Denials and Their
Answers
In the preceding chapter we have noted several positions which stand in opposition to the doctrine of eternal punishment. Basically they can be summed up under two headings: universalism and annihilation. At this point we shall consider each of these positions and point out the fallacies in the arguments used to support them.
Universalism
A simple statement of this doctrine is that those who hold it believe that sooner or later all will be saved. They believe in an opportunity for salvation beyond this life which will eventually be completely successful. It must be acknowledged that there are also those who believe that many or all men will have a chance to be saved in the life to come, but that not all will be saved.
There are several arguments used by the universalists:
a. Scripture proof. They hold that certain passages teach universalism. For example, they refer to Acts 3:21, "Whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began"; John 12:32, "And I, if I
Page 113
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me"; and Romans 11:32, "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." But Mackintosh,1 who obviously desires to avoid the doctrine of eternal punishment if possible, says, "In the logical discussion just noted — Fairbairn is an exception — the question is generally argued as one of NT interpretation. The present writer does not think that hopeful. He sees no ground for challenging the old doctrine on exegetical lines. Words often applied to the universalist hope — apokatastasis, 'restitution of all things,' Acts 3:21 (cf. Matt. 17:11, Acts 1:6) — do not really bear the supposed meaning. One passage teaches probation after death (1 Peter 3:19), but it hardly falls within the limits of this article. Eternal punishment had come to be the doctrine of the synagogue, and it passed into the NT with perhaps even sharper definition, as a witness to the unspeakable evil of sin. True, the doctrine was not rigorously formulated, and it is a question among interpreters whether St. Paul's teaching is eternal punishment or rather a certain type of conditional immortality doctrine. But generally the NT is clear, even the language used by Christ; although we note that what is freshest and most personal is our Lord's words (Luke 12:47,48) goes to modify the dreadful wholesale dogma, and foreshadows, at however remote a time, the ultimate challenging of the letter of this article of the theological creed. Again, as a matter of exegesis, we cannot claim either the Johannine teaching of our Lord (John 12:32), or the culminating point in St. Paul's argument (Romans 11:32) as asserting universal salvation."
A telling argument against the use of Acts 3:21 to support the universalists' argument is that just two verses later we read, "And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from the among the people." With regard to John 12:32, as Orr points out, it is not stated what Christ will do with men
Page 114
when he draws them to himself: he may condemn them!
Other passages which are quoted to support universalism are: Ephesians 1:10, "Unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth, in him, I say," and Colossians 1:20, "And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens." Hodge answers this: "The question is, who or what are the all, who are to be reconciled unto God? The answer to this question depends upon the nature of the thing spoken of, and to the analogy of Scripture. 'All' cannot mean absolutely 'all things,' the whole universe, including sun, moon, and stars, for how can such inanimate objects be reconciled to God. For the same reason it cannot mean all sensitive creatures, including irrational animals. Nor can it mean all rational creatures, including the holy angels; for they do not need reconciliation. Nor can it mean all fallen rational creatures, for it is specifically taught in Hebrews 2:16 that Christ did not come to redeem fallen angels. Nor can it mean all men, for the Bible teaches in other passages that all men are not reconciled to God; and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture; for that would be for God to contradict Himself. The 'all' intended is the 'all' spoken of in the context; the whole body of the people of God; all the objects of redemption."
The passages which are argued in favor of universalism can all be explained fairly in other ways. It is obvious in many passages of Scripture that the word "all" is used in a relative sense; for example, when the wise men came, we read of Herod, "He was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Certainly there must have been some people who were indifferent to the situation. The word "all" is surely not used here in the absolute sense. Or again, concerning John the Baptist we read, "Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and
Page 115
all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan." Surely we are not to believe that every single individual in this whole territory visited John at the Jordan.
Furthermore, the fact that God will reign over all doesn't necessarily mean that all will be saved. God will have sovereign control over all in hell, both evil spirits and lost men. All active opposition to him will be ended. Furthermore, while there are a few passages which might possibly be interpreted in favor of universalism, there are a great many clear passages which teach eternal damnation.2
Lastly, the universalists have no right to lay strong weight upon proof texts because, almost to a man, they do not believe in the infallibility of Scripture. If they are honest they will admit that their position is based on human reasoning, not on divine revelation. As Shedd says, "Universalism has a slender exegetical basis. The Biblical data are found to be unmanageable, and resort is had to human sentiment and self interest. Its advocates quote sparingly from Scripture. In particular, the words of Christ relating to eschatology are left with little citation or interpretation." "The chief objections to the doctrine of Endless Punishment are not Biblical, but speculative. The great majority of students and exegetes find the tenet in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Davidson,3 the most learned of English rationalistic critics, explicitly acknowledges that 'if a specific sense be attached to words, never-ending misery is enunciated in the Bible. On the presumption that one doctrine is taught, it is the eternity of hell torments. Bad exegesis may attempt to banish it from the New Testament Scriptures, but it is still there, and expositors who wish to get rid of it, as Canon Farrar does, injure the cause they have in view by misrepresentation. It must be allowed that the New Testament record not only makes Christ assert everlasting punishment, but
Page 116
Paul and John. But the question should be looked at from a larger platform than single texts; in the light of God's attributes, and the nature of the soul. The destination of man, and the Creator's infinite goodness, conflicting as they do with everlasting punishment, remove it from the sphere of rational belief. If provision be not made in revelation for a change of moral character after death, it is made in reason. Philosophical considerations must not be set aside even by Scripture' (Last Things, 133, 136, 151)."4 Here we have the clearest admission that the basis of the doctrine is not Scriptural.
b. A Just God Would Not Give Infinite Punishment for Finite Sin. This is a very popular argument of the universalist. To this it may be replied: Sin against God is a very serious matter. As Shedd so well explains: "Those who deny the position that sin is an infinite evil forget that the principle, upon which it rests is one of the commonplaces of jurisprudence: the principle, namely, that crime depends upon the object against whom it is committed as well as upon the subject who commits it. The merely subjective reference of an act is not sufficient to determine whether it is a crime. The act may have been the voluntary act of a person, but unless it is also an offence against another person, it is no crime. To strike is a voluntary act; but to strike a post or a stone is not a culpable act. Furthermore, not only crime, but degrees of crime depend upon the objective reference of a personal act. Estimated only by the subjective reference, there can be not only no culpability, but no difference in culpability. Killing a dog is no worse than killing a man, if merely the subject who kills, and not the object killed, is considered. Both alike are voluntary acts, and of one and the same person. If therefore the gravity of the act is to be measured solely by the nature of the person committing it, and not by that of the thing against whom it is committed, killing a dog is as heinous as killing a man.
Page 117
"Now this principle of jurisprudence is carried into theology by the theologian. The violation of the moral law is sin and guilt, only when viewed objectively in reference to God primarily, and to man secondarily."5 In other words, sin is committed against an infinite God, and therefore it is not unreasonable or unjust that its punishment should be infinite. Shedd also says, "The objection that an offense committed in a finite time cannot be an infinite evil, and deserve an infinite suffering implies that crime must be measured by the time that was consumed in its perpetration. But even in human punishment, no reference is had to the length of time occupied in the commission of the offence. Murder is committed in an instant, and theft sometimes requires hours. But the former is the greater crime, and receives the greater punishment."6
The fact is that sin can and does have lasting effects. It may permanently harm others, it may permanently affect one's own character, and it may be the seed of further sin which in turn produces still more sin ad infinitum. Individual acts of sin produce habits, habits produce character, and character tends to permanence. As W.E. Orchard points out, "Modern psychology doesn't encourage the optimism of universalist theology. It shows a tendency toward fixity of character. It also reveals the irrepressibility of conscience, and the infallibility of memory thus showing what hell may really be."7 As William James says in his famous chapter on Habit, "The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioning our characters in the wrong way. Could the young but realize how soon they will become mere walking bundles of habits, they would give more heed to their conduct while in the plastic state. We are spinning our own fates, for good or
Page 118
evil, and never to be undone. Every smallest stroke of virtue or of vice leaves its never so little scar. The drunken Rip Van Winkle, in Jefferson's play, excuses himself for every fresh dereliction by saying, 'I won't count this time.' Well, he may not count it, and a kind Heaven may not count it; but it is being counted none the less. Down among his nerve-cells and fibers the molecules are counting it, registering and storing it up to be used against him when the next temptation comes. Nothing we ever do is, in strict literalness, wiped out. Of course, this has its good side as well as its bad one. As we become permanent drunkards by so many separate drinks, so we become saints in the moral, and authorities and experts in the practical and scientific spheres, by so many separate acts and hours of work."8 Viewed from the psychological viewpoint, endlessness of punishment is consistent with what has been discovered about the human mind.
This fact is further confirmed by Dr. Heman Lincoln who speaks of two great laws of nature which confirm the doctrine of eternal punishment. He says: "The tendency of habit is toward a permanent state. The occasional drinker becomes a confirmed drunkard. One who indulges in oaths passes into a reckless blasphemer. The gambler who has wasted a fortune, and ruined his family, is a slave to the card-table. The Scripture doctrine of retribution is only an extension of this well-known law to the future life."
The second law he mentions, is "Organism and environment must be in harmony. Through the vast domain of nature, every plant and tree and reptile and bird and mammal has organs and functions fitted to the climate and atmosphere of its habitat. If a sudden change occurs in climate, from torrid to temperate, or from temperate to arctic; if the atmosphere changes from dry to humid, or from carbonic vapors to pure oxygen, sudden death is certain to
Page 119
overtake the entire fauna and flora of the region affected, unless plastic nature changes the organism to conform to the new environment. The interpreters of the Bible find the same law ordained for the world to come. Surroundings must correspond to character. A soul in love with sin can find no place in a holy heaven. If the environment be holy, the character of the beings assigned to it must be holy also. Nature and Revelation are in perfect accord."9
Universalism must also face the problem of free will at this point. This is a very difficult problem in many respects. But even the strongest Calvinist does not believe that God forces men to be saved. There is an area in which man is free to choose, and if a man persists in his rejection of the gospel in spite of many opportunities, what assurance do we have that he would accept it if he had further opportunity in the world to come? Even such men as Plumptre, as advocate as we have seen of the larger hope, recognize this. He says, "The hindrances to the reception of the theory as true are, to say the least, very serious. It dwells with a passionate eagerness exclusively on the loving purpose of God, and turns its eyes from the terrible, inalienable prerogative of man's freedom, by which that purpose may be, and daily is, frustrated."10
There are those who will argue that there will be punishment in the life to come, but that this punishment will in turn lead men to repentance. But what certainty is there that punishment will have such an effect, especially that it will have such an effect on every single individual? As Plumptre further admits, "All experience shows that if punishment, accepted as the chastisement of a righteous Father, may lead men to repentance, it may also harden them into the sullen resistance of the rebellious slave."11 Thus it is in
Page 120
this life; what assurance is there that it will be any different in the life to come?
Hodge presents a striking argument against the objection that hell is contrary to justice when he says, "If it be inconsistent with the justice of God that men should perish for their sins, then redemption is not a matter of grace, or undeserved mercy. Deliverance from an unjust penalty, is a matter of justice. Nothing, however, is plainer from the teaching of Scripture and nothing is more universally and joyfully acknowledged by all Christians than that the whole plan of redemption, the mission, the incarnation, and the sufferings and death of the Son of God for the salvation of sinners is a wonderful exhibition of the love of God which passes knowledge. But if justice demands that all men should be saved, then salvation is a matter of justice, and then all the songs of gratitude and praise from the redeemed, whether in heaven or on earth, must at once cease."12
c. A Good God Wouldn't Send Men to Hell. We must confess that this argument is touching. It is usually stated in terms such as this: "A good man surely wouldn't punish anyone forever, how can a good God do such a thing?" It was James Stuart Mill who especially popularized this line of reasoning.
To this argument it must be replied: But God is not a man! His task is to judge the whole earth. He has the right and the duty to inflict punishments which the individual has no right to inflict, even as all will admit that the state has a right and a duty to punish in ways which the individual has no right to punish. If that is true of the state administered by frail human beings, how much more true it is of God. A human judge who fails to punish the wrong-doer is not a good judge. Furthermore, the argument proves too much. If God's goodness demands that no one suffer for eternity, then that same goodness demands that he do something
Page 121
to prevent all suffering here and now. He obviously permits great suffering in this life; in a way beyond our understanding, this is consistent with his goodness. Future suffering then also can be consistent with his goodness.
One of the most serious arguments against universalism is that it is morally dangerous. As Macintosh points out: "Measured and limited ill-consequence is in no sort of proportion to the infinite evil of wilful wickedness; and the rhetoric of universalism in the minds of those who 'eddy round and round' is the lazy and lying assurance, 'It will come to the same thing in the end.' God cannot brook this. He must needs threaten sin with its wages; and we have no right to affirm that the most awful of all threats is but an empty or ideal possibility."13
John Baillie does not accept the position of eternal punishment, yet he says, "But if we decide for universalism, it must be for a form of it which does nothing to decrease the urgency of immediate repentance and which makes no promises to the procrastinating sinner. It is doubtful whether such a form of the doctrine has yet been found."14
Shedd says, "The French people, at the close of the last century, were a very demoralized and vicious generation, and there was a very general disbelief and denial of the doctrines of the Divine existence, the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and future retribution. And upon a smaller scale, the same fact is continually repeating itself. Any little circle of business men who are known to deny future rewards and punishments are shunned by those who desire safe investments. The recent uncommon energy of opposition to endless punishment, which started about ten years ago in this country, synchronized with great defalcations and breaches of trust, uncommon corruption in mercantile
Page 122
and political life, and great distrust between man and man. Luxury deadens the moral sense, and luxurious populations do not have the fear of God before their eyes. Hence luxurious ages, and luxurious men, racalcitrate at hell, and 'kick against the goads.' No theological tenet is more important than eternal retribution to those modern nations which, like England, Germany, and the United States, are growing rapidly in riches, luxury, and earthly power. Without it they will infallibly go down in that vortex of sensuality and wickedness that swallowed up Babylon and Rome. The bestial and shameless vice of the dissolute rich, that has recently been uncovered in the commercial metropolis of the world, is a powerful argument for the necessity and reality of 'the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.' "15 As Emory Storr once said, "When hell drops out of religion, justice drops out of politics."16 In our own generation even in our own nation we have witnessed moral corruption and the denial of eternal punishment go hand in hand. We have had another example in the awful atrocities committed by the Communists in other lands which have followed from their denial of the existence of God and of the punishment of the sinner.
Another strong argument against universalism is that its denial of eternal punishment is inevitably connected with the denial of other important Christian doctrines. As Shedd says, "None of the evangelical churches have introduced the doctrine of Universalism, in any form of it, into their symbolical books. The denial of endless punishment is usually associated with the denial of those tenets which are logically and closely connected with it: such as original sin, vicarious atonement, and regeneration. Of these, vicarious atonement is the most incompatible of any with universal salvation; because the latter doctrine, as has been observed, implies
Page 123
that suffering for sin is remedial only, while the former implies that it is retributive."17
The way in which one doctrine is inevitably dependent on another, and how the denial of one easily leads to the denial of another is pointed out by Strong. "But, if there be no eternal punishment, then man's danger was not great enough to require an infinite sacrifice; and we are compelled to give up the doctrine of atonement. If there were no atonement, there was no need that man's Saviour should himself be more than man; and we are compelled to give up the doctrine of the deity of Christ, and with this that of the Trinity. If punishment be not eternal, then God's holiness is but another name for benevolence; all proper foundation for morality is gone, and God's law ceases to inspire reverence and awe. If punishment be not eternal, then the Scripture writers who believed and taught this were fallible men who were not above the prejudices and errors of their times; and we lose all evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. With this goes the doctrine of miracles; God is identified with nature, and becomes the impersonal God of pantheism."18
Annihilation (Conditional Immortality)
This idea takes various forms, but in general it claims that after a period of punishment those who remain in rebellion cease to exist. The proponents of this theory quote various passages of Scripture which speak of the destruction of the wicked, and the fact that they perish. Among others, this is the official position of the Seventh Day Adventists. As Spicer, one of their writers, says: "The positive teaching of Holy Scripture is that sin and sinners will be blotted out of existence. There will be a clean universe again when the great controversy between Christ and Satan is ended."
Page 124
This is also the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their denial of hell is obviously a strong point in winning converts since many people are happy to find an explanation by which they can avoid the doctrine of eternal punishment.19 As Dr. J.M. Gray says, "its theory of the future life" is "that which chiefly gives 'Millenial Dawnism' its popularity with the natural heart, and constitutes its greatest harm." The Jehovah's Witnesses' position is based on the belief that man is so constituted that he would be unable to suffer eternal punishment, and that Scripture does not teach the existence of such a place of torment. They teach that death means total destruction, that Sheol or Hades should in every instance be translated the grave, and that the fire of Gehenna is an emblem of annihilation. All of their arguments are supposedly based on passages of Scripture, but in reality they are based on their own arbitrary interpretation of these passages, and the exclusion of other passages.
There are several strong arguments against the claim that Bible passages which speak of destruction mean total annihilation.
a. The very same words which the annihilationists claim can only mean complete cessation of existence are in fact used in the Scriptures themselves to mean something very different than annihilation. For example, the Hebrew word for perish is "abadh." This is the word which is used in many passages to speak of the fact that the wicked perish, but it is also used in Isaiah 57:1 which states, "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." The same word in other instances obviously means lost, and is so translated. For example, "And the asses of Kish, Saul's father, were lost. . . . And as for thine asses that were lost three days ago, set not thy mind on them: for they are found" (1 Samuel 9:3, 20). It is obvious that Kish's donkeys were not annihilated.
Another phrase supposedly teaching annihilation is the phrase "cut off." It is a translation of the Hebrew "karath."
Page 125
We read "For evil doers shall be cut off" (Psalm 37:9). And we also read, "And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, and will have no one" (Daniel 9:26). Surely the Messiah was not annihilated.
Another example is the word translated "destroy." We read, "All the wicked will he destroy" (Psalm 145:20). But we also read that Job said, "He hath destroyed me on every side" (Job 19:10), and that God said through the prophet Hosea, "O Israel thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help" (Hosea 13:9). Another example of the fact that the word "destroy" doesn't necessarily mean annihilate is this: "And Pharoah's servants said unto him . . . Knoweth thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed" (Exodus 10:7)?
The proponents of annihilationism also point to the use of the word "consume." "Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth" (Psalm 104:35), but the same word is used in Ezekiel 13 to tell of a wall being consumed by hailstones, and in Ezekiel 35:12 to tell of mountains being consumed by the enemies of Israel. Certainly the material of which this wall and these mountains consisted did not cease to exist. There is also the phrase "was not." Of the wicked, the Psalmist says, "Yet he passed away, and lo, he was not; yea I sought him, but he could not be found" (Psalm 37:36). But the same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 5:24, "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."
These examples clearly show that the primary argument of the annihilationists, that the Biblical words used must mean annihilation, is completely undermined by the usage of these very words in the Bible itself. Many more instances can be found in J.W. Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.
b. The annihilationist places a great emphasis on the fact that the figure of "fire" is used in the Bible to describe future punishment; and fire, they point out, always destroys. In fact, dramatic preachers of this doctrine have sometimes burned pieces of paper in their pulpits to prove that fire
Page 126
causes that which it attacks to vanish to nothingness. But the fact is that when you burn something it is not annihilated, it simply changes form. It becomes ashes and gaseous matter, but it certainly does not cease to exist.
c. The passages cited from the Bible teach that destruction is a serious punishment. But if annihilation follows a period of torment, then that annihilation is not punishment, but a happy relief from punishment.
d. With regard to the use of the word "death," a careful study of the Bible clearly shows that "life" as it is often used in the Scriptures means something more than mere existence, and conversely that death means an existence without the possession of this "life." "Life" is existence in a right relationship with God, and death is existence out of that right relationship with God.
e. Annihilationism undermines morality just as universalism does. Hastings, himself an annihilationist, protests the doctrine that there will be no resurrection with these words, "The results of that opinion (in France) are a matter of history . . . A mother after her youthful daughter had been associating with a preacher who taught this doctrine, told me how they drew inferences of impunity in sin and security in impenitence which they could mention and act upon, though he might not be affected by them." In other words, often the highly ethical scholars who propound such doctrines are not led into immorality by them, but their less moral listeners find it easier to sin because of them.
We conclude this chapter on the theories opposed to the doctrine of eternal punishment and our answers to them with this significant statement by a Roman Catholic theologian, who, pointing to the fact that many of these theories make room for further opportunity for salvation in the life to come, says "Protestants, who began by rejecting Purgatory . . . (are now) . . . giving up their belief in Hell, and taking refuge in some sort of Purgatory."
Chapter 8 || Table of Contents
1. Mackintosh, Op. Cit., p. 785
2. See previous chapter on "The Teachings of the New Testament."
3. He refers to Samuel Davidson.
4. Shedd, Op. Cit., p. 714.
5. Ibid., p. 740
6. Ibid., p. 741.
7. Inge and others, Op. Cit., "Hell: A Theological Exposition."
8. W. James, Principles of Psychology (New York, Henry Hold, 1890).
9. In an article on Future Retribution, Examiner, April 2, 1885.
10. Plumptre, Spirits in Prison.
11. Ibid.
12. Hodge, Op. Cit., p. 878.
13. Mackintosh, Op. Cit., p. 786.
14. John Baillie, And the Life Everlasting (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933, New York), p. 294.
15. Shedd, Op. Cit., p. 745.
16. Shedd, Op. Cit., p. 1055.
17. Shedd, Op. Cit., p. 670.
18. Strong, Op. Cit., p. 1055.
19. See Appendix III.