Elder John R. Daily's Second Affirmative
on the First Proposition
In reply to the speech made by Mr. Ballard we admitted that there
is more than one sense in which persons are said to be dead, but
argued that in corporeal death, the separation of the spirit from
the body, it was the body and not the spirit that died, so that if
there was any subsequent resurrection it must be a resurrection of
the body - the thing which had died. We reminded the people that,
so far from taking the position that man was composed of body only
as Mr. Ballard had accused us, we had said that, at death, the body
goes to the dust as it was, and the spirit goes to God who gave it,
and that a subsequent resurrection must signify a resurrection of
the body and not of the soul or spirit. We called attention to the
statement made by our opponent that in Eph. 2:1, reference was had
to the resurrection or quickening of the soul, and admitted this to
be true. We then showed that Paul addressed those who had already
experienced that resurrection in Rom. 8:11, where he said, "But if
the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your
mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." We argued there
was mentioned here a resurrection of the mortal bodies after the
souls had been quickened, and that this proved beyond doubt or
question the resurrection of the body as well as the soul.
In reference to Luke 20:27-38, we argued that the resurrection of the saints only was spoken of, because it is said, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead," signifying that some would not be accounted worthy to obtain that world and that special resurrection which is the resurrection of the just. As he had said that he was interested in the spirit and not in the body we asserted that we were interested in the entire man - the body as well as the spirit, and to show that the work of atonement and redemption embraces both we quoted 1 Cor. 6:19-20: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." We argued from this that the body as well as the spirit was God's by reason of having been bought with the price of the blood of Christ, and that God would ultimately rescue and save all that is his; that if the body were never resurrected so much of the purchase of Christ's blood would never be redeemed. As to the tense of the verbs in the sentences, "They are equal unto the angels," and "The dead are raised," we showed that the present tense form of the verb is often used to express a special fact without any reference to the time of its occurrence or existence. All those mentioned in Luke 20:27-32 were dead corporeally and had been resurrected in spirit, but Christ said, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead." This shows clearly that the resurrection referred to was future and was the resurrection of the body.
In reply to the argument made on the passage, "As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive," we showed that two insurmountable difficulties attended the argument:
1. The resurrection of the body is here under consideration. If we grant that Paul speaks here of the resurrection of all men, it does not follow that all will be made holy and happy. For as this relates to the body only, that will not purify the soul.
2. But the context shows conclusively that the resurrection here spoken of is limited to the righteous or just. In this chapter Paul speaks of the first Adam and the last Adam. Each of these is a representative. And as all connected with the first die in consequence of his fall, so all connected with Christ the last Adam attain to the resurrection of the just. Such is evidently the meaning of the Apostle for he immediately explains, "But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." This shows that Paul is speaking of the resurrection of those only who are Christ's at his coming. But who are Christ's? "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Gal. 5:24. "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." Rom. 8:9. These passages show that some are Christ's while others are not His. Since all are not Christ's and Paul is speaking of those only who are Christ's, the conclusion is that he is not speaking of the resurrection of all mankind, but of those only who are Christ's at His coming. The teaching of this passage is, therefore, that as in Adam all (those who are his) die, even so in Christ shall all (those who are His) be made alive.
In regard to the argument he made on the passage, "Christ must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet," we quoted "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," and showed that death would not be destroyed until the bodies of the saints were raised, and that as our opponent had denied the resurrection of the bodies, he had denied that death would ever be destroyed. We asked the question, Will death be destroyed if the bodies of the saints remain dead? In reply to his argument that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption," we called attention to this language, "When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall have put on immortality," and asked him what part of man is mortal and corruptible. "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven." II Cor. 5:1-2. Mr. Ballard's argument from this passage was very able. He argued with much power that after the dissolution of this mortal body, we would then have another body from heaven and not from earth. In reply we read the fourth verse which says, "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." We argued that the body is "mortality" referred to here, and that it would be swallowed up of "life," eternal life, in its resurrection from the dead. W asked our opponent if he did not believe that the body was the mortal part, and if he did, we asked if he did not believe it would be swallowed up of life. The eternal life to be put on by the body after its dissolution, we argued, was the house from heaven, which would then swallow up mortality. We said that the eternal life possessed by the soul would clothe it till the body was raised, when the body also would be clothed with the same life, after which the entire man would be clothed and "mortality would be swallowed up of life."
In reference to the statement that Job meant that he would see God here on earth before he died, we asked him to prove that God was standing on the earth in any sense when Job said, "Mine eye seeth thee," in which he was not standing on the earth before that time, and asked if worms had then destroyed Job's body.
In reference to the transfiguration of Christ and the appearance of Moses and Elias, Mr. Ballard asked who Moses and Elias were. We showed that so far as the question in discussion was concerned it could make no difference who they were and spoke of Enoch, and Elijah, and Christ, as having gone to heaven in body, thus demonstrating to be true what he argued to be impossible. In regard to the passage, "The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation," Mr. Ballard said that a moral, or rather a spiritual resurrection here in this life is meant.
We showed this to be unreasonable, in fact,impossible, by demonstrating that one class spoken of had done good before coming forth, which proved they had already come forth in the sense spoken of by our opponent, and were promised another resurrection.
In reply to his universal application of John 17:2 we called attention to the fact that the Saviour in that passage restricted the number to whom he gives eternal life by saying, "To as many as thou hast given me." This shows that some were not given to Him. If all the human family had been given to Christ He would not have said, "as many as thou has given me." He said the Bible is a book about the present and not about the future life, but we insisted that it taught about both the present and the future.
I shall now continue my affirmative arguments. The Greek words, most usually translated eternal, everlasting, forever, and forever and forever, in the scriptures, are aion and aionios, the former a noun, and the latter an adjective. These words are compounded of the two words aei and on, the first signifying always or ever, and the second, being. By combining these two words we have aion, always being. This my opponent can deny only at the peril of his reputation for scholarship, or honesty, or both. I presume he will not deny it. In Grove's Greek Dictionary we find this word aion defined as follows: aion, (from aei ever, and on being), eternity; an age; life; duration or continuance of time; a period; a revolution of ages; a dispensation of providence; this world or life; the world or life to come. Aionios, eternal, immortal, perpetual.
I now propose to show that the use of these Greek words in the New Testament indicates that the inspired writers regarded them as the words best adapted to express endless duration. It is an established law of philology, the correctness of which is universally admitted, that a word must be taken in its literal sense unless the context imperiously demands a different meaning. Aion always designates an indefinite, unlimited time when it is employed merely for the purpose of designating futurity. I shall now refer you to a few places where these words are found in the original, and where endless futurity is necessarily expressed. I Tim. 1:16-17. In this passage aion is translated everlasting to describe the life of the righteous, and eternal to describe the existence of God. In these two instances it means endless duration. (We then read the following: Rom. 1:25; Rom. 9:5; Rom. 11:36; Rom. 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:18; Eph. 3:21; Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 4:18.) Aion in these passages is translated forever, forever and ever, and as these apply to the existence of the Deity there can be no doubt but that endless duration is meant.
My seventh argument is that where the word aion is translated everlasting, forever and eternal, in describing the future life and happiness of the righteous, they are declared to possess endless life. Life in its lowest and most common signification means natural and temporal life. In a secondary and higher sense it signifies morally spiritual life. Everlasting or eternal life must signify the perpetuation, or endless continuance in heaven, of the spiritual life of love and holiness which is commenced in this life. This life implies communion and fellowship with God (I John 1:3); the witness of our acceptance with God (Rom. 8:16); the love of God in the heart (Rom. 5:5); it is enjoyed in this world (John 5:24); it is to continue into the next (Rom. 6:22). I now invite attention to Daniel 12:2. It is here declared that those who are raised to everlasting life are those who sleep in the dust of the earth. The phrase, "dust of the earth," is not used in a figurative sense anywhere in the Bible. "Dust" and "earth" are sometimes used figuratively, but " dust of the earth, " NEVER! This proves the resurrection of the body, and that some will be raised to endless life. As further proof that the righteous will possess eternal life in the world to come I quote Mark 10:30. That the body, as well as the spirit or soul, will have endless life in the world to come I prove by Luke 20:35-36. It is here said that they cannot die any more, which shows they did die once. Mr. Ballard will not say that the spirit dies, and as we have already proved that it is the body that dies when the spirit separates from it, it follows that the bodies of the Adamic race will be finally raised to endless life. To prove it is the just only who are to be accounted worthy to obtain that world, I read Luke 20:35. I now read Acts 24:15 to prove that all will not be just at the resurrection. The proof thus adduced may be summed up as follows:
1. Some will be accounted worthy to obtain the world to come and will receive eternal life at the resurrection of the dead, and these are described as the just.
2. Some will not be accounted worthy to obtain that world and are described as the unjust.
3. It follows that some of the dead will be raised to endless life.
Owing to the great length of this discussion we have concluded to condense our articles and give only the principal arguments without regard to the order of the speeches. Having proved the resurrection of the body, and that some will be raised to endless life, we proceeded to prove the endless punishment of the finally impenitent and wicked. Our first argument on this part of the proposition was based on the nature of the divine law. The law of God, which is the great law of right, is, like Himself, perfect, and unchangeable, and eternal, and is a perfect transcript of the divine mind. It is holy, just and good, being the embodiment of God's perfection, goodness, holiness and wisdom. As it relates to his created dependencies, it is the outward and tangible expression of his own perfect mind and will. What the moral law of God is now, it always has been, and always will be. It is as enduring as his throne and government, and as unchangeable as his character. What it claims now it always will claim. This law as a rule of action, must necessarily embrace the penalty of transgression. The penalty is a sanction eternal as the law.
There can be no such thing as a law without a penalty, and as God's moral law is never repealed, its penalty must be endless. This law knows nothing of mercy, and makes no provision for the relief of those who transgress it and incur its penalty. There is no provision in the law whereby the offender can be justified or cleansed of his guilt.
Our next argument was based on the moral turpitude of sin. Sin derives its moral turpitude from the nature of the obligations violated, and the evil at which it aims. Infinite obligations rest upon us to love and serve that God whose character is infinite. An offence committed against such a Being is necessarily infinite, as it is the violation of infinite obligations to love and serve him. The evil at which sin aims shows it to be the direct opposite of holiness. If holiness be an infinite good, sin is an infinite evil. If endless holiness would be an infinite good to any intelligent being, endless sin is an infinite evil, because sin displaces holiness. Hence, the main points which concur in fixing the moral turpitude of sin are: it is the transgression of an infinite law, the violation of infinite obligation committed against the authority and goodness of an infinite Being, and displaces and opposes infinite good. Sin is, therefore, in its nature, design, and results, an infinite evil.
Our next argument was founded on the scriptural contrast between the righteous and wicked. That there is a contrast in this life between these two classes we presume will not be denied. The divine record says, "The Lord is angry with the wicked every day" (Ps. 7:11), while he "loves the righteous" (Ps. 146:8). This contrast is as strongly marked at death as the following passages show: Ps.37:37 compared with Job. 27:20-22; Ps. 116:15 compared with Prov. 11:7; Prov. 14:32, "The righteous hath hope in his death," compared with Prov. 14:32, "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness;" Num. 23:10 compared with II. Peter 2:12; and Luke 16:22 compared with Luke 16:23. These (p.264) passages prove that the wicked leave the world the subjects of God's manifest displeasure, in the enmity and strength of unholy passions, with all the guilt of a corrupt and unholy life. On the principle of analogy the contrast which exists at death will continue to exist after death unless there be an entire extinction of being or consciousness. Temporal death, being only a dissolution of the body, cannot affect it. The wicked man, dying in the full strength of moral depravity, carries that depravity with him into the future state, and as it has placed him in contrast to the righteous in this life, as to character and happiness, so it does in that state which immediately follows death. No moral change can be shown to occur between death and the resurrection, and the resurrection being a physical and not a moral change, it follows that the same contrast that exists between the righteous and the wicked at death will exist after the resurrection. This point is clearly and forcibly settled by the scriptures. A condition of happiness and reward is promised to the just which is not promised to the wicked. Luke 14:13-14. This shows there will be a resurrection peculiar to the just, distinguished from the resurrection of the unjust by blessings promised to the just.
We read Heb. 11:35 to prove there would be a better resurrection; that is, a resurrection better than another resurrection. In further proof of this contrast after the resurrection we quoted Acts 24:15, John 5:28-29 and Dan. 12:2.
The only passages noticed by Mr. Ballard in the foregoing arguments were the last two. In regard to John 5:28-29 he argued that the resurrection there mentioned was a coming forth from moral death in sin, and that the word graves was used figuratively. In reply we showed that the Greek word mnemeion there translated graves occurs forty-two times in the New Testament, and is not once used figuratively. As examples we read Matt. 27:52-53; John 11:17; and John 12:17. We further argued that if this be figurative, "all that are in their graves," must mean all that are in sin and unbelief. Then, "they that have done good," must mean that they did good while buried in sin. This is a contradiction of terms equivalent to saying, "They that have done good in doing evil." He quoted Ezek. 37:12 as a parallel passage, but we insisted that they could not be parallel, because in John 5:28 it is the graves, while in Ezek.
37:12 it is your graves.
In reply to my argument on Dan. 12:2, he argued that this had reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, and was to be understood in a figurative sense. To show it was literal and not figurative we read Dan. 12:8-13, showing that there are features of this remarkable passage which were sealed up till the time of the end. Daniel was to rest, his body was to sleep in death, and his soul to rest in the paradise of God "till the end be," at which time he is to stand in his lot, according to his moral character. As Daniel has not yet been raised up to stand in his lot, it follows that the prophesy is not yet fulfilled. On the supposition that it is figurative, we showed that the following would be the true meaning: "And many that sleep, figuratively, in the figurative dust of the figurative earth, shall figuratively awake, some to everlasting figurative life, and some to figurative shame, and everlasting figurative contempt." Such an interpretation is contradictory to reason and common sense. This passage can be explained away only by the artful tricks of sophistry.
Having proved the contrast between the righteous and the wicked after the resurrection, our next argument was based on the doctrine of a future and general judgment. To show that such a judgment is taught in the scriptures we presented the following propositions and proofs:
1. It is represented as a judgment to come. Acts 24:25; Rom. 2:6-16; II Tim. 4:8; Rom. 14:10; II Pet. 2:9.
2. As God is said to be judge of the quick and the dead, this judgment is to take place after death. II Tim. 4:1; Heb. 6:1-2; Heb. 9:27.
3. This day of judgment was said to be appointed. Acts 17:31. This shows that God has given the judgment a definite locality, a point that distinguishes it from all other acts of divine administration.
Our next argument was based upon the fact that there is revealed in the scriptures a place of future punishment in the future state. The terms used to designate the place of future punishment are sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus. Sheol, a Hebrew word, corresponding to the Greek word hades. That these two words were sometimes used to designate the grave and death we frankly admitted, but we proposed to prove that they were also employed to represent a place of future punishment. Grove's Greek Dictionary defines hades as the invisible world of spirits, the unseen place of the dead generally, but commonly a place of torment, the abode of the damned, hell, death. This is good authority but the Bible is better, and we now proceed to show by that infallible book that this word is thus used. Ps. 9:17 ["The wicked shall be turned into hell (sheol), and all the nations that forget God"]; Prov. 15:24; Prov. 5:5. The word hades is translated hell in Matt. 11:23. This did not take place in this life for two reasons: 1. The city of Sodom as to its temporal destruction had already been judged and punished. 2. The destruction of Sodom was to be more tolerable than that of Capernaum which could not be if it had been temporal.
The obvious meaning of the passage is that in the decision of the great day of judgment, the people of Capernaum would be deemed more guilty, and deserving of greater punishment than those of Sodom. This is referred to in Jude 6-7, where it is said that "Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." We next read Luke 16:22-23. We predicted that our opponent would call this a parable, but argued that it could make no difference as to the argument, for a parable is what occurs, as Christ never used a parable that was not a fact, so it proves a place of future punishment after death. We then referred to Rev. 20:13-15 and showed that an important distinction is here made between death or the state of the body, and hell the state of the soul. Death delivers up its
dead; that is, the bodies are brought up from death by the resurrection. Hell delivers up its dead; that is, the place where the souls of wicked men have remained, deliver up those souls to be reunited with the bodies. Thus death and hell (body and soul) shall be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death.
Mr. Ballard devoted quite a good deal of his time during this part of the debate in reading from ancient authors to prove that the Greeks used different terms to express endless duration from those used in the scriptures to designate the punishment of the wicked. He argued that all punishment was for the reformation of the punished, and that we reap where we sow. As we sow here to the flesh he said we would reap here. He showed that people were punished in this life by quoting Rom. 14:23. John 3:18-19, II Tim. 4:1, Ps. 19:8-11, Isa. 43:3, Ps. 89:31-33, I Cor. 3:13-15, and Heb. 12:9-11. He said that the circumstance of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable, and that there was not the slightest intimation that the punishment had reference to the future. He said it was a parable brought from Babylon according to Dr. Whitby, and said it was a story invented by the heathen as a bugbear to frighten timid minds with the idea of a future punishment. We had pressed him to tell us if he believed that all punishment is confined to this world. We had trouble to bring him out on this point. We said we did not know whose disciple he was: Murray's, Winchester's, or Ballou's. After being urged a number of times to answer he said, "I will answer his question if he will tell us if he believes any sin will be committed in the future world." He argued that the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, of which Jesus bade his disciples beware, was their notion of an endless punishment. He brought up infant damnation, quoted a poem on that subject with much fervor, and then admitted that we did not believe that doctrine. He read at length from books concerning the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Bloody Mary's persecutions, with the evident design of making the impression that such persecutions resulted from a belief of endless punishment.
In our reply we reminded the people that he had promised to tell us if the punishment was confined to this world if we would tell whether or not sin was committed in the future world. We said that there was no Bible authority for saying that any sin will be committed in the future world, but that sins committed here, unless forgiven, will attach to the future state and be punished there. We again appealed to him for an answer to our question: Is all punishment confined to this world? We admitted that punishment was sometimes reformatory, but denied that it is always so. We asked him if the punishment of the wicked antedeluvians by the flood was to reform them, and if the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire was reformatory. In reference to the rich man and Lazarus, we defined a parable as a representation of something real in life or nature from which a moral is drawn for instruction, and showed that if it was a parable it must be something real, as our Saviour never used an unreal or unreasonable circumstance as a parable. Mr. B. said also it was a fable invented by the heathens to frighten timid minds with the idea of a future punishment. We said that the Saviour must have known that, if it were true, and kept up the delusion by using it in his address to people who believed in a future punishment. This is a reductio ad absurdum, and proved the falsity of the statement made by my opponent. We denied that the leaven of the Scribes and the Pharisees was their notion of a future punishment, and proved that it was hypocrisy.
Proceeding with our affirmative argument we spoke as follows:
The Greek word gehenna is the word most frequently employed in the New Testament to designate a place of future punishment. I am aware that this term originally signified the valley of Hinnom, a place near the city of Jerusalem where children were cruelly sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Amorites; afterward held in abomination, and used to cast carcasses of dead animals and malefactors, which were consumed by fire that was constantly kept burning. As in process of time this place came to be considered as an emblem of hell, the name gehenna is frequently used in the New Testament to designate a place of punishment reserved for the wicked in a future state. In fact it is used only in that sense.
In Liddle & Scott's Lexicon it is defined as a place of everlasting punishment, hell-fire, hell. In Grove's Greek Dictionary it is defined hell, hell-fire, torments of hell. It is translated hell in Matt. 23:33. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell." The term "damnation of hell' is from the Greek phrase kriseos tes gehennes. Krisis means judgment, condemnation, final punishment.
This passage teaches that the place where this final punishment is to be inflicted is called hell or gehenna.
I now read Luke 12:4-5 and Matt. 10:28. The latter passage teaches that the soul is not killed by killing the body; that the hell here mentioned is entered after death; that it is not the grave, for those who kill the body have power to bury the dead; and that it is not the valley of Hinnom, for those who killed the body had power to cast it into that valley. These two parallel passages plainly teach that it is God who will cast soul and body into hell, and that this will be done after death. Therefore there is revealed to us in the scriptures a place of punishment in the future world.
The same conclusion is reached by the following process of reasoning:
1. Christ used this word hell or gehenna without any application or without any design and meaning whatever: or 2. He used it without any honesty, intending only to frighten them with literal burning in the valley of the son of Hinnom, an affliction they must have known they were absolutely in no danger of: or 3. He intended to reveal to them the fact that the ungodly would be consigned to a place of punishment in the future world. No one can for a moment entertain the first two suppositions. We are compelled to adopt the last, therefore, or violate every principle of reason and consistency.
Moreover, it is well known that the Jews at this time believed in a place of future punishment, and as they used this term in that way themselves, they must have so understood Christ. Their use of this term must have been known to Christ, and if they had been in error he certainly would have corrected them, but so far from this he used the term the same way himself. He would not have done this had he not intended to confirm their views and press upon them with additional force the same truth. It does seem to me that all who entertain the least regard for honesty and consistency will be compelled to accept the conclusion that Christ did teach that there is in the future state a place of punishment to which the finally wicked and impenitent will be consigned.
Another fact I now desire to establish is, that the scriptures represent the wicked as sent away or doomed to punishment at the same time that the righteous are blessed with future felicity. Matt. 13:40-43. II Thes. 1:6-10, I am aware that the latter passage is generally explained by Universalists as applying to the destruction of Jerusalem. What sense can there be in using such language, with that meaning, to inhabitants of a Gentile city, that could not be affected by the destruction of Jerusalem? I leave this question to be answered by the wise and sagacious. Surely such applications of God's word are too absurd to merit a serious consideration.
I now invite your attention to Rom. 2:5-9. This teaches that eternal life will be rendered to some, but to others will be rendered indignation, wrath, tribulation, and anguish, and this will be done at the same time as the 16th verse shows. Surely no one would be so blindly inconsistent as to apply this to the city of Jerusalem.
In reply to our question, "Does punishment extend into the future world?" Mr. Ballard said that, as we had said there was no Bible authority for saying that any sin would be committed in the future world, there was no Bible authority for saying that there would be any punishment in the future world. He denied that there is to be a day of judgment, and asked if it will be a day of twenty-four hours. He argued that as no such day is mentioned in the 15th chapter of 1 Cor., it is conclusive evidence that there will not be such a day. He said that we had a number of "hells," as we had referred to a number of Greek words as referring to a place of punishment. He said the word gehenna was used only twelve times, and was not used by any except Jesus and James, and argued that if that word referred to a place of future punishment all the sacred writers would have used it. He said that Paul, whose mission was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, did not refer to such a place in his writings.
We expressed ourselves as being highly gratified that he had at last taken his position in regard to the extent of punishment, and had told us that he believed it is confined to this world. We then asked him to tell us how the sinner is punished, whether the punishment is inflicted upon the conscience, or physical body, or both. As he had asserted that all punishment was to reform the punished, we asked him to prove that all are reformed by the punishment inflicted here. We showed that the fact of the day of judgment not being mentioned in 1 Cor. 15, was no proof there was no such day, as it is said elsewhere that God has appointed a day in which he would judge the world.
Proceeding with our affirmative arguments we spoke as follows: Having proved that there is a place of punishment in the future world, and that the wicked will be consigned to that place at the same time that the righteous are blessed with endless felicity, I now present my last argument on this proposition; viz, The future punishment of the wicked is represented as their END, their PORTION, and ETERNAL.
First, I propose to show that their punishment will be their end. In 1 Peter 4:17, the question is asked, "What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" David learned their end. "When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: Thou castedst them down to destruction."
This shows the end of the finally wicked and impenitent to be death. No wonder Balaam said in poetic strain, in view of the blessed end of the righteous, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his." If Universalism were true there would be no difference between the end of the most saintly man and the most ungodly sinner, and it would have been as well for Balaam to die the death of the latter as the former, for the end would have been the same! I now ask your attention to Rom. 6:21-22. "What fruit had ye in those things whereof ye are now ashamed! for the end of those things is death.
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life." Death is here placed in antithesis to everlasting life, and it cannot refer to mere temporal death, as such is the end of the most godly as well as the most ungodly. It shows, therefore, that the end of a sinful life persistently followed here is a state of death in antithesis to everlasting life.
According to Universalism sin leads to punishment, and punishment leads to LIFE! To teach that doctrine Paul should have said, the end of those things is life!
I now read Phil. 3:18-19. "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction." Universalism says, "Oh, no; their end is not destruction. They will only suffer destruction temporarily, but the END will be eternal life!" I pity the one who is so blind that he cannot see that such is a plain contradiction of God's word. But we have still more on this point. Heb. 6:7-9. "For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, received blessings from God: but that which beareth thorn and briars are rejected, and is nigh unto cursing: whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." While the inspired writer represents some as bearing thorns and briars, and asserts that their end is to be burned, he was persuaded better things of others, but Universalism teaches that it will not be the end of any to be burned, and that all shall finally enjoy the "things that accompany salvation!" What do you say Mr. Ballard? Will the state of burning be the end of any? If you say it will not, you contradict God's word. If you say it will, you yield the field to me and admit your defeat. If you say nothing about it, the audience will know you dare not try to meet the argument!
As a second step in this argument I intend to prove that the punishment of the wicked is their portion. One's portion is the part assigned him in the final settlement of an estate. Ps. 11:6. "Upon the wicked he shall reign snares fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." It is not said in the Bible anywhere that the portion of the wicked will be salvation or everlasting life. This argument will never be answered.
As the third and final step I propose to prove that the punishment of the wicked will be endless. My first proof is Matt. 25:41-42. "Then shall he also say to them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. " It is here taught, as plainly as language can teach any thing, that some will be banished into everlasting fire, in which banishment they will go away into everlasting punishment. The Greek adjective aionios, here rendered everlasting, expresses the duration of punishment, and is rendered eternal when applied to the life of the righteous. It follows that if eternal life into which the righteous are said to go signifies endless life, everlasting punishment into which the wicked are said to go signifies endless punishment! The words eternal, everlasting and forever are used to signify the eternity or endless being of God, with all his glory and power; the eternal existence of the Holy Ghost; the redemption of Jesus Christ; the habitation, inheritance, glory, happiness, and endless life of the righteous in heaven. The wisdom of God in selecting and applying terms to the condition of man in the future world is above all human criticism. It is blasphemy to say he has not used proper terms to express the duration of the joy and happiness of the righteous. Now as the same wisdom has applied the very same terms to express the duration of punishment of the wicked, we should bow in humble submission to divine authority, and not presume to doubt its correctness.
Let us notice a few passages. Mark 3:29: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." If there is no eternal damnation could anyone be in danger of it? Let my opponent answer. Matt. 18:8, "To be cast into everlasting fire. " II Thess. 1:9, "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." Matt. 25:41, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." 46th verse, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment. " Jude 6-7, "And the angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are sent forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
There is but one way to escape the force of these passages, and that is to impeach the wisdom and character of God for using improper terms to express the duration of final punishment. To argue that the word eternal and everlasting, in the above passages, mean "an age that is limited," is to argue that the eternal power, wisdom, and glory of the Godhead, the redemption of Christ, the happiness, glory, and life of the righteous, and heaven itself can last only for "an age that is limited." What an eternal blank God's universe will be when this "limit age" of Universalism terminates! If Universalism attempts to meet and sustain these consequences it must sink beneath them as the feeble moth beneath the ponderous wheel.
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
