THE LIFE EVERLASTING: What is It? Whence is It? Whose is It? by J. H. Pettingell
Introductory Chapter.
The title of this volume: The Life Everlasting: What is it? Whence is it? Whose is it? would seem to be all that could be needed to explain its object and the nature of the question to be discussed. But the unfortunate perversion to which it has been subject, and its complication with various other subordinate or irrelevant questions by those who have discussed it, render it important that a few words should be said at the outset, by way of defining both negatively and positively the real question before us. Such a precise statement at the beginning of any discussion, especially when the question has been misapprehended and confused with other questions, not only clears the way and greatly facilitates the discussion, but is often better than a labored argument, and, indeed, is sometimes all the argument that is needed to demonstrate its truth or falsity to the mind of the reasonable inquirer.
We beg, then, most earnestly of our readers, and especially of those who may think it their duty to oppose us, if they would do it honestly and fairly, a careful attention to the following statement of the leading question under discussion in this volume:
1. It is not an inquiry concerning the nature and destiny of the soul of man, but concerning the man himself.
There are various conflicting theories or hypotheses of the nature of man.
The Materialist holds that man is an indivisible unit, and that what is called the soul has no distinct entitative existence of its own. It is only the effect of certain chemical organic action, and that when the organism is destroyed the effect ceases and the soul vanishes into nothingness.
The Bichotomist holds that man is the union of two distinct and separable entities — a physical organism, and a soul within the organism and acting through it, but not dependent upon it.
The Trichotomist maintains that instead of two, there are three such natures in every perfect man. There are various modifications of these three prime hypotheses concerning the nature of man that need not now be mentioned.
These various theories and the arguments by which they are urged we shall notice as we proceed, so far as may seem important to a clear understanding of the question in hand; but we shall not attempt to act as champion for any one of them, nor to set forth any distinct theory of our own, for we have none of our own to urge as essential to the main doctrine to be established.
We have earnestly studied this question in all its details, and have given careful attention to all the various hypotheses and to the arguments by which they have been advocated, but we have never been able to arrive at any such certain conclusion as many others express.
But without undertaking to dogmatize upon the composite nature of man, we are free to say that we have never seen any good reason to believe that he can exist as an intelligent, responsible, sensitive agent in a disorganized condition; or, in other words, that he can be dead and alive at the same time. Whatever hypothesis of his nature may be adopted, science, reason, Scripture, and, indeed, all the facts in the case that can be gathered from observation, seem to unite in declaring that the soul of man, whatever it may be, is as dependent upon the body or some material organism for its activity and the exercise of its legitimate functions, as the body is upon the soul. The burden of proof that it is not so most evidently rests upon those who assert a contrary doctrine.
The extensive prevalence of the Platonic philosophy, which attributes to man an indestructible soul independent of the body — which at best is but a philosophic guess — has introduced a form of expression, when treating of the destiny of man, which is a quasi prejudgment of the question, or, at any rate, very confusing and misleading. We are led into it by education and the usus loquendi of others. From the force of early education and of habit the author thoughtlessly employed it in his first work, The Theological Trilemma, and frequently said "the soul of man," when in fact he meant simply man, and should have said so. He hopes in the following pages to avoid this misleading species of heterophemy.
Certainly no one ought to object to the use of this more definite and simple mode of expression when it is the destiny of man, the whole personal man, and not of any one or more of the parts of his complex nature into which philosophy has divided him, that is the object of our inquiry; for it brings us into conflict with none of these various systems of philosophy. We found no argument upon any hypothesis of the nature of man, and we must insist that our opponents shall not be allowed to do this, until they have first proved their hypothesis to be true.
Let it, then, be distinctly understood that our inquiry is not concerning the body of man, nor the soul of man, nor spirit of man, nor of any one of his actual or supposable component parts, but concerning the whole man — the man whom God created; the man who sinned; the man to whom God said, "Thou shalt die;" the man who actually does die according to this sentence; the man whom Christ redeemed by His own death; the man who will be raised at the second coming of our Lord, and judged — what is his destiny? Has he the assurance of length of days for ever and ever?" and if so, on what grounds? and if not, why not? This is the subject of our inquiry in the following pages.
2. It is not concerning FUTURE PUNISHMENT. We believe in the Scripture doctrine of future punishment. So far from wishing to contribute directly or indirectly to the skepticism which is prevailing more and more to an alarming extent on this subject, we are especially anxious to do all we can to withstand its progress, and to this end we have undertaken to disprove the monstrous error, which, by insisting on a doctrine of future punishment that is not only anti-Scriptural but shocking to the moral sense of every true man and absolutely incredible, is the real source of this skepticism; and to present and urge as true, necessary and absolutely inevitable and remediless, the punishment which the Scriptures threaten to all persistent sinners — "the punishment of everlasting destruction" — a punishment which though terribly just is credible — a punishment which sinners can and will believe is imminent, and which they will fear, when disabsued of the ruinous delusion that they have an equal claim with the saints to "length of days forever and ever."
But this is not the object of our inquiry at the present time, but just the opposite. It is not to the death and destruction of sinners, but to the salvation of the righteous— the Life Everlasting that is promised to them in the Gospel — that we would direct attention; What is this Life? Who is the Giver? To whom is it given? This is the great question we have undertaken to discuss.
Taking man as he actually is in this life, we find him frail, transitory, and, like all earthly things, hasting to the end of his course. Beginning in weakness, he soon reaches the maturity of his powers, and then goes down, step by step in weakness and pain to the dust from wliich he came; and as the grave closes over his decaying body, affection weeps and asks, "Is this the end of man?" Science says, "It is." For there is no process in nature which gives life to that which has once actually lost it. Philosophy may speculate, but she has no certain answer to give to the inquiry. Reason is dumb; and there is no voice that comes from the grave to speak one word of comfort; nor is there any hope in the Divine law.
But when we inquire of the Gospel, "If a man die, shall he live again? yea more, shall he live forever? a flood of light is thrown upon this dark question. "Life and immortality are brought to light in the Gospel." For this very object it has been given. Not, indeed, to make known an old truth in nature that man had never been able to discover before, but to proclaim a new truth which had only become actual by the death and resurrection of a Divine Savior — a new life, not as the natural inheritance of all men, but as a supernatural gift of God's grace through Jesus Christ, His incarnate Son. It is He who exclaims over the tomb of the dead Lazarus, as He does over every other tomb: "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die," or rather (as it. is in the original Greek), ou me apothene eis ton aiona — shall not die forever.
It is our special object in these pages to consider this glorious Gospel promise; to inquire, what is this precious boon? through whom and from whom it comes? to whom it is given? and what are the conditions of its bestowment?
But our opponents, starting with Plato's hypothesis of the nature of man as their postulate — or rather that part of it which attributes an indestructible soul to man (the former part which supposes the soul to be uncreated and therefore indestructible, and which can alone justify the conclusion, they reject) — insist upon it that man does not actually die when he seems to die; that there is a natural vis vitoe within him that cannot be quenched; that death simply opens the door into a higher, freer stage of existence that never will end. Hence they presume to call, and insist upon calling, notwithstanding our protests, the Gospel doctrine of life and immortality through Christ, the doctrine of destruction, and often, by way of caricaturing it and exposing it to philosophical ridicule, the doctrine of annihilation, which term, by the way, is quite as applicable to every other living creature that dies as it would be to man in any case.
But we cannot consent to have our main thesis caricatured and reversed in this way, even did we accept of the terms which they use; for it withdraws the mind from the main point to be considered, and confuses it with certain speculations and ambiguities with which we have no concern whatever. There is certainly an alternative to the boon offered in the Gospel, as there is. to the offer of every heavenly gift, and we shall not pass it by unnoticed. But it is not the alternative which we are proposing to consider as our main thesis, but the gift itself. This alternative is only the negative of this question, the reverse side of the medal, the background of the picture, which we can not consent to have put in the place of the real question. Indeed, had this question no negative or reverse side in our view; did we believe in the final restoration of all men, in the immortality and eternal life of all the children of Adam, as many do, we should still insist, as strongly as we now do, on attributing this great boon to redemption in Christ, and not to any inherent, inalienable principle of immortality inherited by man in his natural birth.
But while we cannot understand the Scriptures as teaching the ultimate salvation of all men — for they seem to us very decisively to teach a contrary doctrine — yet we must insist that the doom of the lost, whether they be many or few or even none at all, is not the question we have undertaken to discuss. It is at best but the alternative or negative of our question. Our opponents may frame it into a thesis of their own, and discuss it as they please, and we have no objection to discussing it with them. Indeed, we shall discuss it incidentally as it falls in our way in pursuing our main argument; but we object to their framing our principal thesis for us, and compelling us to discuss it as our own and no other.
We have hitherto been singularly unfortunate in not finding them willing to discuss this great Gospel doctrine of Life and Immortality through Christ only, as a positive question. They have almost invariably exercised themselves in foisting into prominence some incidental or subordinate question, while the real paramount issue has scarcely been noticed. If they think we are in error, they certainly would not wish to ignore the real question to avoid discussing it, nor would they misstate our position for the sake of controverting it. Truth requires no such unfair methods. We beg, then, most earnestly to call their attention to the real question which we propose to discuss, and which we shall endeavor to substantiate; and that they may not have any reason to complain of unfairness on our part in stating it, it shall be given both positively and negatively, in the precise terms of Scripture, namely:
"This is the Record — that God hath given to us Eternal Life, and this Life is in His Son. He THAT HATH THE SON HATH THE LlFE, AND HE THAT HATH NOT THE SON HATH NOT THE, LlFE."
3. It is not proposed to attack the evangelical system, nor any of its essential doctrines usually styled "orthodox." We propose rather to do what we can to honor and establish them all. The whole system never appeared so beautifully consistent and clear, as since we have come to view it from the standpoint of the Bible. The philosophic error of Plato has so entwined itself about many of these great doctrines, and, indeed, so diffused itself throughout the entire body of our traditional theology, as greatly to prejudice and obscure its most precious doctrines, and, as viewed by many, to throw suspicion over the whole evangelical system. If this great traditional error could be eliminated, so that these Gospel doctrines might be permitted to stand forth in their original simplicity, and the whole system in its true and fair proportions, it seems impossible that it should not commend itself to every Christian heart.
When we come to recognize our indebtedness to the second Adam, instead of the first, for the gift of a life that shall never end, and to see that this new life is not the prolongation of the old life, but a higher, purer life — the Divine life itself imparted to man by a new birth and, therefore, spiritual and eternal— then the necessity of a new birth for all the children of Adam, however moral they may be, becomes apparent; the divinity of that Savior through whom this life is given can no longer be questioned; and salvation itself, instead of being a problematical rescue from an incredible doom which, though threatened, could never be inflicted by a God of justice and love, becomes a heavenly boon of priceless value, to be earnestly sought for by perishing mortals; and redemption, instead of being an act of simple justice, such as any child of Adam might rightfully claim at the hands of his Maker, becomes a pure act of grace unmerited by any one, however moral he may be, and Christ, the Eternal Son of God, is exalted to His true place in the scheme of our salvation, as the only Life-giver of the world, and entitled to the crown which He rightfully claims as Lord of all.
The great doctrines of the Second Advent, the Resurrection of the dead, the General Judgment, and The Life Everlasting, which stand out in such relief in the Gospels and in the Epistles, and upon which the early disciples fixed all their hopes for the future, but which, alas! under the blighting influence of this false philosophy, have lost their high place in the creed of the church and have come to be regarded as shadowy myths that have no real meaning, will again, in the light of this Gospel truth be invested with all their original power, as sober verities close at hand.
4. We have no new doctrine of philosophy or religion to set forth, nor any new translation or version of the Scriptures to urge as important for the establishment of our thesis. Whatever light science and philosophy, in their advance may throw upon our subject, we gladly accept, not fearing that all truth — so far as it is rightly apprehended — will be harmonious and self- consistent, and whatever progress may be made in the understanding of mysterious and ambiguous passages in the Word of God, by a better translation and revision, we gratefully welcome. Indeed, it must be admitted on all hands that all the recent amendments that have been made in our Old Version have been directly in the line of the doctrine we hold, and are contributing greatly to strengthen our position. But the Old Version, as it was and is, without the aid of any new translation or revision, is all that we need to substantiate our doctrine, if its explicit and uniform testimony is to be accepted; or rather, the explicit and uniform testimony of the Word of God is the doctrine, and the only doctrine for which we contend.
Here we take our stand. We must insist that those who would discuss this great Scripture doctrine of the Life Everlasting with us shall be loyal to the Word of God, which is and must be our supreme authority on this doctrine. If there be any one doctrine more than another which we are to take directly from the Word of God, by a reverent, honest and careful inquiry: "What saith the Scriptures?" it is this. For neither philosophy, nor science, nor sentiment is able to teach it to us. We hold it treason to the Scriptures and to the God of the Scriptures to reject their plainly spoken, explicit testimony on this question, and to attempt to read our own speculations or the speculations of others into them, and to make them agree with pre-established notions, by putting a forced or unnatural construction upon their language. And yet this is the grave charge that must be made — if the truth be spoken — against the philosophical Christianity of the schools; and the only excuse that can be made is that it was the device of a dark and corrupt age, and tradition has handed it down to the present day ; that it has become so common that it may be said of the multitude, as in the crucifixion of ourLord: "They know not what they do."
The Christian religion is a supernatural religion. Its doctrines are not to be proved by scientific processes. It is above what is called the laws of nature. Sin itself is against the law of nature, and so must be its remedy. The incarnation of our Lord; His resurrection and our consequent resurrection; our redemption; the new birth, and the new life (which is the life everlasting), are not natural, but supernatural events. Nature does not teach them. We may find, or think we find certain analogies in nature that correspond with these great Gospel truths, but it is only in the Gospel that they are revealed. They are equally accessible to the learned and the unlearned; yea, they are more easily apprehended by the simple and childlike than by those whom this world calls wise. Hence the apostle's - warning : "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy arid vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Our Lord Himself says: "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things front the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes."
It is just here that we find our chief difficulty in discussing this question; for it cannot be denied by any one who is able to read the Word of God, that the doctrine of eternal life through Christ, and only through Him, is asserted most positively and negatively with constant reiteration in almost every variety of form of which language is capable, and if this testimony were to be literally accepted, according to the ordinary import of these words, the question would be settled beyond all controversy. There would be no room for any argument. But the ingenuity of the scholastic Platonists, who were swept into the Christian church by the tide of its prosperity in the early ages, was equal to the task of reconciling the two antagonistic systems with each other. They had only to vacate the language of Scripture of its true meaning whenever it opposed their philosophy, and to put a new or tropical sense into its terms, and the work was done; and this they easily taught their unlettered followers to do; until in time it became the common practice of the church; and the philosophy of Plato was accepted, and finally declared to be the great fundamental doctrine of the Christian church; and the vicious practice of giving a spiritual sense, a tropical sense, or what is called "a religious sense," to all the crucial words of Scripture that relate to the nature and destiny of man has been continued to the present time, and has become so common that the great mass of religious people really think it is the proper thing to do. For example, whenever "death" and "destruction" are declared in the Scriptures to be the end of the wicked, we must not believe that real death and destruction are meant — for that would be contrary to the accepted philosophy — but only a forlorn and miserable state of existence, which, to save the words themselves, is called spiritual death or spiritual destruction. And so when "life," "eternal life," "life everlasting," "length of days forever and ever," and other similar terms are employed to describe the portion of the righteous as the gift of God through Christ, they must not be understood as including life itself as any part of the gift, but only as describing the purity and blessedness of that life which in its own nature is naturally and necessarily endless. And so we are taught to deal with all the other Scriptural terms bearing on the question.
It shall be our effort to do what we can to correct this abuse and to restore the simple language of Scripture to its original, natural meaning, and just so far as we shall succeed in doing this we shall succeed in establishing our thesis.
Let it be understood, then, that we insist upon taking the plain language of Scripture in its ordinary and common sense, unless some reason other than that it contradicts the philosophy of Plato can be given why another sense should be given to it.
5. There are many collateral questions which are interesting in themselves, and which are often discussed in connection with the question of immortality in Christ. Upon some of them we have decided opinions, and shall not fail to express them when occasion shall require it; but upon others of them we cannot venture to be so positive as many are with whom we fully agree on the main issue. But it is not proposed to give prominence to any of them, as we do not consider their decision at all essential to the question in hand, from which we would not have the mind diverted to the discussion of other issues.
It is, however, upon these minor points that our opponents prefer to make their attacks, and those who hold with us have too often been drawn away from the real, vital question to the discussion of other points more or less related but not fundamental to the main question, and in this way the real, vital question has been needlessly complicated or altogether lost sight of.
We therefore especially desire, in the very outset of this discussion, to emphasize the main question as set forth in the title of this volume, and to keep it as clear as possible from all irrelevant issues. Whatever may be said, or omitted to be said, or imperfectly said upon these other questions that come in our way — let this not operate to divert attention from the main question: Do we derive our immortality from our parents by natural birth, or from Christ by a new, spiritual birth ?
Our reliance is not on science, or philosophy, or reason for the decision of this question, but upon the teaching of Divine revelation. Indeed, we do not attempt to formulate any theological system in its true proportions. This question has most certainly important relations to most, if not all, the other doctrines of the Christian system, and we shall not hesitate to speak of this relation whenever it can be done without drawing us too far away from our main purpose; and yet we are assured that the view we present is in complete harmony with the whole system of evangelical truth. But it is not proposed to attempt any such formal presentation of it in all its relations to other doctrines. This can hardly be the work of any one man, or of any one generation of men. It is rather the work of many minds, and of long years of careful study and of mutual criticism and correction.
We have not the vanity to suppose that imperfections may not be found in our modes of conception and of statement on some points, and that nothing will need to be modified or supplied by other minds, nor that we shall escape the just criticism of friendly, much less of unfriendly readers. But of this we are confident: Of supreme loyalty of heart and of purpose to the Divine Master, and of a determination to deal honestly with His Word, not as critics but as disciples. We are also quite sure, however darkly we may see some things, a through a glass, that this one great truth, which philosophy has perverted and scholasticism and traditionalism have buried beneath the rubbish of ages, and from which the popular mind has been turned by the seductions of the adversary and of a false education — this truth which we have undertaken to uncover and set forth with as much ability and force as shall be given us, is the doctrine of God’s Word and the very truth once delivered to the saints.
That there may be no occasion for mistaking our theme by any sincere inquirer, nor excuse for misstating it on the part of unfriendly critics, we will again enunciate it, as we have before and shall do again, in the very words of inspiration and in these conspicuous letters :
"And this is the record: That God hath given unto us eternal life, and this Hfe is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath the life ; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life."
Kommentare