A Strong Argument--Universal Atonement--Infinite Justice Satisfied--A
Candid Methodist Minister--Can Man Commit an Infinite Sin--Everlasting
Punishment Could Never Be Endured--Uses of Suffering--Punitive and
Remedial--The Penalty has Been Paid--Moral Effect--Mystery of Pain--Not
Punishment but Chastening--Extending Our Outlook Beyond--Boundless
Space and Time--Operation of Grace in the Next Life--Infinite
Power--Infinite Mercy--Infinite Love--Incentive to Endless Praise.
It may be said that in this argument I am not taking sufficient account
of divine justice. That may be so. The fact is, that the relation of
justice to the idea of universal salvation was one of the last ideas on
this subject that came to my mind. But now it seems to me that in the
idea of divine justice is involved one of the strongest arguments for
universal salvation.
Look at the matter simply and candidly. Did not Christ die for every
soul of man? All theological subtleties aside, we joyfully believe that
He did. The fact is stated over and over again in Scripture, with the
utmost plainness; and it is assumed in a multitude of other passages. So
clearly has this come to be recognized that the American Presbyterian
Church formally adopted it, and put it in their "Brief Statement" some
years ago. It is also proposed for acceptance in the creed of the united
churches of Canada, if that union is consummated. And despite all
theories to the contrary, it is believed and preached in most if not all
Evangelical Churches.
Very well. Consider what is involved in that article of our faith. If
Christ really died for all, does not justice require that all will be
saved! If Christ paid the debt for every sinner, will not every sinner
be redeemed? How else could infinite justice be satisfied? I wish our
Methodist brethern would consider this matter well. All honor to the
Methodist Church for its noble testimony to the universality of the
atonement. But does not universal atonement imply universal salvation?
If we may speak of such things in the language of mathematics may we not
say that universal salvation is the corollary of universal atonement? To
this conclusion it does seem to me that we are inevitably led.
I was speaking lately to a Methodist minister of a very acute but candid
mind. He put the matter in this way: Either Christ made an atonement for
each one, or He did not. Did He not actually bear upon His heart the
sins of the whole world? And if the whole world, then surely each one
singly, so that every child of humanity may truthfully say with Paul,
"He loved me, and gave Himself for me." Does not justice then demand
that each one will be saved? In our present limited outlook there may be
a difficulty as to how and where; but the glorious fact seems to be
beyond question.
This matter is so important that I would try to make it plain from my
own point of view, even if that involves some degree of repetition.
I raise the question elsewhere: Can man commit an infinite sin? Some say
he can, because his sin is against God, a Being of infinite purity. If
his sin then is of this infinite nature, infinite justice may demand
that he suffer an infinite punishment. But being a finite being, he
cannot suffer infinite punishment in quality. Therefore it is said, he
must suffer it in duration. Hence the necessity of everlasting
punishment. That is the argument.
But the main premise is by no means clear. It may well be doubted if man
can commit an infinite sin. First; he is a finite being; and can a
finite being do on infinite wrong? Further; he cannot suffer everlasting
punishment. For everlasting has no end. He would never have rendered a
due equivalent for his sin. When he would have suffered millions and
millions of years he would be as for from rendering a due equivalent as
at the beginning. Thus the demands of God's law would never be
satisfied.
We have therefore to confront the idea of God inflicting a punishment
that could never be rendered. In that case might not God suspend all
punishment at once? For when man shall have suffered for aeons and aeons
untold he would really be as far from the end as he is now. Could you
think of the Infinitely Wise and Holy One pronouncing a sentence that
could never be executed? Then add to the idea of Infinite Holiness and
Infinite Wisdom, the idea of Infinite Power and Infinite Love, and I
think you will find yourself involved in a series of contradictions
which you will be glad to see dissolved as an ugly dream.
But now, supposing that man, not being infinite in his nature, cannot
commit an infinite sin, is it not reasonable to think that a less
punishment than an infinite one would suffice even eternal justice?
Suppose, for instance, that God had cut off the first human pair when
they sinned, and thus have prevented this hideous tale of mourning,
lamentation, and woe, would not that suffice? For us to be debarred
forever from existence and consciousness--would not that suffice? Well;
the Infinite One had that alternative. But He did not resort to it.
Would He not have resorted to it if He foresaw that His choice lay
between eternal extinction and eternal fire, for the great majority of
our race? Would the eternal joy to which He foresaw that a few of the
race would attain, compensate for the eternal woe which He foresaw would
be the fate of the great majority? A thousand times No. The fact that
we, with our poor, limited powers, can see that there was a way of
averting unutterable and everlasting woe from even one soul, is a strong
argument that there is no everlasting woe. Let us beware of imputing to
God that which we can see might have been honorably avoided, and that
which we would shrink in horror from doing ourselves! Think this matter
over seriously, and see where it will land you.
But then, what is the use of suffering at all? Surely, God foresaw that
there would be a great deal of temporary suffering in this world. Why
did He not prevent it?
Well; having disposed of the idea of eternal suffering, it remains for
us to see the place and use of that which is temporary only. But here,
an entirely new principle comes into view. Eternal suffering is supposed
to be a vindication of justice. It could be nothing else; amendment of
character is entirely out of the question. But temporary suffering is a
means of reformation. Eternal suffering has no regard to reformation; it
would issue in the very opposite. Evil would be itensified, and
intensified forever, which is unthinkable; and still more is it
unthinkable in a universe governed by a God of Wisdom and Holiness. But
temporary suffering is a means for the development of character.
Here our ideas are thrown upon the twofold province of suffering. It is
punitive, and it is reformatory. When we inflict it on an offender it
partakes of both qualities; and sometimes it is hard to say which
predominates. But more and more are we rising to the idea that
punishment is mainly or wholly reformatory. Strong testimony is borne to
that fact by determinate sentence. It is recognized that in all justice
a man need not suffer a full equivalent for his crime. No matter what
his crime has been, when there is good evidence that he has reformed, he
is set free. It is felt that suffering has then achieved its highest
end. In nothing that I know of is there such evidence of the upward
trend of the race.
Now in God's infliction of suffering these two principles come clearly
into view. What Christ suffered is mainly punitive; what we suffer Is
reformatory. The matter may be clearer if we glance at these two things
separately.
I have said that Christ's suffering was mainly punitive. Look at some
statements of Scripture concerning it, and you will see that it was
chiefly of that quality. It is said that "the Lord laid on him the
iniquity of us all." That is, He took our place so intimately that He
actually bore the punishment due to us. In another place it is said
that "He was made a curse for us." The curse that was originally
intended for us alighted upon Him. It is said that "He is the
propitiation for our sins." It is said that "Christ died for us." It is
said that we are "justified by His blood." It is said that "by the
obedience of One"--that is obedience unto death, "shall many be made
righteous." These are only a few of many passages of similar import.
I do not overlook the fact that Christ's life and death had a moral
effect as well. Certainly His life and death are the greatest example in
the world; and that example has done far more to uplift the character of
the world than any force brought to bear upon mankind. At the same time,
the supreme meaning of His suffering is that it was punitive. He
actually bore the curse for us. And we have the glorious fact repeated
again and again that He did it for every soul of man. He really
"satisfied divine justice."
* * * * *
Then what further claim can God rightfully make in the way of
punishment? The penalty has been paid. Does God require it paid over
again? He is a just God. He claims but one payment of the penalty. To my
mind, that fact does away with all possibility of eternal punishment.
For all other suffering that God inflicts is entirely reformatory.
Whether that suffering be inflicted in this life or the life to come,
the principle is the same; it is all reformatory. It may come, and
often does come, as the result of sin. In the providence of God sin and
suffering are closely linked together.
Wherever there is sin there is bound to be suffering, whether in this
life or in the next. That has been paid in full. Christ paid the penalty
for the whole race.
Whether God might have ordained some other alternative than suffering as
a means of our purification, is not the point. The fact that He has
ordained suffering is proof enough that it is a good appointment. I have
hinted elsewhere that suffering may be a means of safeguarding us
against sin to all eternity.. But this idea is advanced only as a
possible solution of the mystery of pain. We go upon surer ground when
we recognize suffering as one means that God has appointed for our
purification. It does not come to us, or to any soul of man, as a
penalty. The penalty has been paid.
But it may be said that God is angry with sin. How can He be angry with
sin if the sin is actually forgiven? I answer that it is His very nature
to be angry with sin, though it is forgiven. It is in opposition to His
nature and His law. It is also in opposition to that development of
character which He has designed for all His children. Anything which
conflicts with that, excites His indignation. Hence the pains and
penalties which follow in the track of sin, though the sin itself may be
forgiven. When we consider that a person may be very angry with himself
because of sin, though he knows that the sin is forgiven, we can
understand something of the same feeling on the part of God.
God does visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. But is the
suffering thus inflicted to be regarded as the penalty due to sin? No.
There is an amended verse in one of our old hymns in which the view
seems to be taken, and I think rightly, that the atonement is not only
the basis on which pardon can be righteously vouchsafed, but the very
certainty of its being vouchsafed. The stanza is this:
"But never shall my soul despair
Thy pardon to secure,
Who knows Thine only Son has died
To make my pardon sure."
The whole matter of suffering is dealt with at length in the twelfth
chapter of The Hebrews. Over and over again it is described as
chastening. It is not penalty. The penalty has been paid. Suffering
henceforth is Fatherly chastisement. And the intention and effect of
chastisement are clearly intimated. It is said that we are not to
despise the chastening of the Lord; for that He chastises us for our
profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. Again it is said
that chastening afterwards yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness.
That is the idea exactly. There is no word of punishment. The punishment
has been endured in the sacrifice of Christ; and it is now clearly
recognized that His sacrifice was offered on behalf of the whole world.
But the necessity for chastisement remains. It is one means of our
spiritual development, and but for the necessity for it, it would never
be inflicted. Hence Jeremiah could say, "He doth not afflict willingly,
nor grieve the children of men."
An example may make this clearer. Take the case of Manasseh. He was one
of the worst kings of Judah. It is recorded of him that "he built altars
for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord;"
that "he made his children to pass through the fire;" that he "made
Judah and Jerusalem to do worse than the heathen;" that he "shed
innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to
the other." But he repented. We read that "when he was in affliction, he
besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of
his fathers, and prayed unto him; and he was intreated of him, and heard
his supplication."
Yes; but we read that "notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the
fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against
Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked
him withal."
Now there we have an example of the fact that a whole people was
ordained to suffering in consequence of the evil wrought by one man.
Such suffering cannot be penal, for we are told very plainly that it was
due to the wickedness of one person; and even he had repented and was
forgiven. In that case there was no room for penalty. It would be
entirely out of place. But there was room for discipline. The monstrous
evil that Manasseh had wrought would in part survive, notwithstanding
his personal reformation. So the suffering could not be penalty; but it
could be chastisement. There might be "the fierceness of great wrath,"
as we read there was; but there was love behind. The people might not
have the spiritual discernment to see their suffering in that light; but
we have a clearer revelation than they had; so we read that "whom the
Lord loveth He chasteneth."
Even now we witness the sad spectacle of God's own people--the very
people to whom we have been referring--being made a byword and a
hissing among the nations. And wherefore? Because of sin? Certainly. But
not as a punishment for sin, but as a necessary means of reformation. A
superficial view of the case may deem it punishment; but a deeper view
recognizes it as chastisement. The fundamental fact is, that Christ
bore their sin, and all sin, "in His own body on the tree." Surely,
justice will say that it has not to be borne again. Hence, all suffering
that is now inflicted, is not inflicted as a punishment, but as a
discipline. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Then,
"he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." That glorious fact
should settle all difficulty.
Suffering, then, is appointed solely for the uplift of character, both
in this life and the next. When it has done its work--and in some cases
it may take long--it will cease.
These profound questions require us to extend our outlook into the next
life. And nothing can be more truly natural. For with God there is no
limit as to time or space. The history of our world, and of our race in
this lower life, is but a span in the eternal years.
The trouble has been that men have had no idea of the operation of grace
beyond this life. This is no disparagement of the limitations of able
and saintly men in the past. We have simply had a growing revelation. It
is no credit to us that we have larger views.
We see now that the yearnings of divine love will be satisfied. There is
a harmony in this view which commends it at once to our highest
conceptions of fitness. God is infinite in His being, and in His
perfections. Hence His operations are not limited to the mere span of
time. The outgoings of His Wisdom, and power, and love, are from
everlasting to everlasting.
In my view, there is nothing that will so effectually break down sin, as
a belief that all sin has been atoned for. That is God's royal way of
bestowing favors. But then we need renewal. That may require a shorter
or a longer process, but it will come, either in this life or the next.
In a multitude of passages in the divine Word we know that God desires
this. Not only so, but God has expressed His desire in the gift of His
Son. If we had any doubt, surely that might convince us. And I believe
it will convince us yet. The doctrine of a universal atonement is now
generally accented. Even Calvinists have declared almost unanimously
that Christ died for the whole world. And if we had not that declaration
in words, we have it even more emphatically in missionary enterprise.
Still there is a remnant of the old belief that Christ died only for the
sins of the elect. I believe the day is coming when there will be the
assured conviction that He died for the sins of the world. Then there
will follow the joyous assurance that there is salvation for the world,
to be realized either in this life or the next.
We have said that God desires this consumation. He has expressed that
desire again and again in His Word. And He has expressed it with
infinite emphasis in the gift of His Son. Men, ask yourselves this
question: Can any desire of His ultimately fail? Let us never forget
that "his counsel will stand, and he will do all His pleasure."