“There are three main opinions relative to this [fnal] punishment. One of these makes it to be essentially of a purgative nature, to be temporary in its duration, and to have as its end the restoration of all to God’s favor and eternal happiness. This was the theory of Origen. The second opinion makes punishment to be eternal in its duration; and to consist in an eternal life of misery and evil. This was the theory of Augustine. According to the third opinion, punishment is eternal, but it consists in eternal death—i. e., the loss of eternal life or existence… This is the opinion which we here maintain. Its establishment sets the other two aside. Its eternal duration overthrows that of Origen; its involving a state of death overthrows alike that of Origen and Augustine. We rest the proof of it on the express, oft-repeated, and harmonious testimony of Scripture.” (The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment by Henry Constable, pg 13-14)
The atonement is summed in John 3:16. A “frequent objection to our view is that it detracts from the value of the atonement of Christ. To us it adds to it. The way in which it is sought to establish that the Augustinian theory imputes a greater value to the atonement than ours is this. The Augustinian punishment of endless misery is a greater punishment than that which we teach; therefore an atonement which delivers from the greater punishment is more to be valued and thought of than that which delivers from the less. Arguments of this land are to us very valueless things. They are the old scholastic reasoning of the middle ages which largely taints our Protestant theology. They are appeals to reason to determine the course of God’s proceedings. We might well leave them unanswered, except that we are told that we must sometimes, ‘Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.’ We will therefore say a few words to show that our view of future punishment magnifies the grace of God far more than the Augustinian theory, and stamps a greater value upon the atonement of His Son.
If the Augustinian theory of punishment were true, we could scarcely think it possible for God to avoid making the most strenuous efforts to save man from it. We cannot imagine a man, we can scarce even imagine a devil, who would not pity and seek to save from such a doom. To say that God would send His Son to redeem mankind from endless agony is only to say of Him what we would say of any being who was susceptible of the most ordinary feelings of compassion. It certainly does not magnify His grace to say that it was exerted for such a cause. It magnifies it infinitely more to say that it sought to save from death. Surely God’s love, and pity, and grace, shine with brighter luster when we believe that it was from consideration for a creature who had once known Him, and whose existence was endangered by transgression, that He planned salvation. He had been less than man, we would think, if He had made no effort to save from Augustine’s hell: He is God, His ways higher than our ways, His love stronger than ours, His pity purer and deeper, when He sends His Son that ‘whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.’
Again, the atonement of Christ is itself magnified by our view. According to the Augustinian theory, Christ came to alter the condition of life from being miserable to being happy: according to our theory, Christ came to bestow life itself. This latter is the greater work. It involves the happiness of which the Augustinian speaks, it adds the grand gift of an immortal life. It brings forward Christ once more in His old part of Creator. It attributes to Him as Redeemer the part He took in man’s opening as Creator. It makes us owe our life, our being, our existence, to our Redeemer, and not merely the happiness of our existence. This latter follows as a matter of course from the former. To say that God gives life, is to say that he gives with it all that can make life happy. To say that he would bestow life without those circumstances that render it delightful is to attribute to the Universal Father what we would not attribute to one of us who had a son. It is therefore that Scripture, in speaking of the effect of the atonement of Christ, generally calls it simply the gift of life. That is enough. That involves all the pleasures that are at God’s right hand to give. And the view which attributes to the atonement the gift of eternal life magnifies that atonement more, infinitely more, than the view which only attributes to the atonement the alteration of the condition and circumstances of life.
Once more, we are commonly charged with endangering the faith by our theory. General charges of this kind have considerable weight with ignorant people: with others they have none. If they are not substantiated they only deserve contempt. In such a charge we only say, ‘Not guilty!’ and demand proof. Remember what our view is. It is an eternal life of joy for the redeemed: eternal death, after they have suffered as God judges right, for the lost. What is there here to endanger any article of faith? Does it imperil our faith in God? What attribute of His is attacked? His love! Is it the part of love to inflict eternal pain if it can be helped? His mercy! Is it the part of mercy never to be satisfied with the misery of others? His holiness! Is it essential to holiness to keep evil forever in existence? His justice! Can justice only be satisfied with everlasting agonies? No; we do not endanger faith. We strengthen it, by allying it once more with the divine principles of mercy, equity, and justice. It is the Augustinian theory which endangers faith, and has made shipwreck of faith in the case of multitudes, by representing God as a Being of boundless injustice, caprice, and cruelty.” (The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment by H. Constable)
Commentaires