me. If the Bible does not teach what is stated by the terms of this proposition, I wish to know it. If it is true we all ought to believe it; if false, none ought to believe it.

As an introduction to my regular line of argument, I propose to show that man proper, the man of the Bible, is the natural, earthly man that God created in His own image and in His own likeness; that even those recognized as God's children were thus created of the dust of the ground; that the only people that inhabit this earth are Adam and his progeny, the beings thus formed who are called earthly; that man thus formed received the law and transgressed it; that it is this earthly man who has thus become a sinner, that dies, having involved his entire posterity in sin and death; that in order to have a resurrection there must first be a death; and that such resurrection means raising up from the dead the very man that had died.

1--Man proper, the man spoken of and addressed in the Bible, is the natural, earthly man. In proof of this read the passages: Gen. 2:7; I Cor. 15:45-47; Gen. 3:19; Gen. 5:1-2; and Gen. 1:26-28. These passages show that the first man was natural, of the earth, earthly, and was made of the dust.

2--Even those recognized in the Scriptures as the children of God were thus created of the dust of the ground. In proof of this I ask your attention to Isa. 64:8-9; Job. 33:4-6; and Job 10:8-9.

3--The only people that inhabit this earth are Adam and his progeny, the beings thus formed who are called earthly. Acts 17:24-26.

4--It is this earthly man that has received the law and transgressed it, and dies as a result of his transgression. Ps. 103: 4-16; Job 21:32,33; Job 14:10; and Eccl. 1:3-4.

5--The earthly Adam involved his own posterity in sin and death by his transgression, as a result of which they all die. Rom. 6:23; I Cor. 15:21; and Rom. 5:12.

6--Resurrection to life signifies a pre-existing state of death, and that the very thing raised had been in a state of death. The death of the body is a separation of the spirit from the body. Eccl. 12:6-

7--In this separation the Spirit does not die but the body does. James 2:26. As it is the body that dies it follows that it is the body that is resurrected if there be any resurrection. In explaining the nature of the resurrection Paul says in I Cor. 15:36: "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."

It is here clearly taught that death is absolutely necessary to a resurrection and that no creature or being can be resurrected except it first die, and that the thing that is thus quickened is the very thing that had died.

I now present the foregoing arguments and proofs in a syllogistic form, and wish my opponent to notice it:

1--In the resurrection the thing that had died is quickened or made alive.

2--In the separation of the spirit from the body at death, it is the body, and not the spirit, that dies.

3--Therefore the body is quickened or raised to life in the resurrection.

To meet this argument and overthrow the conclusion my opponent will be required to prove one or both of the premises false.

If he admits any resurrection at all I confess I do not see how he can meet this argument.

To present this in a form that will approach more nearly the language of the first part of my proposition, I submit another syllogism:

1--Resurrection is the revival or raising up into life of the dead of the Adamic race.

2--The bodies only of the Adamic race lie in a state of death after the separation of the spirit from the body.

3--Therefore resurrection is the revival or raising up into life of the bodies of the dead of the Adamic race.

It follows from these arguments that if I succeed in proving a general resurrection, I shall succeed in proving that the bodies of the dead will be raised.

ARGUMENT I. My first argument in proof of the general resurrection is that the inspired writers directly and positively assert that doctrine in the Old Testament. Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:1-2; Hosea 13:14; Ps. 17:15; Job 19:23-27. The last passage proves that, after the body is destroyed by worms, we shall see God in our flesh. This establishes the resurrection of the body beyond successful disputation.

ARGUMENT II. My second argument in support of this part of my proposition is that the Jews generally believed in the resurrection which further confirms my first argument that the doctrine is taught in the Old Testament. Matt. 14:1-2; John 11:23-24. The fact that Martha believed in a resurrection of the body at the last day, is good evidence that she was taught it by the Old Testament. If she had been in error concerning it Jesus would have corrected her. But so far from doing so he sanctioned it in his conversation with her, and demonstrated it by raising Lazarus from the dead.

ARGUMENT III. Jesus gave assent to this doctrine and plainly taught it in the following passages: Luke 20:21-38; Luke 14:13-14; John 5:28-29; John 6:54; John 6:44.

In Luke 20:35-36 the resurrection of the righteous only are referred to, for it is said, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world." This shows that some will not be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and those who shall be accounted worthy are under consideration here. As these were all dead corporally, and as they had already been resurrected in spirit, and as the resurrection spoken of here was future, it follows that the resurrection of the body was referred to. This proof is most positive and cannot be set aside.

ARGUMENT IV. The doctrine of the resurrection is affirmed by the Apostles in most unmistakable terms. Acts 24:13-16; Rom. 8:10-11; II Cor. 1:8-9; Phil. 3:20-21.

ARGUMENT V. I base my fifth argument on the connection of two passages, viz: Hosea 13:14, and I Cor. 15:54-56. Paul, in quoting the prophecy of Hosea, shows it was not fulfilled when he wrote to the Corinthians. As it was subsequent to that time, I argue it has not since been fulfilled, and that it will not be until the dead are ransomed from the power of the grave.

ARGUMENT VI. Paul, in speaking of the resurrection of all those who are Christ's at his coming in the 15th chapter of I Cor., teaches that the body will be raised. I Cor. 15:42-44. This states that the very body that is sown in corruption, in dishonor, in weakness, and a natural body, is raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and a Spiritual body, since the pronoun it, every time it occurs in this passage, has the same thing for its antecedent. This argument is unanswerable. The proof formed in this plain passage cannot be set aside or overthrown. Take the sentence, "It is sown a natural body." The antecedent of it is natural body, since the verb is sown is copulative in its use and it is merely introductory. The plain meaning is, "A natural body is sown." Now the same natural body that is sown, is raised a spiritual body. The language will admit of no other exegesis.

I now pass to the second part of my proposition, which is that some of these bodies will be raised to endless life and some to endless punishment. I admit that the word "endless" is found but twice in our common version, in neither of which places is it applied to the punishment of the wicked. For this reason Universalists insist upon having this word in propositions for discussions which relate to future punishment, thinking thereby to have the decided advantage of their opponents in the wording of such propositions. They are in the habit of treating the words eternal, everlasting and forever and ever as mere temporaries, as applying to time only, while they insist that the word "endless" is necessarily of infinite duration. I propose to show that this is incorrect. If I succeed in proving that eternal, everlasting and forever are used in the scriptures to denote the duration of the joys of the righteous, and, also, the punishment of the wicked, I shall succeed in proving my proposition. That these terms are sometimes used ina figurative, appropriated, or accommodated sense, I frankly concede, but this does not argue that they have no specific meaning, and that they do not express endless duration in their primary sense.

In my arguments and proofs of the second part of my proposition I shall refer to a number of passages that contain these words. I anticipate some dispute regarding their scriptural signification, so I propose to show that the primary, grammatical signification of the Greek works from which these words are translated is duration without end.

Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.

This page maintained by: Robert Webb - (bwebb9@juno.com)