Love's Final Victory Part 21

This is holy ground; let us tread it reverently.

Further; we read that Christ "lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Now, if He loves every man, and atones for every man, and enlightens every man, is it conceivable that He will not somewhere and at some time save every man?

Likewise, we read that "the Spirit is given to every man." Is not that the initial stage of redemption? Then will not redemption be completed?

Here we see but a very small part of the outgoings of Him who is from everlasting to everlasting.

Then this larger view explains G.o.d's universal call. He says, "Look unto me and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth." There we see G.o.d's intention; and if it is not carried out in this life, will it not be in the life to come? We are accustomed in our short-sightedness to think that the dividing line of death is final. But with G.o.d it is not final.

It only marks the stage from one epoch to another.

In the same way, this larger view explains G.o.d's repeated promise to Abraham. The promise was made to him that in him all the families on the earth would be blest. But uncounted millions of them have not been blest, so far as this life is concerned. Will the promise not be fulfilled? And how can it be fulfilled but by being fulfilled in the next life?

Then, of Christ it was foretold that he should "see of the travail of His soul, and should be satisfied." But surely, He is not satisfied with the comparatively small number of the human race that have been saved.

If He loves each one of them individually, will He be satisfied with less than the salvation of each one?

Evidently, He looked forward to this all-conquering epoch when He said that He would draw all men unto Himself. Certainly, He did not draw all men to Himself when He was here. What remains for us but to enlarge our view, and believe that He will do it there?

Along the same line we have the promise that "all Israel shall be saved." That promise has not been fulfilled, and never can be fulfilled, in this life. Is it too much to say that it will be fulfilled in the life to come?

In like manner it is promised that "He shall have the heathen for his inheritance." But uncounted millions of the heathen have died in utter darkness; and millions more are dying now. How can the promise be fulfilled within the bourne of time? But we thank G.o.d that the whole span of time is but one short epoch with Him whose ways are from everlasting.

Judging from the revelations that we have of G.o.d, we believe that He can and will achieve the maximum of holiness and happiness for all His creatures, according to their several capacities. In harmony with this view, scientists and moralists say that it is a law of the universe that anything that is really good will endure. It is likely that in the future life we shall see the working of that principle as we cannot see it now.

It is strongly in favor of this idea that man is endowed with such amazing potentiality. There seems to be no end to his capacity of development. Now, is it to be supposed that an all-wise G.o.d would endow man with such possibilities, and create no scope for their development?

Certainly, there would be no worthy development of them in the case of endless torment. This idea strongly suggests universal salvation.

In the case of eternal suffering, without hope of release, would not that condition develop every possibility of evil to all eternity? And would not such an outcome be entirely contrary to the purpose of the Holy One?

Then it is an everlasting argument for universal salvation that such a consummation would be far more glorifying to G.o.d, than any other alternative that we can conceive.

Thus, the larger view goes a long way to explain G.o.d's delay in saving the heathen. We may fail in giving them the Gospel; but will He fail? Is His success made dependent on any pa.s.sing whim or indifference of ours?

Surely not. He may have good reasons for saving some in this life, and others in the next. We see but a short way into the whole scheme of things.

This larger view also solves the difficulty of dealing after death with the imperfect Christian. He is not fit for the world of bliss, nor yet for the world of woe. But the discipline we are supposing fits him for his higher destiny.

And so, we may well suppose, it will be with the non-Christian good man.

On the principle that what is good will endure, all that is good in him will be retained, and the evil will be eliminated.

Also, on this basis we can reasonably forecast the destiny of the insane. Since they lost their reason they are not responsible. But they will resume their reason at the point where it deserted them, and they will be prepared for the inheritance of the saints.

The same theory justifies the destruction of wicked nations. They had gone down to such depths of sin, that it was better for them to be cut off, and to have a new opportunity under more favorable conditions.

This larger view also explains why G.o.d chose to continue the human race after they sinned, and entailed on all their posterity such mourning, lamentation and woe. G.o.d did an infinitely better thing for the race than extinction. He provided a way of salvation for all. So the day may come in the endless years when all the pains and penalties of earth will be reckoned trifles as light as air, contrasted with the supernal glory that has been attained.

I would also say that according to this larger view there is no more difficulty as to supposed eternal separations. It has always been a mystery how the good can be happy when conscious that those whom they loved are in everlasting torment. Some have even tried to believe that they would rise to G.o.d's own point of view, and survey with complacency the utmost torments of the dammed!

When I was a child I often heard the dictum from the pulpit that "the nature that sinned must suffer." Therefore, it was said that our Lord took our humanity in order that He might suffer in our nature. I have believed since that if He had suffered in any other nature, His suffering would be no less efficacious. I believe that the merit of His suffering could be transferred to any other world that needs it, be the inhabitants human or otherwise, and be their sin what it may. I think it is not for us to limit that merit to our own race. But we need not follow that point farther now.

I often heard another dictum, and one of more importance, that I feel inclined to question. It was said that sin committed against G.o.d is an infinite evil, because G.o.d is infinitely holy. Therefore, it was argued, that sin deserves infinite punishment; but that as finite beings we cannot render an infinite penalty in point of quality, we must render it in point of duration; hence the justice of everlasting punishment.

I confess that to me all this show of logic items act much more than a play upon words. For one thing, it may be doubted if a finite being is capable of committing an infinite sin. If he is not, the whole argument collapses.

Then if he is capable of it, and if the sin in justice demands an infinite punishment, how can a just G.o.d forbear inflicting the punishment at once? But He waits to be gracious. Is not that a transgression of the strict law of justice? But if in justice He can wait an hour, why not a year? And if a year, why not a hundred years?

And if a hundred years, why not forever? Thus the penalty would be avoided altogether.

Further; if sin demands an infinite penalty, the penalty could never be rendered. For infinity has no end; and so, prolong the penalty as we might through uncounted aeons, there would still be an eternity to come.

Therefore, the penalty would never be exacted. It requires the whole of eternity; and eternity will never end. Therefore, on this showing, with all reverence, G.o.d might as well stop at once, and claim no penalty, for the penalty goes on forever; and forever has no end. Not even a moiety of the penalty could be inflicted; for a moiety can be measured, but infinity has no measurement.

Besides; if the penalty is to be infinite in duration, might not a very mild punishment suffice as well as a more intense punishment? For the sum total would be equal. One infinity of duration and of suffering is equal to another; so there would be no need to inflict any severe suffering; infinity of duration would make the suffering infinite in amount, however slight it might be in quality. So if an eternity of suffering could be endured, which it cannot, the smallest degree of discomfort would be sufficient to meet the demand.

And it is not to be forgotten that all these a.s.sumptions are based upon the theory that G.o.d is only strict justice, whereas we know that He is love as well; yes, and wisdom; so we believe He would find a better method than the one we have sketched, even if it could be realized.

Thus, the whole argument breaks down. It is but a human invention, and not a good invention; designed, it would seem, to support a foregone conclusion. Ten thousand times better than all such absurd elaboration is the simple statement that "His mercy endureth forever."

HESITATING AND HALTING.

Some time ago I presented this argument to a Presbyterian minister, not suspecting in the least that he was wanting in orthodoxy. He said the argument was conclusive, and that there is no such thing as eternal punishment. I have since spoken with many ministers on the same topic; and in no case was there any opposition. Many are hesitating and halting between this view and the one that has so widely prevailed. Especially is there a natural hesitation to speak about the matter publicly. The main question is, Is it true? If it is, it is good news indeed for our poor, suffering world.

I may state here that there is another possibility which, if it had been adopted, would have avoided all necessity for punishment. I refer to the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned, G.o.d might have cut them off, and so avoided the hideous tale of suffering that has resulted since. Or He might have rendered them childless, and have thus antic.i.p.ated and avoided all difficulty. Either of these measures would certainly have been fraught with far less suffering than the consignment of so many uncounted millions, or even one individual, to eternal torment. The fact that any better measure was available, is a strong argument for the ultimate restoration of the race.

We believe that G.o.d has made a provision for all mankind, ten thousand times better than the cutting off or rendering childless of the first pair. When we realize that the whole race is yet to be restored, we begin to see something of the unbounded love and wisdom that rule through all time and all eternity. Even the suffering of the present may be made conducive to our ultimate happiness and glory. A little farther on we may see that sin and suffering have been permitted for a time as an object lesson for all eternity. In view of such a possibility we feel like exclaiming, "O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom, and knowledge of G.o.d! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"

Very recently there came to me a new idea; and it came with such suddenness that I can believe it was a suggestion from another Mind. I was listening to a very able and thoughtful sermon. The theme was the retention of the Canaanites in the land, instead of driving them out. We read that "When Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out." The very natural and telling application that was made by the preacher was, the many compromises with evil that are made in our own time for the sake of gain.

BARBAROUS IDEAS.

But the preacher took the ground that it was a very cruel and barbarous thing to exterminate those nations, or to put them to the sword. He dwelt on the barbarous ideas that then prevailed, contrasting them with the toleration that prevails now. He said that we convert men now, instead of killing them. He took the ground that the extermination of those people was due to an entire misconception of the divine command.

It struck me at the moment that such an idea was entirely contrary to the fact. Here is the command, and the substance of it was often repeated: "Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their G.o.ds, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; and ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their G.o.ds, and destroy the names of them out of that place."

The divine command, then, was not misconceived. We may see plainly now its wisdom and real kindness. But Israel made an unwise and unholy compromise. By this compromise that was made, the surrounding heathen tribes in some cases were spared. The consequence was that there was a constant incitement to idolatry. Again and again, Israel fell into this sin, and paid severely for their crime. I think it is not too much to say that had Israel inflexibly carried out the divine command, the Jewish nation might have been the strongest in the world to-day.

But what has all this to do with the theory of Restoration? A great deal. In the light of that larger truth, extermination was not the harsh measure that at the first glance it seems. It was simply the removal of those incorrigible races to other scenes where they would have better chances of reform; and it was the removal of a constant snare to Israel.

Under the old idea, those heathen tribes were consigned to eternal torment. Even for the women and children there was no escape. They were not fit for Heaven; so they must all go to h.e.l.l; that was the naked, bald idea. Even if the children were saved, how were they prepared for the scenes of bliss? But when we once entertain the idea of a future process of reformation, a door of hope is opened for the worst of them.

A SHAFT OF RIDICULE.

That seems to be the grand solution of what has always seemed a barbarous proceeding. The want of such a solution has furnished Ingersoll and men like him with many a shaft of ridicule at the so-called merciful G.o.d of the Old Testament. This larger view shows Him to be all He claims; that His mercy is not confined to this short span of time; that it is from everlasting to everlasting.

One great advantage in believing in Restoration is, that any good influence effected on any person will have its legitimate effect in the next life. I need to explain. There are many persons who are not believers who yet rise to a high plane of character. But no matter how high they may rise, if they are not Christians the old theory would consign them to everlasting torment. No doubt, degrees of suffering are recognized, varying with the goodness or badness of the sinner. Still, if a person is not a Christian when he dies, the idea is that he must go to eternal torment, be his moral character what it may. Thus, any good influence that may be exerted upon him here is largely or entirely lost.

Even the incentive to do him good in a great degree is neutralized. An inevitable, though it may be an unconscious, arrest, is thus put upon every good impulse to benefit men except they are true Christians.

But consider how different is the incentive on the Restoration theory.

In that case, you can have the certainty that any good accomplished in this life will have its due effect in the next. A man may not be a Christian, but he may have risen to such a high character in this life that he will not have to pa.s.s through very severe pains and penalties in the next. There is, therefore, every incentive to do the most and the best we can for all men, be their character what it may, and whether they are Christians or not. We may be sure that any good effect attained will not be lost.

Is not this a strong plea for good works? And is it not a strong argument that Restoration is true? Is it to be supposed that the divine government is based on any possibility of good efforts being abortive?