00B.43 Chapter 36. Is There An Eternal Hell?

XXX VI. Is There an Eternal Hell? AN ANSWER TO THE "LIBERAL" POSITION ON THEQUESTION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT

Some of my friends have requested me to give some attention to a newspaper article on the question of future punishment for the wicked. The author of the article calls himself a "liberal," and he seems to think that his position is new; but those who are at all acquainted with the age- old controversy on this question will know that there is not a new point in the whole article. They will recognize the "stock-in-trade" arguments of universalism. Likewise they will find nothing new in this review of the "liberal" position. But like all other questions that pertain to the eternal destiny of souls, this controversy cannot be abandoned. It is vitally and perpetually important. Also it is always timely. Just at this time there is an especial need for teach­ing on this question, for men are putting "far away the evil day," and the preachers of today, like the prophets of Jeremiah’s day, are saying "unto every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his own heart, ... no evil shall come upon you." (Amos 6:3; Jeremiah 23:17.) For this reason this review, or partial review, of the article in question is here given. Just the points in the article shall be noticed and no long quotations given. The article is well written, and our "liberal" friend at­tempted at times to become real learned and literary. This is all beautiful, and with many people it will be effective; but from the viewpoint of a logical and analytical man, all such embellishments will go for nothing. In fact, cruel logic would classify some of his poetic appeals as petitio principii, or begging the question. In picturing the final salvation of all the human race, the "liberal" quoted the following beautiful and famous lines from Tennyson:

O yet we trust that somehow good Will be the final goal of ill, To pangs of nature, sins of will, Defects of doubt, and taints of blood; That nothing walks with aimless feet; That not one life shall be destroy’d, Or cast as rubbish to the void, When God hath made the pile complete.

These lines have been quoted thousands of times, but those who recite them do not follow the poet on to his conelusion. He said that this was his dream, but he admitted that he "knew not anything." Let us now add the three stanzas that immediately follow the two that the "liberal" quoted. Read them together: That not a worm is cloven in vain; That not a moth with vain desire Is shrivel’d in a fruitless fire, Or but subserves another’s gain.

Behold, we know not anything;

I can but trust that good shall fall At last—far off—at last, to all, And every winter change to spring. So runs my dream; but what am I? An infant crying in the night; An infant crying for the light; And with no language but a cry.

If we are going to quote the language of a poet’s dream to lead dying men to hope for eternal salvation, would it not be better to be at least honest enough with men to tell them that the poet admitted that he had no assurance that his dream would ever come true? Should we not also give men this same poet’s advice when he tells us to hold t o the good and not to follow philosophy too far?

He was even afraid his philosophy might procure some souls for the lords of hell. Read this stanza also:

Hold thou the good; define it well: For fear divine philosophy Should push beyond her mark, and be Procurers to the lords of hell.

(These stanzas are from Tennyson’s "In Memoriam," Sections 52, 53.) This must suffice for an answer to the "liberal’s" excur­sion into literature.

Let us try to find out just what the point at issue is. What doctrine is it that is assailed, and is that doctrine correctly stated? The "liberal" directs all of his arguments against what he calls the "orthodox view." He gives us a clear statement of his own view, which is the common view of universalism, or, as it is now called, "restorationism." But here is the issue. THE ISSUE STATED That all sin will be punished will not be denied. Both the Bible and man’s experience show that sin brings suf­fering. But there is a great diversity of opinion about the nature, severity, and duration of the punishment inflicted ecause of sin. The present controversy seems to be over the duration chiefly. The "liberal view" is that the wicked will suffer for their sins in this life and after death until their sins have been expiated by their suffering—until they have suffered the full measure that their sin deserves; that the suffering is reformatory and corrective and intended to prepare the souls for heaven; and that finally the souls of all mankind will, through this means, be made holy and happy.

Orthodoxy is a variable quantity, and it would be diffi­cult to say what the orthodox view at the present time is. Dr. Adam Clarke, who died nearly one hundred years ago, has been appealed to for an expression of the orthodox belief, and even he was made to endorse a heathen picture of hell. Doctor Clarke was one of the ripest scholars who have written on theological questions, and his commentaries are very widely used today. Truly, Doctor Clarke was a firm believer in eternal punishment for the willfully wicked, but to say that he took literally either the fiery symbols of the Bible or the grotesque description of the Hindoo system is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation. The oppo­nents of the so-called "orthodox view" can best refute it by caricaturing it. They picture the orthodox clergyman as a frenzied fanatic and his god as a monster with a malevolent glare in his eye, watching poor, helpless sinners, ready to pounce upon them and hurl them down into smoke- begrimed, lightning-scathed, and thunder-riven pits of per­dition. They characterize the orthodox doctrine as heathen­ism, barbarous, and blasphemous. But what is the orthodox view? As said above, it would be difficult to say what would be the generally accepted view today, but the doctrine that is here defended and that is by many people held to be a scriptural doctrine is as follows:

All who die in willful disobedience to God will suffer eternal punishment—will be eternally banished from the presence of God; have forfeited eternal life and lost the privilege of the "beatific vision." What that means, no man can imagine, because the heart of man has not con­ceived of the blessed state of the righteous, which is then impossible to the condemned. Neither the nature nor in­tensity of the punishment is known and certainly cannot be described; but it is not so much what is endured as what is forfeited that we emphasize. The severest punishment that men can inflict is of the same nature. When a man is put to death in the electric chair, his actual physical suf­fering is of very short duration and is possibly less painful than the whippings which some convicts receive at the hands of prison wardens. But the punishment consists in the loss of life. The orthodox hell is more of a state than a place and consists more in the happiness that is lost than in the "torture" that is gained. Cannon Farrar said that heaven, in so far as it is a place at all, is a place where sin is not. So hell, in so far as it is a place, is a place where God is not and where all sin is and all incorrigible sin­ners are.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED In the newspaper article under review there were ob­jections urged against the doctrine of future punishment from the theological, the philosophical, and the humani­tarian viewpoints. These are high-sounding and learned words, but let us try to follow the author and consider the objections in the order given.

Theological. It could serve no purpose except ven­geance, and that would be a denial of the perfect goodness of God. A finite being cannot commit an infinite sin, and infinite punishment would, therefore, be wholly unjust. Answer: The purpose of the punishment will be taken up later. That sins by finite man cannot be followed by infinite consequences is purely an assumption that has nothing for a basis. The experience and observation of man are against the assumption, and the Bible unequivocally contradicts it. No man can trace one sin to a conclusion and reckon the ruin it has wrought. Why, then, should he arrogate to him­self the power to measure the consequence of a life of sin? If the Kaiser was responsible for the awful World War, let some man try to follow the consequences of his sin down through the ages and note the effect upon the yet unborn generations and tell us where it will end. The results of sin not infinite? Let us put it on the "liberal" theory and see. A pure, innocent Christian girl is assaulted, maltreated, and murdered by a depraved, beastly negro, and in less than twenty-four hours the negro is ap­prehended and lynched. The souls of the two—the negro and the innocent victim—enter eternity at nearly the same time. They will both be saved finally, according to the theory. But at death there was a hundred degrees of dif­ference in moral worth between them; and as the theory argues endless progression, we may logically assume that the girl would progress at least as rapidly as the negro, and there will, therefore, be a hundred degrees between them through all eternity. The infinite consequence of the negro’s sins. But the word of Christ will settle it with all who will recognize his authority. He says: "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never for­giveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29.) To be guilty of an eternal sin is to be an eternal sinner— to be eternally guilty of sin; and since no sin can enter heaven, a man who is guilty of this sin must necessarily spend eternity somewhere else. Where will it be?

Philosophical. It is said that the doctrine that willful sinners—unsubdued rebels—will be eternally banished from the presence of God and from the home of the righteous is unphilosophical. But, in reply, the good of earthly govern­ments frequently demands the deportation of radicals. The welfare of society compels us to incarcerate criminals, de­prive them of their liberty, for the length of their lives; and if death be the end of existence, they have been by human power deprived of happiness eternally, hence eter­nally punished. But it is argued that it is unjust to punish a man eter­nally for the sins committed in so short a time. That reasoning is certainly unphilosophical. Men do not reason that way in measuring punishment for crimes in our civil courts or in making our laws. The time that it takes to commit a crime has nothing to do with the punishment it deserves. But the logic of the above objection is that the duration of the punishment should be coextensive with the time occupied in committing the crime. Frequently the action of a moment or the de­cision of one hour brings on an irreversible sentence of life­long suffering. And it is not so much the heinousness of the crime as what the deed involves of choice—of selection or rejection. Esau in a moment of hunger sold his birth­right for a "morsel of meat." The sin does not seem so terrible and there were extenuating circumstances, but the judgment was irrevocable and his loss was for life.

Nature also deals with her children on the same prin­ciple. Her judgment can never be set aside; her punish­ment is always severe and often seemingly out of all pro­portion to the offense. But whenever a law is broken the inevitable results must follow. Men may disbelieve her threatenings, as they disbelieve the Bible, but that will in no way alter the consequences. Men may curse nature’s judgments, ignore her warnings, blaspheme her laws, and denounce her penalties, but at last they must bow to her mandates and suffer the consequence of their folly.

Hundreds of illustrations of this from real life—from actual experience of men—could be given. But here is one of recent occurrence. I myself preached this girl’s funeral. A sweet, young girl of the tender age of sixteen, just blossoming into womanhood, was guilty of an indiscretion. There were many excuses to plead for her—ignorance, love, overpersuasion. But the deed was done, and now the child realizes that an awful thing is about to happen. She begins to suffer agonies of shame, humiliation, and fear of ex­posure. Driven almost mad, she ignorantly undertakes to interfere with nature and arrest the consequence of her former sin; but in the eyes of nature her second offense is much worse than the first, and the penalty is terrible. Blood poisoning, her whole sin made public, physical agonies, convulsions, and death. Her first and only sin, and that, in man’s judgment, to a great extent excusable; but, oh, what a price she paid! Weeping brothers and sisters would gladly have forgiven her, brokenhearted parents would willingly have died in her stead, and sympathizing friends would charitably have shielded her from public disgrace, but nature was implacable. The girl’s deathbed was haunted with an intolerable sense of shame, the bright hope of future years was blasted, and physical pain was unendurable, and untimely death stalked in and carried away a victim. But (softly) the male brute who was responsible for the whole sin goes scot-free! Yet infidels and some "liberals" tell us that the only hell there is is in this life! If that is true, it should at least be equally distributed.

Humanitarian. It is said that no human parent would for any conceivable crime inflict such punishment upon his child. That will be admitted, and the best we can say on that is that God’s ways are not our ways. Neither would an earthly parent inflict any such punishment upon a daughter as nature inflicted in the case mentioned above. No earthly father would permit his child to go through life as an idiot, deaf, blind, or physically deformed, if he had the power to prevent it. God has power to prevent all such things, but he does not do it. Therefore, we and God differ on this point, and we cannot measure God’s judgment by our feelings. There is no man on earth today who would not, if he could, give sight to all the blind, hearing to all the deaf, and strength to all the crippled. God can, but he does not. This should admonish us that his ways are inscrutable, and we should preserve the strictest and most reverential silence in regard to them.

SCRIPTURE CITATIONS EXAMINED

There were three passages of Scripture used as texts in the newspaper article under review. Upon the first there is no controversy; the second was absolutely ruinous to the doctrine advocated; and the third was grossly perverted. Even a casual reading will prove this.

Let’s see. First: "Be sure your sin will find you out." (Numbers 32:23.) No controversy. Second: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life." (Galatians 6:7-8.) In the article under review, Weymouth’s translation of the New Testament was highly recommended—and I recom­mend it; but if the author of the article had examined Wey­mouth’s translation of this passage, he would not have used it. The word for "corruption" is there correctly translated "destruction"; and as it is used as an antithesis of eternal life, it clearly means "eternal destruction," the same thing taught by Paul (the writer) in so many other passages. (See Romans 6:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.) No postulate of uni- versalism in that passage certainly. Third: "He chastens us for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness." (Hebrews 12:6-10.) This is the way it was quoted; but if the part that was omitted be allowed to enter the record, the point is ruined. Read the seventh and eighth verses. "God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? But if ye are without chasten­ing, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." This is beyond question, the chas­tening which God’s children, God’s sons, Christians, receive in this life, and not punishment inflicted upon "bastards" and children of the devil in order to make them sons of God and save their souls, which the passage was used to prove. The Bible recognizes children of God and children of the devil (John 8:44; 1 John 3:10; 1 John 5:19), and even in this passage there is a distinction between sons and bastards. What good end can be served by a perversion of the Scrip­tures? THE PURPOSE OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

It is affirmed by the "liberal" that the punishment that is inflicted upon the wicked is designed to bring about a reformation of life, purify the heart, and make the sinner holy. Now, God’s children are allowed to suffer for right­eousness’ sake—not for sin—and for his name, and they are taught that these light afflictions, which are but for the moment, work out for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory. (See 2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 8:17-18; Matthew 5:10-11; 1 Peter 4:16.) "For let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil-doer, or as a meddler in other men’s matters: but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name." (1 Peter 4:15-16.) But that God punishes obstinate and rebellious sinners in order to force them to repent or to make them holy is most emphatically denied. The doc­trine is here indicted as irrational, unphilosophical, un­scriptural, and antiscriptural.

Considering the question philosophically, we observe that it is the province of mind power to control mind; moral power, to control heart and moral nature; physical power, to control physical nature. Any attempt to control mind and heart by physical force is as foolish and futile as to try to control matter by thinking and feeling.

If punishment purines the heart, then all the long-time inmates of our penal institutions ought to be saints. Both Catholics and Protestants have made the terrible mistake of adopting this heathen idea, and their history is stained with bloody crimes committed in the belief that they could purify a sinner’s heart by torturing his body. Fagot, fire, dungeon, rack, and wheel have all been used as a "means of grace" to force a renunciation of heresy and a belief of the truth. On this same hypothesis the heathen mutilate their own bodies in their devotions. Out of this doctrine have come two widespread and dangerous errors. They are Roman Catholic penance and universal salvation. In life the Catholics do penance for their sins, and after death they are saved through purgatorial expurgations. Archbishop Purcell said, in his debate with Alexander Campbell, that he "had no doubt that there were popes then in purgatory expiating their crimes in its penal fires." The universalist or restorationist saves all mankind through the refining influence of suffering in this life and also in the subterranean darkness of the Tartarean world. This doctrine is unscriptural because it vitiates the atone­ment and makes the sinner atone for his own sins in suf­fering. He should, therefore, sing glory to suffering instead of glory to the Savior.

WHAT SAY THE SCRIPTURES? The Bible teaches that the purpose of eternal punish­ment—eternal destruction, which means eternal banishment —is the same as that which prompts us to deport radicals from the United States—to be free of their presence and safe from their disturbance. Our God has designed that his children have a home where "the wicked cease from trou­bling; and there the weary are at rest." (Job 3:17.) God commanded the children of Israel to stone to death both man and woman when they were taken in adultery; not to cor­rect their morals and purify their hearts, but "thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." (Deuteronomy 22:24.) After the wicked have all been banished, the righteous "look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth right­eousness." (2 Peter 3:13.) Nothing that defiles can ever enter the sweet home of the soul. "And there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Revelation 21:27.) BUT WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE WICKED?

(1) They shall be without the city. "Without are dogs, and sorcerers." (2) They shall be driven from the presence of God forever. "Who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might." (2 Thessalonians 1:9.) (3) They shall go to a place that was prepared for the devil and his angels. They did the devil’s will, became partakers of his nature, and they must, therefore, share his destiny. "Begone from me, with the curse resting upon you, into the fire of the ages (aionion —eternal fire) which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41—Weymouth’s Translation.) (4) This will come after death. "Be not afraid of those who kill the body, but after that can do nothing further. I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after killing, has power to throw into Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28—Weymouth.) (5) This state of the wicked will be eternal. "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46.) The same word is used here, both in the Greek and the English, to measure the duration of the punishment of the wicked and describe the length of the life of the righteous. If the punishment is limited, then so must be the life of the righteous, by all rules of either language or logic. In the Greek, the word is "aionion," and is translated "eternal" in the American Revised Version, Living Oracles, by Bloomfield, by Westcott and Hort, by George Ricker Berry, and many other ancient and modern versions. THE VALLEY OF HINNOM But it is said that Gehenna is derived from "Ge Hinnom," which was a valley a few miles southwest of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch, the fire god. This is true; but it must be remembered that such cruel worship had been stopped, and the valley had been polluted by Josiah some four hundred years before Christ came into the world. (2 Kings 23:10.) The place was not Gehenna; but Gehenna, an entirely different place, had derived its name from that awful valley. When Christ said, "Fear him who after you are dead may cast your soul into Gehenna," he certainly did not mean that God would cast the soul into the Valley of Hinnom, three miles south­west of Jerusalem. The word "heaven" originally meant anything that was heaved; hence, in the Bible it is fre­quently applied to a mountain. It meant that which is high, and men came to think of God’s high dwelling as heaven. Both heaven and hell have derived their names from something else, and one is just as real as the other. But it will be noticed that of all of the quotations that have been used in this article, only one of them contains the word "Gehenna," and we could easily omit that and prove the point. If any reader will take the trouble to read the following references, he will still be further convinced that the doctrine can be proved without using either "Sheol," "Hades," "Tartarus," or "Gehenna." Neither word is used in any of the passages. Read them all. (Daniel 12:1-4; Luke 13:25-27; John 5:28-29; Matthew 13:40-43; Romans 2:2-6; 1 Peter 4:17-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10; Matthew 7:13.)