DESTINY OF THE WICKED by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 28, 1878

DESTINY OF THE WICKED.

By J. H. Waggoner

The subject of future punishment is just now receiving large attention, and the newspapers have aided in raising the interest. Under the title of the Doctrine of Hell, nearly every prominent newspaper in the land has opened its columns for the discussion. It has had the effect to bring the subject of future life before the public, and an interest has been awakened which cannot fail to insure a hearing to the truth. It has also developed the fact that there is no unity of faith in the churches. Many ministers take positions which, if taken by those outside their church, would be ranked as the strongest heresy. The following from the Independent of March 7 shows how true is this statement:—

“Western Methodism needs looking after on the doctrine of hell. One of their theological professors teaches, and prints it, that the suffering of hell is quite endurable, just that ‘gentle fire’ that the Catholics used to pray for, and a great deal more desirable than non-existence. Now The Northern Christian Advocate prints an article from a minister, the Rev. David Keppel, on ‘The Morals of Hell’—strange title—to show that hell is a perfectly moral place, and that there cannot be any sin there. Indeed, Mr. Keppel believes that hell is a ‘well-regulated prison, in morality only second to Heaven.’ ‘In the great eternity beyond the Judgment,’ he believes, ‘sin will be impossible.’ For is it not evident that not one of the ten commandments will be broken? There will be no graven images to worship, no Sabbath to profane; murder, adultery, and theft will be impossible. There will be no courts of law to bear false witness in; and no opportunity to covet houses, lands, wives, or cattle, where there are no goods to covet. Here is a theodicy with a vengeance. Whether there is to be any suffering we are not told. Probably it will consist in the mortification felt at not being able to sin. We do not know that we have ever met a more curious illustration of the tendency of some people to put a sort of corporeity about sin, and imagine that it consists in a visible act, rather than in a choice of the soul.”

In the same paper is an article of real interest from Prof. Lacroix, of Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, O., entitled, “Rothe on Future Punishment.” It opens as follows:—

“It will be painful to many to learn that the great theologian, Richard Rothe, was unorthodox on the subject of future punishment. In the third volume of his ‘Dogmatik,’ pp. 132–169, he discusses the subject in great detail, and from all of its sides,—traditional, exegetical, and speculative. We here submit a synopsis of his conclusions, as a mere theological curiosity.”

The following is the latter part of this synopsis:—

“Among the many mostly unsound objections to the eternity of the pains of the damned there are a few that are not easily answered. Of such are these: The bliss of the saved would be materially disturbed by the thought of the eternal sufferings of members of the same race.

“The existence of an eternal hell of suffering creatures is inconsistent with God's domination in his creation. The kingdom of God would not be completed should there still linger within its scope a class of beings under the relation of absolute opposition to God. But in what manner is the actuality of sin to be eliminated from the universe? By the reformatory effects of future punishment upon the sinner? By no means. There is absolutely no hope in this direction. The efforts of all possible grace have already been exhausted upon the sinner. He is definitively obdurate. His conscience is extinct. Punishment has upon him no shadow of tendency toward salvation.

“If, therefore, the pains of the damned are not eternal, and if future punishment cannot lead to reformation, what resort is left? There is but one, viz., that the pains of the damned will eventually issue in the extinction of their being.”

“A speculative basis is found for this view in a correct conception of the nature of the human spirit. The human soul is not an absolutely simple abstract entity; but it is a concrete thing. As such it is subject to the law of dissolution. Sin is per se destructive. It ruins, it destroys the soul that practices it. The punishment of hell consists in the sinner's being left a prey to the process of destruction, which is already preying upon his very being. The completion of this process is absolute death, that is, it is the completed destruction of that concrete reality which constitutes the human personality. The dissolution of material organisms is a species of combustion. This holds also true of the destruction of the soul. As the dissolution of material organisms is their combustion, so the corrosive, the disorganizing action of sin upon the soul is the soul's combustion. In this sense the biblical figure of hell fire is strictly grounded in reality. The wages of sin is ruin, destruction, death. As the flame feeds upon the consuming candle until its whole substance is dissipated and exhausted, so the wasting disease of sin feeds upon the substance of the soul, until the personal organism is entirely broken down and destroyed.”

“Such is the conclusion arrived at by Rothe. It would require almost a volume to give all the steps by which he reaches it. The conclusion itself is far from new. It was held by Hermas, and Justin Martyr, and Arnobius in the ancient church, and by many in later times. All that Rothe has added to the subject is the philosophical basis upon which he has grounded it.

“But is this view of Rothe's worthy of the attention of the church? The one fatal objection to it is its evident conflict with the plain sense of Scripture. Apart from this fatal objection, it seems to us the only rational relief from the terribleness of the notion of the eternal torments of the lost. It hangs a fearful, terrific doom over the sinner, and it sweeps a dark shadow from the throne of God. It makes a theodicy possible. But is it true?”

We can almost imagine that the Professor is writing in irony. “It hangs a fearful doom over the sinner, and it sweeps a dark shadow from the throne of God.” But “it will be painful to many to learn that the great theologian” believed it! Why? what is there to be feared from a doctrine which leads to such desirable results—which makes a theodicy possible? Alas, it is “unorthodox”! What is orthodox on this subject can never be learned from the discussions now progressing in the churches. Even the Independent most highly approves a discussion of the subject in the North American Review between some of the most eminent men of the country, of which it says:—

“The great value of the North American's discussion, as a whole, is that it is not exegesis but theodicy. It does not attempt to interpret the Bible, but to make God just and good.”

These eminent men, all ministers, have not learned that “the world by wisdom knew not God,” and none “can search out the Almighty to perfection.” For the correct knowledge of God we are entirely dependent on his revelation of himself. It is only in the correct interpretation of the Bible that we come to an assurance that God is both “just and good.” Let the wise of this world spend their time and strength in vain speculations; we shall not cease to thank God for the Bible, the blessed revelation of divine justice and goodness.

J. H. Waggoner.