Love's Final Victory Part 20

Sinners of every grade require just two things; Forgiveness and Holiness. That is, a t.i.tle to heaven, and a fitness for it. Let us see how these two things are acquired, and if either of them demands eternal punishment.

Justification is acquired by the death of Christ, and by that alone. "He died for our sins," "He was wounded for our transgressions." "The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all." "We are justified freely by his blood." That is the one reason and ground for forgiveness. So then, whether men know it or not, they are forgiven. It is the merit of Christ that counts, and that alone. Christ has paid the penalty, and it takes due effect in the forgiveness of every sinner. He "tasted death for every man." Therefore, there can be no just punishment even in the case of the most incorrigible; far less can there be eternal punishment.

But then, as I have said, the sinner needs holiness. Suffering seems to be absolutely necessary here. But in this case suffering is not punishment; for punishment implies wrong doing. But all wrong doing has been atoned for, as we have seen. Hence the suffering that is inflicted is not punishment; it is discipline; the Fatherly infliction of love.

"Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth."

And what is the divine intention of this chastis.e.m.e.nt or discipline? Is it not the production of a worthy character? In this case it is no less than the re-creation of a character. In producing such a character G.o.d uses various means, and one of these, as we have seen, is discipline.

But if suffering were continued through all eternity, it would surely not be discipline. We think it would have the very opposite effect, and would produce the maximum of evil. Therefore, on the ground of needed discipline, as well as on that of forgiveness, we can see no necessity for eternal torment. And if there is no necessity for it, certainly it is not inflicted.

It may be well to make this matter a little clearer, even at the risk of some repet.i.tion. If there is any doubt about sin being actually forgiven before the exercise of faith or penitence, I would ask: What is the actual ground of forgiveness? Is it not the Atonement of Christ?

Necessary as faith and penitence are, could either or both procure forgiveness? If they could, Christ need not have died. But of all things, that was the prime necessity. Without shedding of blood there could be no remission. The corollary of that is, that with shedding blood there can be instant and universal remission.

Instant, we say? Yes; for "we are reconciled to G.o.d by the death of His Son," He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so G.o.d is reconciled now; and not only that, but from all eternity.

And universal? Yes; for he "tasted death for every man." So every sinner is forgiven by virtue of Christ's Atonement. The benefit of that Atonement extends to the worst man of our race.

But are not faith and penitence necessary? Yes, they are necessary to final salvation; but if they are necessary to forgiveness, then there was no necessity for Atonement. It is Atonement alone which procures pardon; and as Atonement was for the whole race, so forgiveness is for the whole race also.

To be sure it is written that "we are justified by faith," But surely, we are not to understand those words literally or rigidly. For could faith of itself really justify us? Could it really pay the debt we owe?

It is "the gift of G.o.d." Is it not therefore wholly without merit? Is not its function, rather, to bring us into the consciousness of justification? I do not see how it could do more than that.

But if we want to know the ground of justification, must we not look for it in the death of Christ? It is written that we are "freely justified by his blood." Is not that really the ground? And inasmuch as Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," the merit of his death goes back to the first, as well as extends to the last, sinner of our race. When the matter is viewed in this light, does it not seem a moral necessity that all sin is already forgiven?

But it may be pleaded that G.o.d is "angry with sinners every day;" that "tribulation and wrath" are ordained for "every soul of man that doeth evil;" and so on. How, then, can divine anger, tribulation, and wrath rest upon a person that is forgiven?

Simply because G.o.d's very nature is opposed to sin in every form; and he must visit sin with wrath and tribulation, though it be forgiven. In fact, it is because sin is forgiven, and that thus the basis of salvation is laid, that G.o.d is so painstaking to make the most and the best of us.

It is, therefore, easy to believe that wrath and tribulation will be continued in the next life until the sinner repents, and turns to G.o.d.

The fact that Christ has died for him will be no mitigation of necessary discipline, any more than it is now. The very fact that in this life we see the same principle of suffering on the part of G.o.d's own children, is proof enough of the righteousness and wisdom of a similar course being followed in the next life. The merit of Christ's Atonement does not avail for shielding sinners from necessary suffering in either life.

But did not Christ at times p.r.o.nounce forgiveness in such a way as to mean that it occurred just then, and not before? Take that case of the paralytic to whom he said, "Thy sins are forgiven." Does it not look as if the man were forgiven then and there? And yet, how could It be? The man as yet had not been healed, and so there was nothing to indicate his saving faith in Christ. Yet the Saviour p.r.o.nounced his forgiveness. It seems to me that Christ was rather bearing testimony to the fact that the man had been forgiven--he did not say when. It may have been that the poor paralytic was laboring under the fallacy that his suffering was owing to special sin, and so Christ wished to give him the joy of conscious pardon.

Or, take the case of the poor penitent in the house of Simon. Jesus said to her, "Thy sins are forgiven," and to "go in peace." Now were her sins forgiven the moment Jesus spoke to her? Were they not forgiven prior to that? Was there anything in the woman's mental or moral att.i.tude to Christ to indicate that not till the moment that he spoke the word were her sins forgiven? The fact is, that he spoke the word when circ.u.mstances led up to it, and not before. There is nothing to forbid the idea, it seems to me that her sins were always forgiven; but Jesus spoke the word of comfort just when it was needed. She had now the joy of conscious forgiveness; I think that was what Jesus intended to bestow.

So it seems to me that all sin is forgiven already. The death of Christ secures that boon. And is there anything which would break a sinner's heart so effectually as to know that, let him sink in wickedness to the lowest possible depths, yet that all his sin is already forgiven? If anything would win him, can you conceive of anything so effectual as that? What a display that would be of the conquering power of love divine!

Here I would note a singular coincidence. The very day after I had written that there is no punishment for sin either in this life or the next--that it is all discipline--I received a book from some unknown friend in which the same idea occurs. Speaking of a prodigal daughter, the author says: "There was but one thing wanting to restore her to her home--a mere act of the will that should have prompted her to say, 'I will arise, and go to my father!' It is precisely so with every child of G.o.d. There is no moment in which they are not forgiven, and the Father anxiously longing for their return." In another place he says, "All sin is forgiven sin."

But, mark you; this author writes from the standpoint of orthodoxy. Then if "all sin is forgiven sin," how can it merit eternal punishment? How can future suffering be considered punishment at all if all sin is forgiven?

And this author is very sure that the suffering is absolutely endless.

This is what he says: "If in the infinite love of G.o.d there might be found a shortening of the sinner's doom, it would certainly be a matter of relief to all; but the only Book that comes with answer to the great questions of the soul, it seems to me, lends no encouragement to such a hope."

Evidently, this man's heart is better than his head. He says that G.o.d has ordained everlasting suffering; but our author is not satisfied with that; he would be glad if some "shortening" of the sinner's doom could be found, but he cannot find it. He does not seem to realize that in these words he claims to be more merciful than G.o.d Himself.

Now, if "all sin is forgiven sin," as the author says, and as I believe it is, then how can there in justice be everlasting suffering? The suffering cannot in justice be punishment, since the sin is forgiven; nor can it be discipline if the suffering has no end, for no moral improvement would be attained thereby, but the very maximum of evil.

Surely, a merciful and just and wise G.o.d cannot be the Author of any such scheme? Would it not be a thousand times more reasonable to conceive of suffering as being temporary; to be inflicted as a necessary discipline; and then when the discipline is attained, to cease?

The reverent and reasonable way of looking at the entire matter seems to be something like this: First; all sin is forgiven in virtue of the Atonement that has been made. The benefit of that Atonement extends to the first man of our race, as well as to the last one. The benefit of it extends to the whole family of man, whether heathen or not; and whether small sinners or great.

Further; every man is a sinner in some degree, and he needs a degree of discipline which the present life does not provide, but which is provided in the next. This will be as varied as men's character and attainments. In those who have risen high, it may well be described as a pa.s.sage into glory, for it will, indeed, be realized as such. But it will be a lower glory, preparatory for a higher, to be attained later on. Others, with different degrees of evil still clinging to them, will have to undergo pains and penalties suitable to their condition, and so by gradual ascent attain to perfection and blessedness. Thus, it is reasonable to think that there will be as great a variety of character and capacity then as now; and this will largely determine the great variety of place, service, and so on.

But supposing that future punishment did issue in moral improvement, and that such improvement should go on increasing, is it thinkable that under an infinitely gracious and wise government there would come no time of such perfection as would warrant release? But in that case the suffering would not be endless. Whichever way you take it, that seems to be the inevitable, final issue.

So it seems to me that the only wise, and beneficent, and just idea of future suffering, whether it be intense or mild, or whether it be of shorter or longer duration, is, that it will be the means of working out a divinely intended degree of moral perfection; and that it will then come to an end. This course of procedure we observe here and now. It may operate on a larger scale, and with more final results, in the life to come; but we apprehend that the principle will be much the same. And the principle is enough for us now. The details, we are sure, will be worthy of Infinite Wisdom and Love.

It will thus be observed that our author's dictum that "all sin is forgiven sin" absolutely forbids the idea of endless torment. It is a marvel that he did not see this before. But somehow, likely from early training, there is a strong disposition to retain the idea of endless torment as though it were the Gospel. We think, on the contrary, that any good reasons, whether founded on Scripture or on common sense, should be hailed as a deliverance from intellectual and spiritual bondage. Above all things, let us beware of turning the divine light into darkness.

This is a mere sketch of the order that may be supposed to obtain in the next life. We need to put Scripture and reason together to get a view of such things as will commend themselves to our best judgment. And when we have done our best, what can we really know of details? Not much, certainly; but enough to appeal strongly to faith and hope. In fact, anything like a complete revelation could not be given to us now and here; for we have not the capacity nor the experience to understand it.

And even if it could be given, it might largely distract us from the ordinary duties of life. It is a gracious Providence that shuts out the unseen from these mortal eyes. But we have the great consolation that "what we know not now, we shall know hereafter."

In regard to the unfolding of divine truth, I have just met with the following terse expression of it: "The inscrutable laws of the all-wise G.o.d do not reveal themselves in one generation, but ripen with the desire for knowledge on the part of mankind."

Thus, there is a progress in revelation. There are epochs when men get larger views of truth. I think the present is one of these epochs. Many statements of Scripture that were supposed formerly to relate wholly to the present life, are now seen to relate to the life beyond. This brings a wonderful naturalness and harmony into the whole scheme of grace, so far as it is revealed.

The idea of no endless torment is but an enlargement of the principle that G.o.d brings good out of evil.

Consider also that an ideal condition of the universe seems to require that sin and suffering will be forever eliminated; and that under G.o.d's administration an ideal condition will be realized.

Further; G.o.d has a personal love for every human soul. The most degraded of our race can say as truly as did Paul, "He loved me." It is reasonable to expect, then, that infinite Love will secure for the worst of mankind something better than endless torment.

I have referred to the fact that the mind has a strong affinity for truth. But certainly, it has a strong repugnance to a belief in endless torment. Men try to believe it because they think it is taught in the Bible, and that it would be a dangerous thing to doubt it. But apart from that, there is no natural or hearty concurrence of the mind in that view. And I think I may say that such an att.i.tude is more p.r.o.nounced in those of an elevated and reverent turn of mind.

Then we know that G.o.d "does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." Therefore we believe all the suffering of this life and of the next is but as a means to an end.

The fact, also, that sin and suffering are abnormal features of the divine administration, indicates almost beyond doubt that they will finally be done away.

Remember, too, that it is very clearly revealed that an Atonement has been made for "every man." Thus, a divine provision has been made for every man Now the provision involves desire; and can the desire fail?

Under a perfect administration, therefore, how can there be endless suffering?

Then if G.o.d gave His own Son, and if the Son gave Himself, for the redemption of the world, will that Atonement fail of its effect in a single case? Such a possibility is almost unthinkable.

Consider, also, that the possibility of eternal sin and suffering seems to imply a failure of the divine administration; which is impossible.

Then, G.o.d is forever the same. If He is love, wisdom, power, justice, mercy, now, He is the same through all eternity. At no future epoch, therefore, can we conceive of the necessity of endless torment.

We have to remember too, that G.o.d rules in all worlds, and throughout all time. Forever, and everywhere, "His counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."

It is an orthodox doctrine that G.o.d cannot suffer. But that does not seem in harmony with the breathing of His sigh, "O that they were wise!"

or "How can I give thee up?" or the tears of Christ over the apostate city. Now, if G.o.d is eternal Love, do not sin and suffering interfere forever with His happiness? But normally we conceive of Him as the infinitely happy One; therefore that normal condition requires that sin and suffering be ultimately done away.

Then we have the fact that we are G.o.d's children; yes, even the most debased of mankind. Paul could say to the idolaters of Athens, "We are His offspring." Now, if we are really His children, and therefore infinitely dearer to Him than our children are to us, will not the present suffering of even one of us be a source of pain to the eternal Father? On that ground we cannot think of suffering as being endless.