Extremes to be Avoided by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 21, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 32.

Extremes to be Avoided.

By Editor

THERE seems to be a natural tendency in the human mind to go to extremes. In what we like or dislike, what we believe or disbelieve, we naturally partake of a partisan spirit, and elevate one side too high, and thrust the other down too low. In this article it is our object to point out what we consider dangers, or dangerous errors, into which there is a liability to run on the subject of punishment; on the infliction of the penalty of the divine law.

That there has been a recoil from the belief in eternal torment, from the terrible descriptions of the unending burnings and agonies of the lost, is too well known to call for a word of proof. Not only have "the common people" rejected that old view, but the ministry, even the Methodist ministry, have rejected it; not, perhaps, in theory, but in fact, or in their minds and feelings. We feel warranted in making this statement by the report of a Cincinnati paper, four years ago, at the General Conference, when a reporter asked a number of bishops and other eminent men in the church; and they readily disavowed their belief in torment in literal fire. Now in repudiating that point in the long-time faith of the church, they of course accept the idea that the Scripture expressions on that subject are figures of speech, and not literal descriptions of that which shall be. And that is exactly what the Universalists always believed, and the orthodox always denied. The real ground of controversy, so long contested by the orthodox and the Universalists, has been yielded by the former. They profess to believe just as they did of old, but it is in an "accommodated" sense, as the German Neologists take the Scriptures, or in their "spiritual meaning," as the American churches denominate the same thing.

Of course there are exceptions; it would be strange indeed if there were not. We are happy to say that Bishop Merrill has not conceded an inch of ground to the Universalists.

Only one reason can be given for this general declension from the old faith on that point. The descriptions of eternal torment, of the eternity of the torment, and of the eternally increasing torment, were so terrible, so shocking to our human sympathies, that there was a natural recoil from their horrors. But in rejecting that faith they have not adopted anything in its stead; so that the people are left without any definition of the penalty of sin to be finally inflicted by the Judge of all the earth. What spiritual fire and brimstone may be, no one has undertaken to inform the world. It is only a matter of endless conjecture. Then, taking up Professor Stuart's system of "hermeneutics," wherein the book of the Revelation is treated as a highly-colored "drama," or a "panorama" of events then past, or transpiring in the time of the apostle, and we have the whole subject set aside, to the great peace and comfort of all carnally-minded people! For whether this dramatic scene be considered in a serious or comical light, must depend altogether on the frame of the mind of the beholder. In either case it can be of no possible interest to us in this generation! It may be inquired if that fanciful view of Professor Stuart was ever received by orthodox people. Yes; in its time it was well spoken of by ministers and church papers. Why? Oh, it was accepted in their extremity as a check on Adventism. But Adventism rests on the sure basis of God's word, and outlives all the "checks" which are vainly thrown in its path.

But not all who reject the horrors and fallacies of the recent church faith—for it was part truth and part fallacy—have consented to float on an open sea without compass or rudder. Many, by reading the Scriptures, have settled into the conviction that they actually mean what they say, and that "The soul that sinneth, it shall die;" Eze. 18:4; that "all the wicked will God destroy." Ps. 145:20. When we consider that the popular belief—if it can be called a belief—is nearly a negation; that in rejecting the scenes of imaginary horrors they have rejected the most positive statements of the divine word, this faith that the wages of sin is death, or everlasting destruction, is one of singular merit.

1. It rests upon the plain, literal reading of the Scriptures, given in hundreds of texts. It is not a doctrine of inferences.

2. It is free from all the objections that press around the theory of unending torment.

3. It does not have to evade any of the explicit statements of the Bible concerning torment in a lake of fire and brimstone. Death and destruction may assuredly be inflicted in a lake of fire.

Having arrived at this conclusion, is the subject thereby free from danger by extremes? We think not. Many who have adopted this view, which we think to be in full harmony with the Scriptures, have had their minds influenced by the recoil from the former faith, and have shown the effect in their teachings in regard to this penalty of the law. We cannot better illustrate our meaning than by quoting from the late George Storrs. He said:—

"The wages of sin, then, is not suffering, but death. It is not dying, but death. It is not the pain of dying, but to have life extinguished—to be dead; that only is death. . . . No pangs, no struggles, nor agonies, connected with dying, are death, or any part of death."

That this was spoken in an argument made to prove that the wicked will not have a resurrection does not affect our present purpose. We have heard the same position taken by those who do believe in the resurrection of the unjust. In our pamphlet entitled, "A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust," published in 1870, we made the following remarks on Mr. Storrs' view of the infliction of the penalty:—

"1. Our ideas of the penalty of the law must always stand corrected by the exposition and practice of the divine Lawgiver. His first announcement of the penalty was this: 'Thou shalt surely die.' But Mr. Storrs says it is not dying, but 'to be dead.' If so, it should read, Thou shalt surely be dead. The soul that sinneth, it shall be dead. The wages of sin is to be dead. But such terms are never used in the Scriptures. The phrase, shalt die, clearly points to the process whereby he should become dead. I am aware that this statement of Mr. Storrs is often reiterated in controversies on the subject of life and death; but it is erroneous nevertheless. 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die'—not shall be dead. Now if Mr. Storrs could devise some means whereby the sinner can be dead without undergoing the process of dying, then with more show of reason might he endeavor to disconnect the pangs, struggles, and agonies connected with dying, from the penalty. But the divine expressions include the process of dying—shalt die—and his assertion contradicts both reason and Scripture. We do not deny that the penalty reaches to the state of being dead; for there is no such thing as death unless that consummation be reached. But we do deny that it excludes the act of dying, with its pangs and agonies. Both are included in the penalty.

"2. If 'to be dead' were alone the penalty, and the pangs, etc., of death, were 'not the penalty or any part of it,' then all the 'pangs, struggles, and agonies, connected with' the infliction of the penalty, death, are so much over and above the penalty, and, of course, according to Mr. Storrs' showing, so much of manifest injustice on the part of the Being who inflicts the penalty! And it would therefore be necessary for God to insure an easy, peaceful death, to the sinner, in order that he might be dead, in accordance with justice, that is, without having added to the 'penalty clearly indicated,' 'pangs, struggles, or agonies,' which are no part of the penalty, and cannot, therefore, be justly inflicted! But against this we say:—

"3. God has not only threatened death to the evil-doer, but he has also threatened 'tribulation and anguish,' torment with fire and brimstone, plagues with grievous sores and pains. And all the illustrations given in the Scriptures, of the justice and wrath of God against sin, include such ideas as these. Now these are the desert of sin, and part of its penalty, or they are not. If they are, then Mr. Storrs' exposition of principles is without foundation in truth. But if they are not, as Mr. Storrs asserts, then, according to his theory, these threats can never be fulfilled without God thereby proving himself unjust!"

We have heard it said, and no doubt with honest intention, that the second death would be instantaneous, as no one could live a single moment in fire and brimstone. This is presumption; it is a conclusion not at all consistent with the declarations of the Scriptures. It is forbidden by the fact that all will be rewarded according to their works; that it will be more tolerable for some than for others in that day. The danger which we wish to guard against is that of belittling the penalty of the divine law. Take Rev. 14:10, 11; put any construction which is possible, within the bounds of reason, upon this language, and it gives the idea of something extremely terrible. It is either this or it is nothing. If it is not torment, if it is not in fire and brimstone, and if it is not continued through a series of days and nights, then we fail to see what can be made of it. We are well aware that, in regard to the question of duration in this text, similar words are used in Isa. 34:9, 10, where all admit that the time is limited, that it is not unending. And we know that forever is used in Ex. 21:6, where the period indicated might end in a moment, because it means during a man's life, which might end at any time. But the terms used in Rev. 14:9, 10, do not admit the idea of instantaneous death, or of merely momentary torment.

And we question the propriety of that method of reasoning by which it is proposed to determine the amount of punishment which may or may not consistently be meted to transgressors of the law of God. What justice requires, whether an eternity of torment, or a speedy death, is not ours to determine. We do not and cannot know, in this state where "we know in part," the sinfulness of sin, the justice of God, nor the interests of justice which may be involved before all the universe; we are not competent to sit in that tribunal. All that we can know of the issues of that day must be by direct revelation. And the Scriptures speak in no uncertain tones. "The wrath of God" will rest upon the sinner; the terrors of that wrath we cannot measure. "The wages of sin is death," and they who prove themselves unworthy of eternal life, who will not come to Christ, the only Saviour, that they may have life, will "utterly perish in their own corruption," and the indignation and anger of the Lord will cease in their destruction. Isa. 10:25.

While we fully believe in the utter destruction of the wicked—that they will be left neither root nor branch, and be as though they had not been,—we believe also that "the terrors of the Lord" are as far beyond our conception as are the joys and glory that God hath prepared for them that love him. Let us not detract from that reverence and awe with which all should listen to his words.