The Doctrine of Endless Punishment

William G. T. Shedd

• Publisher: Left of Brain Books
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781396319686
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Théologie chrétienne

Is HELLFIRE a myth?There are a lot of questions and controversies today, even in Christendom about the existence of hellfire and its contradiction to God's loving and forgiving nature.While some believe that Hellfire doesn't exist.Some equate the word 'hell' to 'grave', meaning that sinners will stay dead, rather than burn in hell.Others don't think of hell as an everlasting fire, but a onetime deed where sinners are thrown and destroyed at once, instead of spending eternity burning.Even Pope John Paul II during his reign over the Catholic Church described hell as, "the state of those who freely and definitely separate themselves from God, the source of all eternal life and death... not a punishment imposed eternally by God."With these contradictions, the question persists, "is hell even real?"In this book, William G. T. Shedd, a theologian presents the answer with three arguments; The History of the Doctrine, The Biblical Argument and The Rational Argument.Read the answer for yourself.

CHAPTER I.
The History of the Doctrine.

The common opinion in the Ancient church was, that the future punishment of the impenitent wicked is endless. This was the catholic faith; as much so as belief in the trinity. But as there were some church fathers who deviated from the creed of the church respecting the doctrine of the trinity, so there were some who dissented from it in respect to that of eternal retribution. The deviation in eschatology, however, was far less extensive than in trinitarianism. The Semi-Arian and Arian heresies involved and troubled the Ancient church much more seriously, than did the Universalism of that period. Long controversies, ending in œcumenical councils and formulated statements, were the consequence of the trinitarian errors, but no œcumenical council, and no authoritative counter-statement, was required to prevent the spread of the tenet of Restoration. Having so little even seeming support in scripture and reason, it gradually died out of the Ancient church by its own intrinsic mortality. Neander (IL, 737), speaking of the second period in his arrangement (312–590), when there was more Restorationism than in the first, says: “The doctrine of eternal punishment continued, as in the preceding period, to be dominant in the creed of the church. Yet, in the Oriental church, in which, with the exception of those subjects immediately connected with the doctrinal controversies, there was greater freedom and latitude of development, many respectable church teachers still stood forth, without injuring their reputation for orthodoxy, as advocates of the opposite doctrine, until the time when the Origenistic disputes caused the agreement with Origen in respect to this point also [viz., Restorationism] to be considered as something decidedly heretical.” Hagenbach (History of Doctrine, § 78) says of the period down to A.D. 250: “Notions more or less gross prevailed concerning the punishment of the wicked, which most of the fathers regarded as eternal.”

The principal deviation from the catholic doctrine of endless retribution was in the Alexandrine school, founded by Clement and Origen. The position taken by them was, that “the punishments of the condemned are not eternal, but only remedial; the devil himself being capable of amelioration” (Gieseler. I. 214). Thus early was the question raised, whether the suffering to which Christ sentences the wicked is for the purpose of correcting and educating the transgressor, or of vindicating and satisfying the law he has broken—a question which is the key to the whole controversy. For, if the individual criminal is of greater consequence than the universal law, then the suffering must refer principally to him and his interests. But if the law is of more importance than any individual, then the suffering must refer principally to it.

Origen’s Restorationism grew naturally out of his view of human liberty. He held that the liberty of indifference and the power of contrary choice, instead of simple self-determination, are the substance of freedom. These belong inalienably and forever to the nature of the finite will. They cannot be destroyed, even by apostasy and sin. Consequently, there is forever a possibility of a self-conversion of the will in either direction. Free will may fall into sin at any time; and free will may turn to God at any time. This led to Origen’s theory of an endless alternation of falls and recoveries, of hells and heavens; so that practically he taught nothing but a hell. For, as Augustine (City of God, XXL, 17) remarks, in his refutation of Origen, “heaven with the prospect of losing it is misery.” “Origen’s theory,” says Neander (I., 656), “concerning the necessary mutability of will in created beings, led him to infer that evil, ever germinating afresh, would still continue to render necessary new processes of purification, and new worlds destined for the restoration of fallen beings, until all should again be brought back from manifoldness to unity, so that there was to be a constant interchange between fall and redemption, between unity and manifoldness.”

Traces, more or less distinct, of a belief in the future restoration of the wicked are found in Didymus of Alexandria, the two Gregories, and also in Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia—the leaders of the Antiochian school. All of these were more or less under the influence of Origen. Origen’s opinions, however, both in trinitarianism and eschatology, were strongly combated in his own time by the great body of contemporary fathers, and subsequently by the church under the lead of Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine.

The Mediæval church was virtually a unit in holding the doctrine of Endless Punishment. The Reformation churches, both Lutheran and Calvinistic, adopted the historical and catholic opinion.

Since the Reformation, Universalism, Restorationism, and Annihilation, have been asserted by some sects and many individuals. But these tenets have never been adopted by those ecclesiastical denominations which hold, in their integrity, the cardinal doctrines of the trinity and incarnation, the apostasy and redemption, although they have exerted some influence within these denominations. None of the evangelical churches have introduced the doctrine of Universalism, in any form of it, into their symbolical books. The denial of endless punishment is usually associated with the denial of those tenets which are logically and closely connected with it—such as original sin, vicarious atonement, and regeneration. Of these, vicarious atonement is the most incompatible of any with universal salvation; because the latter doctrine, as has been observed, implies that suffering for sin is remedial only, while the former implies that it is retributive. Suffering that is merely educational does not require a vicarious atonement in order to release from it. But suffering that is judicial and punitive can be released from the transgressor, only by being inflicted upon a substitute. He, therefore, who denies personal penalty must, logically, deny vicarious penalty. If the sinner himself is not obliged by justice to suffer in order to satisfy the law he has violated, then, certainly, no one needs suffer for him for this purpose.

Within the present century, Universalism has obtained a stronger hold upon German theology than upon any other, and has considerably vitiated it. It grew up in connection with the rationalism and pantheism which have been more powerful in Germany than elsewhere. Rationalism has many of the characteristics of deism, and is vehemently polemic toward evangelical truth. That it should combat the doctrines of sin and atonement is natural. Pantheism, on the other hand, has to some extent been mingled with evangelical elements. A class of anti-rationalistic theologians, in Germany, whose opinions are influenced more or less by Spinoza and Schelling, accept the doctrines of the trinity, incarnation, apostasy, and redemption, and assert the ultimate recovery from sin of all mankind. Schleiermacher, the founder of this school, whose system is a remarkable blending of the gospel and pantheism, has done much toward the spread of Restorationism. The following are the objections which this theologian (Glaubenslehre, §163, Anhang) makes to eternal damnation: “1. Christ’s words in Matt. 25:46; Mark 9:44; John 5:29, are figurative. 2. The passage 1 Cor. 15:25, 26, teaches that all evil shall be overcome. 3. Misery cannot increase, but must decrease. If it is bodily misery, custom habituates to endurance, and there is less and less suffering instead of more and more. If, on the other hand, it is mental suffering, this is remorse. The damned suffer more remorse in hell than they do upon earth. This proves that they are better men in hell than upon earth. They cannot, therefore, grow more wretched in hell, but grow less so as they grow more remorseful. 4. The sympathy which the saved have with their former companions, who are in hell, will prevent the happiness of the saved. The world of mankind, and also the whole universe, is so connected that the endless misery of a part will destroy the happiness of the remainder.” These objections appeal mainly to reason. But the two assumptions, that hell is abolished by becoming used to it, and that remorse is of the nature of virtue, do not commend themselves to the intuitive convictions.

Besides the disciples of Schleiermacher, there are trinitarian theologians standing upon the position of theism, who adopt some form of Universalism. Nitzsch (Dogmatics, § 219) teaches Restorationism. He cites in support of it only two passages out of the entire scriptures—namely, 1 Pet., 3:19, which speaks of the “preaching to the spirits in prison;” and Heb. 11:39, 40: “These received not the promises.” These two passages Nitzsch explains, as teaching that “there are traces of a capacity in another state of existence for comprehending salvation, and for a change and purification of mind;” and upon them solely he founds the sweeping assertion, that “it is the apostolical view, that for those who were unable in this world to know Christ in his truth and grace, there is a knowledge of the Redeemer in the other state of existence which is never inoperative, but is either judicial or quickening.”

Rothe (Dogmatics, Th. II., Abth., ii. §§ 46–49, 124–131) contends for the annihilation of the impenitent wicked, in the sense of the extinction of self-consciousness. Yet he asserts that the aim of penalty is requital, and the satisfaction of justice—an aim that would be defeated by the extinction of remorse. Julius Müller (Sin, II., 191, 418, 425) affirms that the sin against the Holy Ghost is never forgiven, because it implies such a hardness in sin as is incapable of penitence. But he holds that the offer of forgiveness through Christ will be made to every human being, here or hereafter. “Those who have never in this life had an opportunity of knowing the way of salvation will certainly be placed in a position to accept and enter upon this way of return, if they will, after their life on earth is ended. We may venture to hope that in the interval between death and the judgment many serious misconceptions, which have hindered men from appropriating truth in this life, will be removed.” The use of the term “misconception” would seem to imply that some who had the offer of salvation in this life, but had rejected it, will have the opportunity in the next life to correct their error in this. Dorner (Christian Doctrine, IV., 416–428), after giving the arguments for and against endless punishment, concludes with the remark, that “we must be content with saying that the ultimate fate of individuals, namely, whether all will attain the blessed goal or not, remains veiled in mystery.” His further remark, that “there may be those eternally damned, so far as the abuse of freedom continues eternally, but, in this case, man has passed into another class of beings,” looks in the direction of annihilation—suggesting that sin will finally destroy the humanity of man, and leave him a mere brute. Respecting the future offer of mercy, Dorner asserts that “the final judgment can take place for none before the gospel has been so addressed to him that free appropriation of the same was possible” (Christian Doctrine, III., 77).

Universalism has a slender exegetical basis. The Biblical data are found to be unmanageable, and resort is had to human feeling and sympathy. Its advocates quote sparingly from scripture. In particular, the words of Christ relating to eschatology are left with little citation or interpretation. Actual attempts by the Restorationist, to explain what the words, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” really mean, are rare. The most common device is to dismiss them, as Schleiermacher does, with the remark that they are figurative. Some words of St. Paul, on the other hand, whose views upon sin, election, and predestination, however, are not especially attractive to this class, are made to do yeoman’s service. Texts like Rom. 5:18, “As judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, so the free gift came upon all men unto justification;” and 1 Cor. 15:22, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;” are explained wholly apart from their context, and by vocalizing the word “all.” When St. Paul asserts that “the free gift came upon all men unto justification,” this is severed from the preceding verse, in which the “all” are described as “those which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness.” And when the same apostle affirms that “in Christ shall all be made alive,” no notice is taken of the fact mentioned in the succeeding verse, that not all men are “in Christ”—the clause, “they that are Christ’s, at his coming,” implying that there are some who are not “Christ’s at his coming.”

The paucity of the texts of scripture that can with any plausibility be made to teach Universalism sometimes leads to an ingenuity that is unfavorable to candid exegesis. The endeavor to escape the force of plain revelation introduces unnatural explanations. A curious example of caprice in interpretation is found in Ruetschi’s Kritik vom Sündenfall (p. 231). To prove his assertion, that sin by its very nature finally ceases to be, he quotes Rom. 6:23, “The wages of sin is death.” This means, according to him, that sin ultimately consumes and abolishes itself (muss sich schliesslich selbst verzehren und aufheben), and this is its “wages” or punishment. This Essay actually obtained the prize offered by the Hague Association for the defence of the Christian Religion. This specimen of Biblical interpretation is matched by that of a recent advocate of “Conditional Immortality,” who contends that Satan taught the natural immortality of the human soul when he said to Eve: “Ye shall not surely die;” and that God taught its natural mortality in the words: “Thou shalt surely die.”

 

CHAPTER II.
The Biblical Argument.

The strongest support of the doctrine of Endless Punishment is the teaching of Christ, the Redeemer of man. Though the doctrine is plainly taught in the Pauline Epistles, and other parts of Scripture, yet without the explicit and reiterated statements of God incarnate, it is doubtful whether so awful a truth would have had such a conspicuous place as it always has had in the creed of Christendom. If, in spite of that large mass of positive and solemn threatening of everlasting punishment from the lips of Jesus Christ, which is recorded in the four Gospels, the attempt has nevertheless been made to prove that the tenet is not an integral part of the Christian system, we may be certain that had this portion of Revelation been wanting, this attempt would have been much more frequent, and much more successful. The Apostles enter far less into detailed description, and are far less emphatic upon this solemn theme, than their divine Lord and Master. And well they might be. For as none but God has the right, and would dare, to sentence a soul to eternal misery, for sin; and as none but God has the right, and would dare, to execute the sentence; so none but God has the right, and should presume, to delineate the nature and consequences of this sentence. This is the reason why most of the awful imagery in which the sufferings of the lost are described is found in the discourses of our Lord and Saviour. He took it upon himself to sound the note of warning. He, the Judge of quick and dead, assumed the responsibility of teaching the doctrine of Endless Retribution. “I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” “Nothing,” says Dr. Arnold, “is more striking to me, than our Lord’s own description of the judgment. It is so inexpressibly forcible, coming from his very own lips, as descriptive of what he himself would do” (Stanley’s Life of Arnold, I. 176).

Christ could not have warned men so frequently and earnestly as he did against “the fire that never shall be quenched,” and “the worm that dieth not,” had he known that there is no future peril fully corresponding to them. That omniscient Being who made the statements respecting the day of judgment, and the final sentence, that are recorded in Matthew 25:31–46, could neither have believed nor expected that all men without exception will eventually be holy and happy. To threaten with “everlasting punishment” a class of persons described as “goats upon the left hand” of the Eternal Judge, while knowing at the same time that this class would ultimately have the same holiness and happiness with those described as “sheep upon the right hand” of the judge, would have been both falsehood and folly. The threatening would have been false. For even a long punishment in the future world would not have justified Christ in teaching that this class of mankind are to experience the same retribution with “the devil and his angels;” for these were understood by the Jews, to whom he spoke, to be hopelessly and eternally lost spirits.¹ And the threatening would have been foolish, because it would have been a brutum fulmen, an exaggerated danger, certainly in the mind of its author. And for the persons threatened, it would have been a terror only because they took a different view of it from what its author did—they believing it to be true, and he knowing it to be false!

The mere perusal of Christ’s words when he was upon earth, without note or comment upon them, will convince the unprejudiced that the Redeemer of sinners knew and believed, that for impenitent men and devils there is an endless punishment. We solicit a careful reading and pondering of the following well-known passages: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall he say unto 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” (Matt. 25:31–33, 41, 46). “If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9: 43–48). “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? What is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and be cast away?” (Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25). “The rich man died and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments” (Luke 16:22, 23). “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:41, 42). “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:22, 23). “He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall never be forgiven” (Luke 12:9, 10). “Woe unto you, ye blind guides. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:16, 33). “Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). “The Lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and appoint him his portion with unbelievers” (Luke 12:46). “He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). “Thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell” (Matt. 11:23). “At the end of the world, the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:49, 50) “Then said Jesus again to them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go ye cannot come” (John 8:21). “The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear my 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” (John 5:28, 29).

To all this, add the description of the manner in which Christ will discharge the office of the Eternal Judge. John the Baptist represents him as one “whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12). And Christ describes himself as a householder who will say to the reapers, “Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them” (Matt. 13:30); as a fisherman “casting a net into the sea, and gathering of every kind; which when it was full he drew to the shore, and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away” (Matt. 13:47, 48); as the bridegroom who took the wise virgins “with him to the marriage” and shut the door upon the foolish (Matt. 25:10); and as the man travelling into a far country who delivered talents to his servants, and afterwards reckons with them, rewarding the “good and faithful,” and “casting the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 25:19–30).

Let...