1870 Eternal Punishment - O. A. Carr
Response
Charles Martin's home page
177
THE AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIAN PIONEER.
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
Web
Implementation note This document contains Greek letters,
which gave OCR indigestion, and have not been fixed - Given
time I hope to fix this
Greek letters not printed properly are highlighted in green.
For the Greek scholars among you, the original images are
available
Images
Les Rowley
OUR Bro. C. Martin of Ballarat denies
the Eternal Punishment of the wicked ! ! ! Have you read his
remarks in the May number of the A. C. Pioneer on my article in
the April number ? Hear him!
"That the passages quoted by
our Bro. Carr prove the future punishment of the ungodly we admit
and maintain as firmly as he ; but they by no means prove that the
punishment will be unending."
He and I, then, agree that the
ungodly will meet with future punishment beyond the judgment. Hear
him again :
"While we
believe that being punished with `everlasting destruction from
the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power' will be an
everlasting punishment, we do not
believe that `everlasting destruction' can mean `everlasting
preservation.'
Then Bro.
Martin believes that "everlasting destruction" is ANNIHILATION ; and, therefore, that the future
punishment of the ungodly will be ANNIHILATION ; and that this
punishment will end when the wicked are ANNIHILATED (with many
or with few stripes - the more wicked the harder to ANNIHILATE)
; and that this punishment, that is, the ANNIHILATION, will be
everlasting, in the sense that when once ANNIHILATED the wicked
will not be punished any more, because they will cease to exist.
WE DENY (1) that the word "everlasting" can be used in
such a sense. The word "everlasting" cannot qualify one action
unless that action continue'. If a thing is done, and, because
it can't be done again, we say it is everlastingly done, the
adverb "everlastingly" does not qualify the actor doing the
thing, but the remaining of the thing done ; and we mean that
the thing, being done, everlastingly remains done, --is not
annihilated. E.g.: If a man breaks a tree, and, because it can't
be mended, we say it is everlastingly broken ; the adverb
"everlastingly" does not qualify the actor breaking, but
qualifies the remaining (of the tree) broken ; and we mean that
the tree, being broken, everlastingly remains broken. The tree
must exist broken or we could not sap it is everlastingly
broken.
Now Bro.
Martin thinks the everlasting punishment of the wicked will end. If so, the wicked must either end with it,
that is, be annihilated by the punishment, or exist in an
unpunished state. Hence he either believes in ANNIHILATION or in
purgatory ; and, when he says "everlasting destruction cannot
mean everlasting preservation," it is easy to see which horn of
the dilemma he takes. He believes that the wicked will be
ANNIHILATED ! ! Then the punishing (if there will be any, and he
says there will) will be the ANNIHILATING. But the word
"everlasting" cannot qualify the actor punishing -the act of annihilating the wicked- any more than
it could qualify the act of breaking a tree ; and, just as the
tree must exist, being broken, or we could not say it is
everlastingly broken, so the wicked must exist, being punished, or we could not say they
will be everlastingly punished. And now, if the act of punishing
is the act of annihilating, then the wicked must exist, though
annihilated, or they could not be everlastingly punished. Is not
this reductio ad absurdum ? For if the wicked exist they
are not annihilated. If they are not annihilated the punishment
is not annihilation. If they are annihilated they are not
everlastingly punished, for the wicked cannot be everlastingly
punished if they do not exist. The whole thing is wrong any way
you look at it. Hence we conclude that which the wicked "go away
into everlasting punishment" they will always be punished. The
word "everlasting" can be used
in no other sense, for if the punishment is annihilating and
will end, then "everlasting" cannot
be affirmed of it, and if the wicked are annihilated they are
not everlastingly punished. If our brother says the word
"everlasting" is applied to things that ended, as the
"everlasting priesthood," the "everlasting covenant," and the
"everlasting hills," we reply that acwvcos
(everlasting) is from ciccw,
and always qualifies the period of time to which at didv refers ; and that thcw, like its Hebrew equivalent, go-lam, designates ;--1st. The Jewish
age, 1 Cor, x. 11, et al. ; 2nd. The Gospel dispensation, Eph,
ii. 7, et al. ; 3rd. The present world without reference to
dispensations, Matt, x111. 22, Rom. xii. 2, GalL i. 4, et al. ; 4th, The world after this-Eternity,-,Jno. vi. 51,
2 Peter ii. 17, Rev. xxii. 5, xiv. 11, et al. Hence to know the
meaning of everlasting (acwvws) in
any passage we have only to find out what period of time the
passage refers to. If anything peculiar to the Jewish age is
called "everlasting" then "everlasting" means lasting as long as
the Jewish age lasted. Hence "everlasting priesthood" and
"everlasting covenant" mean a priesthood and a covenant lasting
as long as the Jewish age lasted. In the expression "everlasting
hills" the word "everlasting" is applied to the time of this
world's existence, and means that the hills will last until this
world is burned up. When the word "everlasting" (thuvos) is used to describe anything
in the next world--Eternity--it means lasting as long as
eternity lasts. The word
"everlasting" (a«y~os)
exhausts the period to which it is applied. If applied to the
Jewish age, it exhausts it ; if applied to the present
dispensation, it exhausts it ; and if applied to eternity, it
exhausts eternity. Hence "everlasting life" means life
throughout eternity, and "everlasting punishment" means
punishment as long as eternity exists - UNENDING.
We deny (2) that "destruction " means "annihilation."
There is no word in the Greek Old or New Testament for "
annihilation," and if the Greeks ever had such a thought,
neither the Saviour nor the Holy Spirit expressed it. There are
sixteen different words in the Greek New Testament translated in
the common version, " destroy " and " destruction." Five of
these are from one root, oXauw,
which means, " I lose ;" the exact Latin equivalent of which is
perdo, meaning, " I lose," from which we get the word
perdition. Perdition, then, is not annihilation, but the state
of the lost. The first meaning of 6Aeapos
(one of the five words from 'aaavw),
rendered " destruction " in 2 Thes. i. 9, is " perdition." Hence
" everlasting destruction " means " everlasting perdition," and
is not, as our brother thinks, incompatible with the everlasting
existence of the wicked. The wicked will exist in perdition (in
a lost state) punished. Of the eleven other Greek words
translated destroy or destruction in the New Testament, there
are five distinct roots, which, with aXXUw,
already mentioned, make six distinct ideas represented in the
common version by the word " destruction."
This must be
a startling fact to those tyro critics who claim that the word " destruction " uniformly means the one thing,
viz., ANNIHILATION.
Of the
sixteen words translated "
destruction " and " destroy," the strongest is awaXXuui, and it comes nearest meaning
annihilation. It occurs ninety-two times in the New Testament,
and its most common meaning is " perish " or " perished." In
this sense it is found thirty-two times. It is once translated "
die," and once "marred," and twenty-seven times "destroy" and
"destroyed," and thirty-one times it is translated "lose" and
"lost ;" but never, "annihilated." Now the primary meaning of a
word can always be seen in its legitimate figurative usages. The
primary meaning of broXAvm is, " I
lose;" and when it or any of its derivatives is translated
"destroy" or., "destruction," the meaning is, that the thing or
person destroyed, loses the the former nature, or form, or
state, and the "everlasting destruction" of the wicked, means
that the wicked will lose their former unpunished condition .
and go into a state of everlasting punishment. When the
definition of a word is put in the place of the word itself, it
will make good sense, and in order that the common reader may
see that none of the words translated "destroy" and
"destruction" in the New Testament, can mean ANNIHILATION, we
will put the word " annihilate" in the place of the word (aroXwµ~), which with its derivatives,
is most commonly used to describe the destiny of the wicked, and
we will see what kind of Scripture it makes.
Rom, xiv.
15, "Destroy not him with thy meats" (Don't annihilate him with thy meat). He that loveth his
life shall annihilate it (lose it). Labor not for the meat which
annihilateth (perisheth). Lord, save us ; we annihilate
(perish). New wine will burst old bottles and the bottles will
be annihilated (marred) - Mark ii. 22. Ask Barabbas, and
annihilate Jesus (destroy Jesus). "And through thy knowledge
shall the weak brother be annihilated (perish)."--1 Cor. viii.
11. If a man gain the whole world and annihilate himself (less
himself). What woman having ten pieces of silver, if she
annihilate one piece, doth not light a candle and seek
diligently till she find it, and then she says-Rejoice with me,
for I have found the piece which I annihilated. What man having
an hundred sheep, if he annihilate one of them, doth not go
after the sheep which is annihilated, till he find it ; and when
he hath found it, be layeth that annihilated sheep on his
shoulder, and rejoices, saying, I have found my sheep which was
annihilated The prodigal son was annihilated and is found.
This is
enough to show that the words translated '`destroy" slid
"destruction" in the common version
cannot mean "annihilation" ?
Our Bro.
Martin confessed his inability to understand the closing
sentence of my previous article,
viz.-
" Who that either fears or loves the Lord would
continue to use that instrument which i set on fire of hell
with which to run slander through the multiplication table."
James iii. 6 will throw light
on my dart; saying by informing our brother that the instrument
set on fire of hell is the tongue
In my
previous article I stated that the Bible taught in only three ways, viz., by precept (direct
statement), by example, and by necessarv implication. Be it
remembered that I used the word precept in the sense of direct
statement, whether there is a command or not, and I indicated
it thus, " precept (direct statement)." Bro. Martin, instead of
replying to my argument, said that Matt, xxv. 46 " is not a
precept, though it is a direct statement.' Well, if he prefers
to say " direct statement," I do not object, for I used precept
in that sense.
But he says--
" Our brother has strung together several
passages as proof of the proposition (that the bodies and souls
of all wicked will be punishecd in hell for ever), and all that
we can say is to ask our readers to refer to them, and we
confidently predict, that if they lay aside their preconceived
theory, they will readily acknowledge that his dogma is not
found in any of them combined."
I gave those passages only where the proper word for hell (yEfyva) occurs. We will string them
again,-1st. " Whosoever shall say to his brother thou fool,
shall be is danger of hell," Matt. v. 22 ; 2nd. " Fear him who
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Matt. x. 28,
Luke xii. 5 ; 3rd, Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, and their converts were children of hell, Matt.
iii. 15, and said to them, " Ye serpents, ye generation of
vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell 1 " Matt.
iii. 33; and James says, " The unruly tongue is set on fire of
hell," James iii. 6. ; 4th. The righteous are to cat off the
offending hand and the offending foot, and are to pluck out
the offending eye rather than to have two hands, two feet, or
two eyes to be cast into hell, Matt, xviii. 8-9, Matt. v.
29-30 ; Mark ix. 43-4S.
The plain
meaning of this is that we must sacrifice the dearest sins or we
will go to hell. And dark describes the
horrible place thus :--" Where their worm dieth not and the fire
is not quenched," repeating it three times lest somebody might
think that he meant purgatory. " Their worm dieth not." Whose
worm ? Certainly the worm of the wicked. Then the worm and the
wicked are inseparably connected and are both in hell. All agree
that " their worm" means their torment, which is is hell ; and
as their worm their torment) is to never die, they (the wicked)
must be in hell for ever. Now these are all the passages in the
New Testament where the proper word for hell (yeewa) occurs, and in every one of
them it is plainly stated that their worm (their torment) will
never end, and that their bodies and seals will be destroyed in
hell.
Then is not the conclusion inevitable that
the bodies and the souls of all wicked
will be punished in hell for ever ? Our brother assumed that
"destroy" means annihilate. I have already shown that it never
does mean annihilate, but that it means punishment. So my
argument in the use of the word " hell " stands good. It is no
dogma of mine, it is what is plainly asserted in the Scripture.
Hear our Bro. Martin again
" However, the question before us must not be
merely ` Do this and a few other texts in the Bible, prima
facie assert eternal punishment ?' We concede that ; but we
ask, ` Are these texts, when taken in their prima facie
interpretation, unbalanced by conflicting texts and certain
other conflicting Scriptural phenomena, sufficient ? ' And
again, ` Is the prima facei
interpretation the only fair interpretation of which they
are susceptible ? "
We answer,
we accept no " prima facie
interpretation " of any passage, but we must have the induction
of all the facts. We have given every passage where the word
hell occurs in Greek New Testament and allowed them to establish
their own conclusion. This is the only true exegesis, and it is
no "prima facie interpretation." Our Bro. Martin can find the
meaning of that much Latin in the back of Webster's Dictionary.
Bro. M.
concludes by copying fourteen propositions from Mr. Minton of London, which we read sometime ago is The Rainbow.
Our only wonder is that a " Rainbow" can appear in such a dark
firmament. These propositions have been before our readers a
month. We understand Bro. Martin to endorse them ; hence he must
shoulder the responsibility for what they teach. We have no
space to reproduce them now, but we may do so next month. The
reader will please examine them in last Pioneer. As the same
mistakes are in each of them, we will now take the life out of
all of them at once.
In each proposition he uses a
term in the sense of annihilation, viz. `Destroy," " Consume,"
" Devour," "Not abide,'' "Mortality," " Unreconciled," ` " Not
consist," "Lose," " Perish," " Death." Now neither one of these
terms,. nor all of them combined, would express annihilation ;
and I have already shown that that there is no word in the Bible
that means annihilation. Hence it is wrong to use any word in
the Bible in that sense. Hence Bro. Martin is guilty of the
following mistakes in each of his propositions
1. Of
misrepresenting what the " Scripture declares " by giving
scriptural words a meaning (annihilation) which they never have,
2. Of
misrepresenting " the popular theory " by making it deny what
"the Scriptures declare," while in reality " the popular theory
" denies only his misrepresentation of what the " Scripture
declares."
3. By
misrepresenting both what the "Scripture declares" and "the
popular theory," he is guilty of presenting a false issue in
every proposition, and in every proposition he uses an ambiguous
term involving the "Ignoratio Elenchi."
Having
sifted his article throughout, we now fall back on our original
conclusion with increased confidence
that the bodies and souls of all the wicked will be punished in
hell eternally ; and with the language of our Brother J. W.
MacGarvey we will close. " It is only when we contemplate the
fearful destiny of the unfortunate sinner that we can properly
appreciate the efforts that have been made to redeem man from
sin. If there is no reality in it then the death of Jesus was a
waste of tears and blood ; while the toils and sorrows , of
saints and martyrs have had no adequate design. But admitting
this dark reality, we have a fact to justify every groan and
prayer, every drop of blood, and every life-long struggle to
bring the guilty to pardon. Only pardon can release the guilty
from punishment. To release them from such punishment it was
necessary that even Jesus should die ; and it is proper that
saints should labor, and pray, and exhort, and entreat with all
long suffering add endurance, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should turn and live:'
O, A. CARR.
If you have additions or
corrections to this page, please contact
us Bones in the Belfry home page
Page
last
updated
-
5 May 2014