Soberly speaking, very few now-a-days believe in an eternity of punishment for sin. Tennyson has immortalized the doctrine of “the larger hope” in his poems—Archdeacon Farrar contends for it in his eloquent and captivating prose.
Universalism and Annihilationism, broadly speaking, divide the believers of “the larger hope”—the one holding sway chiefly in England, the other in America—the one teaching that all, purified by fire, will eventually find salvation—the other, that when the unrepentant expiate their guilt by suffering, they cease to exist. The logical outcome of the one is that the Devil himself will be saved; the other that God Himself will cease to exist, though their teachers do not extend their theories to their extreme and legitimate lengths.
The old Puritans believed in eternal punishment, but their stern idea of the awful demerit of sin is fast dying out. The nineteenth century takes as her guide the fitful torch of reason rather than the clear light of God’s imperishable word.
Side by side with the attack upon the Bible doctrine of eternal punishment, are assaults upon the inspiration of the Scriptures; the full deity of Christ when here upon earth and His atonement by blood.
It is assuredly true that certain leading truths in the Scripture are like the main stones of an arch; take one stone away and the whole arch is destroyed.
Here let me quote an extract from a letter by the late Henry Ward Beecher. In 1871 he was Editor of the Independent, and in reply to a letter sent him by a friend, regarding an article in his paper on the doctrine of future punishment, Mr. Beecher says:
“The fact that the strongest asseverations of endless punishment are found in the synoptical gospels is true. It is only by a line of refined reasoning that we can get rid of the force of the old orthodox argument. Indeed, I suspect that no man can get away from the doctrine of endless punishment except by a process which very materially lowers the doctrine of inspiration. I am free to confess that my mind more and more moves away from the doctrine of endless punishment, but it is at the expense of that belief in the supreme authority of Scripture, and an increase of faith that the living reason of men must determine living questions, and that the moral sense which Christianity educates must in the end sit in judgment on the qualities of religion itself.”
This is plain and to the point. If endless punishment be not true, the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is not true. Mr. Beecher discards one, to be honest he discards both. Take one stone of the arch away, another is loosened and soon falls out.
Again, “the strongest asseverations of endless punishment,” which are found in the synoptical gospels, fall from the lips of the Son of God Himself, and He upholds the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures by continually quoting from them as authoritative.
To meet this difficulty there are men to be found, who unblushingly and blasphemously assert that Christ voluntarily abridged and limited His divine powers when here on earth that He did not, could not, know everything, that He was inaccurate, and so on. This theory, christened “The doctrine of the Kenosis,” is largely founded on Philippians 2:7, twisted, distorted, and immorally handled.
Thus, in addition to the inspiration of the Scriptures being assailed, we find men daring enough to attack the deity of Christ when He was here upon earth.
Then again, is it not a patent fact, not to be by any possibility controverted, that the believers in “the larger hope” are becoming more and more leavened by Unitarianism, till at length in whole congregations one looks in vain for those who believe in the atoning value of the precious blood of Christ? They judge of sin as it affects themselves, and deny its eternal demerit in God’s sight.
If I give up the plain scriptural teaching of eternal punishment, to be honest I must perforce forfeit the Bible, with all my blessings in Christ and all my prospects of glory. The price is too great. We take our stand here, and say with Paul on the sinking ship, “I BELIEVE GOD.”
G. W. Foote, the editor of the Freethinker, commenting on a well-known annual theological lecture, noticed how heaven was over and over again mentioned, and hell scarcely alluded to in the usual trend of modern theological thought. He then described his position in something like the following language:
“For our part we believe in neither; if we believed in either we should believe in both. If there is an eternal heaven to gain, there must be an eternal hell to shun; they must be eternal correlatives, one of the other; they can no more be divorced than the Siamese twins could be separated.”
His language is plain and logical from his standpoint. It should be well thought over by those who have not the courage to believe God in spite of reason and intellect.
Again, let me give you an example of the weak and illogical position taken up by the “higher critics.”
Travelling from London to the North of England some years ago, I got into conversation with a young man. Very soon the talk drifted to religious topics.
He picked up a book he had been reading, and asked me if I knew it, and what I thought of it. Its subject was Universalism, its author the Rev. Dr. Allon, since dead, with a preface by Canon Basil Wilberforce. I told the young man the title of the book was immeasurably weak, and enough to condemn it at once.
He seemed startled, and begged for an explanation. I replied, “It bases its teaching, according to its title, upon three things in the following order:
“1. The Reason of Man.
“2. The Fathers.
“3. The Holy Scriptures.
“Here the first and primary appeal is to man’s fallen, perverted reason. The Scriptures tell us, ‘The carnal mind is enmity against God,’ that ‘The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ Man will judge by his own desires and by his limited knowledge. It is like a criminal acting as judge in his own case. Who could expect him to mete out to himself even-handed judgment?
“Appeal No. 2 is made to ‘the Fathers.’ Every one knows there is a great gulf fixed between the lofty inspired writings of Scripture and the weak and puerile writings—generally speaking—of ‘the Fathers.’ It is the difference between the Himalayas, with their everlasting robe of dazzling snow, and the Surrey downs. Then appeal No. 3 is made to the Scriptures. It would not be decent to entirely ignore them, and the few passages quoted are misinterpreted, wrested out of their connection and misapplied.” Running rapidly through that section of it, I pointed out two or three glaring cases.
The young man could not answer my argument upon the title, but he still stuck to his opinions. It just showed how foolish men make themselves to the feeblest child of God when they begin to traffic intellectually in divine truth. “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.” Passing successfully through a theological college, mastering the dead languages, and having a critical knowledge of the letter of the Word, is no substitute whatever for the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
But now let us quote you one passage, that will suffice for our purpose. Three times over from the lips of the Son of God Himself, when speaking of hell, fall the awfully solemn words, “Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched” (See Mark 9:44, 46, 48).
Supposing the “worm” to be a figure of the remorse of a lifetime of sin, of a conscience quickened for ever into undying reproaches, and “the fire” to be a figure of God’s punishment for ever and ever of the damned in hell, still the words lose nothing of their solemnity and awfulness. He speaks of “the fire that NEVER shall be quenched.”
We take our stand upon this one statement of the Son of God thrice emphasized. If this one statement be not true, the whole fabric of Christianity must go. It is not possible that Christ spoke other than the absolute truth, awful as that truth might be.
If this plain statement be not true, and we want neither a knowledge of Greek nor Hebrew here, then Christ is not God, the Bible is not the Scriptures of truth, our light is replaced by a worse than Egyptian darkness, “We are of all men most miserable.”
Other passages might be adduced, but we forbear. Our object has been served, if some have got a glimmering as to where the denial of endless punishment would land them. Be not afraid to say, “I believe it, because God says it.” “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
In conclusion let us, who know through the finished work of Christ the eternal forgiveness of our sins, live as if we believed these solemn things. Let us not trifle, nor criminally waste our precious, golden opportunities of serving Him, but earnestly strive to persuade men to “flee from the wrath to come.” “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,” was a dominant factor in Paul’s earnestness. And if perchance this paper catch the eye of one still a stranger to the God of love, and the God of light, let him know that God has provided a Saviour for him. On the cross Jesus exclaimed in thrilling tones, “IT IS FINISHED,” words which will never be uttered in the flames of an endless hell, for there “their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” Oh, flee to the arms of Infinite Love today! The work is done. God now invites thee. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).