Love's Final Victory Part 2

Plainly, to add emphasis to their preconceived idea of an endless h.e.l.l.

But does this commend itself as being a fair and consistent way of dealing with Scripture?

Why,--except that it was too utterly foolish,--not have rendered the following pa.s.sages as they did the three just instanced?

"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye ... pa.s.s over d.a.m.nation ([Greek: krisis]) and the love of G.o.d" (Luke xi. 42).

"As I hear, I judge, and My d.a.m.nation ([Greek: krisis]) is just" (John v. 30).

"So opened He not His mouth; in His humiliation His d.a.m.nation ([Greek: krisis])_ was taken away" (Acts viii. 32, 33).

Seeing that the Greek word is the same in every one of these pa.s.sages, is it not very wrong to give it an improper and grossly exaggerated significance in three texts, while translating it correctly in forty-one other instances?

Again, it is suggestive that the revisers of the New Testament, in Matt, xxiii. 33 and John v. 29, have flung away the word "d.a.m.nation," and in its place put "judgment" as the proper rendering of [Greek: krisis]. If the translators of the Authorized Version had done this, one of the supports of an ancient error would have been knocked down.

(d) The word (krinein).

The word denotes--to _judge_; and eighty-one times in the New Testament the translators so rendered it. And yet in regard to the same Greek word which occurs in 2 Thess. ii. 12, they made the translation run:--"That they all might be _d.a.m.ned_ who believed not the truth."

But why not have been consistent? Why not have rendered 1 Cor. vi. 2, in this way; since in both pa.s.sages the verb [Greek: krinein] is the same,--"Do ye not know that the saints shall d.a.m.n the world? And if the world shall be d.a.m.ned by you, are ye unworthy to d.a.m.n the smallest matters?"

I will trouble the reader with only one other word.

(e) The word (katakrinein). Its meaning is--to condemn. It is a stronger word than [Greek: krinein] to judge, but there is nothing in it that corresponds to that awful meaning supposed to reside in the word "d.a.m.n." And yet the translators did not hesitate to give it that meaning.

How did they treat this verb, [Greek: katakrinein]? Just as they treated other verbs and nouns, when they wished to bolster their theological idea. In seventeen instances in the New Testament they translated it rightly as "condemn," but in Mark xvi. 16 and Rom. xiv. 23, doctrinal preconceptions prevailed, and so these two pa.s.sages were rendered--"He that believeth not shall be d.a.m.ned." "He that doubteth is d.a.m.ned if he eat."

And for centuries, an everlasting h.e.l.l-fire has been read unto the mistranslated word.

I might continue in this strain at great length. The quotations I have given may be taken as samples of many more. It is surely time that the sad and sombre clouds of so-called orthodoxy should be dispelled by the rising beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

The word "for ever," taken in its rigid literal sense, is a stumbling block to many. I lately asked a very eminent man in England, the president of a theological college, how he would get over that difficulty. He replied that he believed that the word "aion" would more fully meet the case, and that that word would more exactly accord with the capacity of our finite mind, the word "forever" expressing an idea entirely beyond our comprehension. That seems to be good sense, and more in harmony with the whole trend of Revelation.

I have issued this treatise under an a.s.sumed name; not because I am specially careful of my reputation, but rather because I wish the work to be regarded solely on its own merits. If any reader feels disposed to write me, either briefly or more at length, and whether in criticism or commendation, I shall be glad.

Address,

HORATIO, Care Austin Publishing Co., Rochester, N. Y.

I.

DIFFERENT THEORIES.

Fear of punishment--Early Impressions--Men of piety and learning--Fact and figures--Mental or material fire--The theory of conditional immortality--Why invented--Moody--Divine failure impossible--Future operations of grace--Restoration--A plea for charity--Other worlds--The heathen--Devout use of the imagination.

There is a general fear of suffering after death. Such fear may be derived in part from early impressions and education, and in part from the conscience that G.o.d has given to every man. But whatever their secondary origin, these sources of fear have been divinely ordained as means to an end. Such fear could not be divinely inspired if it were not founded on fact. And the fact is, that there is suffering in reserve for evil doers. There is no mistaking the statements of Scripture as well as the voice of conscience on that point.

What that suffering is, for what object inflicted, and how long it will continue, have been of late years much discussed, and with diverse views. Some of these views are very literal interpretations of the divine Word, and others of them are very figurative. The fact is, it is not always easy to distinguish between symbolism and reality, whether in nature or in revelation. I remember that the first time that I saw Mount Tacoma in the distance, I could not distinguish as to what was mountain and what was cloud. When I got very near, then I knew. And so in several Scripture statements it is not easy, for the present, to distinguish between what is fact and what is figure. When we get nearer no doubt we shall know. So it is with the nature and the duration of future punishment. Some take a more literal, and some a more figurative view.

The result is, that the Christian world is at wide variance on the subject. And I think he would be a bold man, and not a very wise one, who could be very dogmatic in such a realm of investigation.

Now, with regard to the portion of the wicked in the next life, there are three main theories that are held.

First: There is the theory of everlasting conscious torment of the most terrific kind. It is not clearly defined whether the suffering is of the body or the mind, or both; but the general idea is that it is of both.

The bodily suffering is usually conceived of as being inflicted by fire; but whether the fire is material or of some other kind, is not clearly defined. The mental suffering is usually represented as the most bitter remorse.

Then second: There is the theory of extinction at death or after. The idea is that there is utter destruction both of the body and the mind at some period.

Then again: Some hold that the wicked are given another opportunity after this life of obtaining salvation; that many will do so, and that the remainder will be destroyed. We may call this the theory of extinction.

DR. EDWARD WHITE'S THEORY.

Some are very definite in locating the period of a second probation as co-extensive with the Millenial reign. Others do not pretend to know when it will happen, or how long it will last; they simply believe it will happen. This idea of a second probation is very similar to Dr.

Edward White's theory of Conditional Immorality. He held that life in the Scripture simply means life, and that death simply means death. He believed that those who are fit for life will live, and that the rest will perish.

I would say here that the idea of Conditional Immortality, favored by many, does not seem to me to be well conceived. Evidently the theory was invented in order to escape the doctrine of endless torment. The idea is, that if you are fit to live you are destined for a glorious immortality; otherwise you are extinguished. Such a view does not seem to comport with our highest thoughts of G.o.d, and His ways of working. In my mind, it represents G.o.d as being too dependent on circ.u.mstances.

When we realize that Christ died not only for "all," but for "every man"; and when we realize that the invitations of mercy are extended to "every man," without equivocation, it does seem to me something like a failure of the divine plan if "every man" is not saved.

But since every man is evidently not saved in this life, we project our view into the next life, and we think of G.o.d's operations of grace there. No doubt that is a larger view than that which has so long prevailed. But it is not unreasonable by any means. Divine operations are surely not restricted to this short epoch of time. G.o.d's mercy is from everlasting to everlasting.

And can anything defeat His purpose? He has expressed His purpose to save all men, in the fact that He gave His Son to die for the world, and that He invites all the world to be partakers in the great salvation.

That is His purpose; and "His purpose will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."

We should never forget this great truth. As Mr. Robert E. Speer well says:

"We escape much difficulty from literalistic and mechanical interpretations by remembering that both s.p.a.ce and time are merely conceptions of our present order, and that there is neither s.p.a.ce nor time in G.o.d."

The third theory is, that everyone will be restored. Those who hold this view do not generally define the period when this will take place, or the means that will be used to bring it about; but they believe that the wisdom, love, and power of G.o.d will somehow be effectual to that end.

I think that these are mainly the views that are entertained on this most solemn subject. And it must be said that each one of them is apparently supported by one or more pa.s.sages of Scripture. Men of the most devout spirit, intellectual ac.u.men, and profound scholarship, uphold these various theories. Such men are honest and sincere in the last degree; above all things anxious to know what G.o.d has revealed in His Word.

UNFOLDING LIGHT OF REVELATION.

Yet on this momentous question they differ. It is really no wonder. I think I may say that there is no clear deliverance in Scripture, in absolute support of either of these views; or if there is, it is offset by some other statement that seems contrary. In the unfolding light of revelation we do not seem to have come to the time when this momentous question will be made absolutely and universally plain. It may be one of those questions on which we are to exercise faith alone. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" That was Abraham's consolation when he did not know what G.o.d was going to do. And it may be our consolation.

The Judge of all the earth will certainly do right. Yes, and He will do more than right. He is love. We can rest on that. Uncertainty as to details may best become us now. But the eternal morning will break and the shadows flee away. Meantime, while this uncertainty prevails, surely there ought to be abounding charity of judgment.

When we come to think of it, we are not so much surprised that we have but a partial and limited revelation on this subject. There may be more divine kindness in that than at first sight appears. When we contemplate the vastness of creation, we see that there are myriads of other worlds far larger and more glorious than our own. Every one of these is likely to have a moral history--it may be more important than ours.