OBJECTIONS TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT
At the end of the last paper it was noted that there are a number of objections to the Scriptural teaching on eternal punishment.
Objection 1
It has been alleged that this doctrine lacks valid authoritative support. Now if the Bible be rejected as God’s Word, then clearly, this doctrine does lack such support, for apart from His revelation in the matter nothing reliable or authoritative is known. But once the Bible is accepted as valid then abundant support is found therein. Not only did the Lord Jesus teach it as in Mark 9.43-50; Luke 16.19-31; John 5.24-31 etc, but also Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude all refer to it.
Paul speaks of "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess 1.9), and like phrases. Peter speaks of the Day of the Lord and man’s liability to perish though God’s wish is that he should not (2 Pet 2.9; 3.9-10). James 3.6 speaks of the "fire of hell (Gehenna)". Jude v.7 speaks of "the vengeance of eternal fire". John in Revelation 21.8 speaks of the "lake which burneth with fire and brimstone". The author of the Hebrew Epistle speaks of "a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (10.27).
Objection 2
Some allege that eternal punishment is not commensurate with temporal sin: that sin committed during the brief span of man’s life cannot merit eternal punishment. This objection is invalid because it presupposes a right apprehension of the gravity of sin which God alone can estimate.
A crime against an infinite Person is an infinite offence meriting an infinite punishment. To strike an adult in the face would be a serious affair; to do the same thing to a policeman would be still more serious; whilst to do the same thing to the Queen would be a grave insult calling forth severe punishment. The dignity of the person gives gravity to the crime.
Furthermore, a sin may be performed in a small fraction of time, but in its consequence lasts for, it may be, a whole lifetime. None argue against this. It is a hard indisputable fact; it is a law of the God of nature.
Besides which, who is the creature, the thing formed, to say to the Creator, the One who formed it, "What doest thou?" in the matter of the duration of punishment as in other matters. Added to which, it may be observed that there are degrees of punishment. Not all suffer alike during eternity. He who knows the privileges, circumstances, environment, upbringing, etc, of the individual, knows rightly how to apportion punishment.
While, lastly, it may be remarked that since man is an eternally existent being, his birth being the commencement of eternal existence, it follows as a necessary issue that nothing but eternal punishment can possibly be for the one who fails to avail himself of the salvation which is in Christ Jesus. Since no neutral position is possible, it is either salvation or wrath. Believers will accept unquestioningly God’s plain utterances.
Objection 3
It has been alleged that this doctrine is incompatible with a God of Love. But to this we may reply, that God is both Light and Love concurrently; and He has not lavished His love on man irrespective of righteousness but consistent therewith. This enables God righteously to accept the believing sinner, and the knowledge of this gives the sinner rest. Had God not satisfied His righteous claims, but dispensed mercy regardless thereof, it might ever be held as a contingency that could occur, that justice would put in a claim despite mercy, and force the issue against the believer. But such a possibility is not existent, for justice has been met, whilst mercy can flow consistently therewith. God is righteous as well as merciful, and the one who will not have love and mercy must have the execution of judgment without mercy.
What would one think of a monarch who, through kindness, failed to deal punitively with rebels in his realm? What of a father who, loving his children, permitted them to do as they liked, all unchecked? And is God below this standard? Will He allow His law to be despised, His Word to be contemned, and His rule to be ignored without rising up to judge the offenders?
God has gratuitously provided a way of escape and it is for all persons to avail themselves of it on the simplest condition, i.e. faith. How can it be possible for us to "escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" (Heb 2.3).
We should now mention those things taught by false teachers, which altogether lack Biblical support.
Annihilation
Those who teach this error cite such passages as 2 Thessalonians 1.9, "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord", and again Matthew 10.28, "Fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell", assuming the word "destruction" means annihilation. But in neither case is this so, as an examination of their usage in the New Testament will clearly show.
The word in 2 Thessalonians 1.9 means disaster or ruin, and the word in Matthew 10.28 translated "destroy" means to spoil, mar, or render unfit for its original purpose, as a broken cup is rendered unfit for its original purpose of containing liquid. So the man who is "lost" (as this latter word is also translated) is rendered totally unfit for the original purpose for which God created him.
Added to this, the doctrine of annihilation is contradictory to the whole tenor of Scripture, which reveals that the believer is destined to eternal bliss whilst the unbeliever suffers "eternal death" and all are included in one class or another. If some object that body and soul united could not eternally exist in the Lake of Fire, they should recall the bush which was not consumed (Ex 3.2), and the three men in the fiery furnace who were preserved despite its ferocity (Dan 3.19-30). They also should note that the "beast" and the "false prophet" after being there for a thousand years are still spoken of as there (Rev 20.10), from which it follows that if they can survive its flame for one thousand years there is no logical reason why they should not survive eternally.
The reference in 1 Corinthians 15 to the last enemy, which is "death", being destroyed (v.26) constitutes no difficulty if regard is had to the context. The word "destroyed" means here to put out of action (it is a different word from those in 1 Thessalonians 1.9, and Matthew 10.28), and refers to the time when death will no longer hold men’s bodies, when soul and body will no longer be separate, but both united will be disposed of by God according to his own revealed plan. Death and Hades will be superseded by Gehenna.
Universal salvation
It would seem too evident to need emphasis that this is an unscriptural doctrine. What surely can Revelation 21.8 mean if all ultimately will be saved? Is the Lake of Fire remedial? If so, where is the hint in Scripture to that effect? Paul states that "God…will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2.3-4), but negatively Peter states that God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Pet 3.9). That is His wish. It is not His counsel that so it shall be. In His ways He has placed man on his own responsibility. Manifestly the plain teaching of the Bible is that some will be saved eternally and some will be lost eternally.
Purgatory
This is a doctrine invented in hell, and propagated with the money-making intent to exploit ignorant souls and constantly to hold them in mental suspense for the sake of base gain. Clearly the time of "testing" is in life, not after. Probation is now; final issues are settled at death, not probationary ones.
Whatever 1 Peter 3.18-23 means it certainly cannot teach the general doctrine of purgatory for all, since that passage only relates to those to whom Noah preached, and who in his days, were disobedient. 1 Corinthians 3.15 lends no support to the theory. "Saved so as by fire" is not indicative that the person undergoing a period of suffering, is saved out of it, but that, even if his work may be consumed by the fire of judgment, he himself is saved despite it. Neither Hades nor Gehenna are remedial; they are final, and once entered the person is hopelessly lost. May God imprint these words on our hearts by His Spirit.
Erroneous views affect the person of Christ
We ask the annihilationist: Was our Lord Jesus annihilated when He died? For verily He was man. We ask the Universalist: If all men ultimately will be saved why then did Christ die at all? What made His death imperative? Of the one who claims limited and not eternal duration of punishment, we enquire: Was not the Lord Jesus an infinite substitute for sinners? For we have seen that sin is an infinite offence against an infinite God demanding infinite punishment. If, however, the punishment be finite, and of limited time, then the substitute equally must be finite, which means he is man and not God, which thing is a lie.
May God in His mercy spare writer and reader from any error on this profound and mysterious doctrine and give constant grace simply to bow to what is written, seeking to understand those things which are revealed, and leaving the rest to a just God and a Saviour.
Concluded.
