Is Future Punishment Eternal?
By Wm. Penniman
If we carefully consider a few quotations on the subject of eternal punishment, we shall see how the mind is influenced by early education, and also that the truth shines more clearly in contrast with erroneous theories. Learned ministers, to oppose the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, say, “If it is all right for God to afflict for sin an hour, or a year, as facts show that he does here on earth, then it will be just to afflict eternally; the principle is the same.” This is strange logic. If it is right for a father to chastise his son for five minutes for bad conduct, does it follow that he has the right to chastise him for five hours, or five years? A word to the wise is sufficient. The late Joseph Cook said, “It is not the best way to teach the truth of future punishment, to say that a man is punished forever and ever for the sins of that handbreadth of duration we call time.” He also said, “If there is eternal sin, there will be eternal punishment.” It seems that Mr. Cook was in favor of handling the subject carefully. Why, then, believe a doctrine which can not be plainly preached? Paul did not shun to declare “all the counsel of God.” Acts 20: 27. There must be something wrong somewhere. Mark that Mr. Cook did not say there is eternal sin, but, “If there is eternal sin,” etc. When Satan, the evil angels, and all the wicked are destroyed, the universe will be clean. Then there will be no more sin, “no more death, . . . neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Rev. 21: 4. “The Jewish church,” Mr. Cuyler says, “and all Christian denominations, with the exception of a few so-called Protestants, have believed in future retribution and in the eternity of punishment. These articles are found in all their confessions of faith, and this constitutes very strong evidence that they have read the Scriptures aright on this point.” We regard Mr. Cuyler as an able writer and a good man, yet we think he has not, owing to the education received in the theological schools, read his Bible so nearly “aright” as some of the “so-called Protestants.” He seems to take it for granted that the Jewish church is orthodox on the punishment question. If it could be proved that they have not accepted the doctrine from pagans or papists, the originators of it, the position would have more weight; but did not the Jews have much erroneous theology at the time of Christ? The Sadducees did not believe in angels or spirits, and denied the resurrection. Then may not the Jews have had erroneous ideas of the extent of the punishment of the wicked? A prominent Methodist theological professor has lately published a book in which he undertakes to show that suffering may be eternal, and yet of a nature so mitigated as to be blessedness compared with extinction of being. If God so mitigates the punishment, why not admit the sinner into heaven? In essays read before a theological seminary, the question was not in regard to the truthfulness of future punishment, but “whether the Congregational polity should recognize anything else but the endlessness of punishment.” The only argument used was, “If endless punishment is not true, then Christ died in vain, or came into the world on a useless errand.” No doubt most of these erroneous views can be accounted for on the ground of wrong education, and also wrong definitions and their introduction into creeds. Christ’s mission was not in vain if the sinner does not suffer eternally. He died that man might have eternal life; and he would have us give diligence to make our “calling and election sure;” for so an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1: 10, 11.