Love's Final Victory / Ultimate Universal Salvation on the Basis of Scripture and Reason

by Horatio

It used to be a favorite method of illustrating the eternity of torment to suppose that after a million of years one grain of soil were taken from the earth; then after another million of years, another grain; then after another million of years, another grain; and so on until the whole of the earth had disappeared; then repeat the proceeding ten thousand millions of times; and then eternity would be only beginning! Imagine, if you can, a soul in torment all these uncounted ages; and then think of the process being repeated over and over again, without end, without end, without end! No man can believe it.

But if you tell him he is to suffer until he is reclaimed, he can believe that; it comes easily within the scope of his imagination—yes, and of his reason too. Hence it will have more effect on a man's conviction, and will produce a greater influence on his life, to be told that if he dies impenitent he will suffer until he repents, and is reformed.

Now when we consider the natural affinity which the mind has for truth, and when we recognize the impossibility of believing in endless torment, we have a strong presumption that the theory is not true. At all events, in the present unsettled state of the question would it not be a wholesome thing to take the more limited view of suffering, and have men believe it in their inmost souls, rather than the view of eternal torment, with a hesitating, half hearted presentation of it, and consequently without producing genuine conviction? This is a serious question; let all serious minds ponder it.

The want of candor in expressing definite conviction on this subject seems to me to be a formidable barrier to church union. The following article of mine on this point lately appeared in The Homiletic Review:

The contemplated organic union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches in Canada has not yet been consummated. One thing that involved some delay has been the discovery of a basis of doctrine that would suit the three churches. At length such a basis has been formulated. It contains one statement, however, which I am rather surprised to see. It says that the doom of the finally impenitent will be "eternal death." Now what does that mean? Might it not be honestly taken to mean two very different things? Might it not be taken to mean "eternal torment" or "eternal extinction?" The manifest ambiguity of such a statement would seem to me highly objectionable. I quoted the phrase to two thoughtful friends, and asked them what it meant. They made a long pause, and said they did not know.

If the phrase has been adopted on purpose to make it the expression of the two views referred to, such a course is surely wanting in candor and honesty. To be sure it is a Scripture phrase; but inasmuch as it is taken to express two very different views, it ought not to be adopted. By all means let us be clear and simple and straightforward.

There has been too much vagueness on the part of preachers on this most solemn theme. Lately I heard a preacher speaking of unsaved men as "miserable failures, going out into the darkness." Now what did he mean? Either he has no definite idea himself, or he judged it unwise to express it; or he was afraid to express it. Does not such a statement as I have quoted pander directly to infidelity?

Surely the time has come when we ought candidly to recognize that on this question there may be a legitimate difference of opinion. There are men whose godliness and ability are beyond all question, who hold diverse views on this matter. Whether it be the theory of eternal torment or extinction or Restoration that is held, let us concede all honor and confidence to the men who hold it. The more of that spirit we really possess, the sooner will the divine light break upon our souls.

With regard to a basis on which conscientious men can really unite, is it well to go so much into detail? Mere creeds will never conserve the truth. Men will think, whether we will or no; and men will have diverse views. Do we not put a premium on dishonesty by constructing a creed for all details, and expecting men to subscribe to that creed? Have we not had too much of that in the past? A noted official in the Methodist body told me lately that he does not believe in eternal torment, but that if it were known, he would lose his position. But eternal torment is in the Methodist creed, and he had profest his adherence to it. It is so with many Presbyterians. I have spoken privately with several, and not one profest to believe in that doctrine. But we say, "Truth is mighty and will prevail." Yes, I believe it will; but it would surely prevail faster if we were always loyal to it. Besides, is there anything that makes more directly for the degeneracy of character than such evasion?

To avoid all peril of this kind, how would it do to take for a basis of doctrine this simple statement, "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God?" Or, "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to contain the Word of God?" Then, with further "light breaking from God's holy word," we would not need to expunge anything from our creed, or add anything to it.