Which is True? by E. GOODRICH

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 5, 1864

Which is True?

By E. GOODRICH

TOUCHING the final destiny of the wicked, there are three different views entertained by those who believe the Scriptures. The first view is that the wicked, the finally impenitent, are to suffer eternal conscious misery. The second view is the doctrine of universal salvation, which teaches that all men are to be finally holy and happy. The third teaches that the ungodly are to be utterly and forever destroyed.

As but one of the above positions can be true, which is the correct one? But as my object is not so much to decide as to obtain a rule by which the question may be measured, and a satisfactory result reached, the foregoing views may be treated as suppositions. And admitting that it was the design of the prophets and apostles to teach that the wicked would be eternally tormented, we may ask, Have they used language the best calculated to teach such a doctrine? In a word, have they used the strongest language that could be used in setting forth such a sentiment. If they have not, then there may be a doubt as to their design in teaching the doctrine.

Again: If we are to suppose that it was the design of inspiration to teach that all are to be finally saved, then we may reasonably expect the doctrine to be expressed in the plainest and most positive manner.

And again: If the doctrine that the wicked are to be utterly destroyed is the one designed to be taught in the Scriptures, we may expect to find that those who wrote upon the subject have used the strongest language in their possession, whereby such a sentiment might be inculcated.

To repeat: Is the doctrine of eternal conscious misery taught in the strongest manner in which it could

have been taught had this been the design of those who wrote concerning the matter? This will hardly be claimed, even by its most zealous advocates; for there are many ways and places in which the sentiment could have been presented in a more forcible manner than it is.

Again: Admitting that universal salvation is true, is the language through which and by which the doctrine is taught all that it could be? Certainly not; for there are many instances in which the doctrine might have been set forth in a more positive manner, and in a much stronger light. When the question was asked, Lord, are there few that be saved? (Luke xiii, 23,) instead of saying, 'Strive to enter in at the strait gate, for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able,' how easy it would have been for the Saviour to say, Ye do greatly err, not knowing the eternal purpose of God. For verily I say unto you, all are to be saved. And instead of saying to his apostles, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned,' (Mark xvi, 15, 16,) how much more in keeping with the doctrine of universal salvation to have said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be the more easily and happily saved, nevertheless all are to be saved.

Again: In the parable of the net cast into the sea, which gathered of every kind; inasmuch as when the net was brought to land only the good were gathered into vessels, while the bad were cast away, the doctrine that all men are to be saved was not so clearly defined as it might have been. And although neither space nor propriety will permit to refer to them, nevertheless there are an untold number of just such instances in the above, showing that if it had been the design of Christ and his apostles to teach universal salvation, they could have used much more appropriate language than what they did use.

And as touching the doctrine of destruction, how does the language used by the prophets and apostles compare with what it might have been had they wished to teach this doctrine? In the last chapter of the Old Testament we read: 'For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.' Whether the prophet Malachi did or did not wish to teach the destruction of all the ungodly it seems very difficult to imagine how he could have taught the thing more positively, had he believed it; for the language is all that it could have been had this been his design.

Again: In the parable of the tares and the wheat, while the wheat is gathered into the barn, the tares are gathered in bundles to be burned. And admitting that Christ did not wish to teach the destruction of the wicked, it must be admitted that the figure used is as strong as any that could have been used had he wished to teach it. But as the design of this brief article is to invite attention to the above topics, if any are hereby induced to give the subject of men's final destiny a more thorough investigation, the object of the writer will be accomplished.

E. GOODRICH.

Edinboro, Pa.