The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1875-01-28

eternally saving; then why insist that
everlasting punishment is necessarily
to eternally Furnishing. This
is the whole argument in a nutshell, and
might be deemed conclusive if it was not
that the great majority of texts where
the words eternal and everlasting occur,
will not bear the application of Mr. Shell
done rule, even under the most skillful
doctoring and, if the question is to be
settled by analogies, then a preponder-
ance of testimony is against it. Mr.. S.
moreover makes mistake in the ground
work of his argument fatal to his conclu-
sion. He claims that the eternal charac-
ter of redemption, salvation, and judg-
ment, is in the resah, and not the process,
and then asks why not admit the same
when eternal is applied to punishment.
Had he been more careful he would have
seen that when we reason from the. same
premises in both cases, his conclusion
suits the orthodox view quite as well as
his own. What is eternal salvation
Mr.. S. says it is divine act followed by
an eternal result What then is eternal
punishment? 1t is also divine act fol-
lowed by an eternal result; that result is
pan; and cannot be called eternal in
any sense if it is but temporary. In one
case Mr.. S. carefully distinguishes be-
tween the cause and the effect, and in
the other he confounds the two, and
Oh IL
claiming an eternal process of punish
ment. But what will he do with that
class of texts which gives US quite as
good analogies as the three he has cho
sen for himself, and of which the Scrip
lures are full Take the following:
THE righteous shall be in everlasting re-
membrance." THE mercy of the Lord
is from everlasting to everlasting. "Thy
righteousness is everlasting" II love
thee with an everlasting love" "Who
among US shall dwell with everlasting
burnings?" We suppose Mr. S. in res
pect for his rule would tell us this re
membrance, righteousness. mercy, love,
and these burnings, are not everlasting
in the process, or continuance, but in their
results. We repeat, if the use of the
terms eternal and everlasting in their
application to future punishment is. to be
decided by analogies, then we are ready
to accept the challenge In passing we
simply call attention to the fact that to
"dsoeH with everlasting burnings, as used
above, certainly does not indicate extinc-
ton.
Mr.. Sheldon makes quite flourish
over the fact that eternal life is never
applied to the wicked. Why did he not
tell US the reason? We know not of a
single passage in the whole Bible where
these terms are used to describe simple
continuance of being; they are never SO
applied even to the righteous, but are al
ways coupled to, and made to embody
the rewards of the just What applica-
ton, therefore, could they have to the
wicked? 1t is one of the methods oi
Annihilationists to confound their oppo
sers by parading eternal life at one point
as simply Indicating continued being, and
at another time as expressive of future
reward
The first is a false use Of the phrase
unsanctioned by passage in the Bible
The passage in Jude, Even as Sodom
and Gomorrah, and the cities about them
in like manner, giving themselves over
to fornication and going after strange
flesh, are set forth for an example suffer
ing the vengeance of eternal fire, is USED
as stronghold Annihilationists con
tend that the example here is in the fire
and as this is called eternal fire. there
fore we have an exhibition of what it viii
do in the total destruction of these cities
but Peter sets this question at rest by
showing that the example is not in the
fire at all, but in the fact that ungodl,
men have been overthrown. He uses th'
same example; also the antediluvian
and the angels that sinned to show no
the process of destruction, but the fac
that men in this life may expect punish
ment for their sins. What right hav
men to assume that because this eterna
fire destroyed these cities and went out
therefore, it must always go out? w
have not only the phrase eternal fire,
but eternal burning" and smoke as
cending forever and ever, the import O
which cannot be explained away.
If we should attempt to decide tn
meaning of eternal as applied here,
would be much more in keeping witt
what appears to be truth to suppose tn
place from which it is chosen decides il
1t is said fire and birthstone was raine,
from heaven, showing that it was no Oh
dinary confagration, but that God use,
the elements elsewhere shown to be he'll
fire 1t is not even necessary that W
attempt to explain it, any more than tn
everlasting doors to be lifted for tn
King of Glory.
The purely literal rendering of Ann
hilationists involves their theory i
hopeless absurdity and confusion. If tn
fire, the result of the burning, and tn
name eternal as here applied are exam
Piles, then why stop here? What righ
have we to ignore all other items in tn
transaction? But if to avoid this incor
sistency we admit all the items given a
examples of the future doom of the in
penitent, then, in hell must be cite
filled with inhabitants committing form
cation. There must be a Lot who e.
capes Fire must be rained down fror
heaven. There must be other cite
around there and they must share tn
same fate The simple fact of punisI