Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1901-02-21
DEATH THE PENALTY FOR SIN.

1t is not our purpose in writing thi'
article to create confusion or cause har'l
feelings; neither do we call in question the
doctrines of some of our orthodox brethren
for the sake of controversy, but for the
sake of truth. Therefore We are confident
that no one will take offense; unless 1t be
some critic who claims privileges that he
is not willing for others to have. We be-
lieve it to be duty as we'll as a privilege
to defend ourselves against the criticism "f
those who would wilfully or otherwise
misrepresent our views regarding the final
punishment Of the wicked.
No one, who has any knowledge of the
Bible and IFS teachings regarding the de-
tiny of man, will deny the punishment ri
the wicked, or the everlasting complete
ness Of the punishment; but the man wh'
teaches that eternal, conscious suffering J.
the penalty for sin betrays lack Of under
standing and contradicts the statement I'll
the apostle Paul, in Rom. 6, %, that say'
"the wages of sin is death"
It is amazing strange to see how sonr
men, who have studied the Bible for yeAl'
and who claim to preach the truth and
nothing but the truth, will try 80 harG 1t
sustain the Serpents' statement. IN Gen s.
4, and teach Plato's philosophy instead oi
Gods word, while they denominate othel.
sin.loving, misguided religionists, trying 10
obscure the realities offuture torments by
serving drugs upon the consciences Of the
stupid. A serious charge, indeed. But
when we read the statement in Gen. 3, 4,
thou shalt not surely die, and then heal
the preachers respond external torment,
endless agony. everlasting anguish, un
ceasing torture, unending woe, perpetual
pain, immortal SOUL" We think somt
one has been drugged sure enough.
We are taught by some men that those
who depart this life in sin will remain
sinners throughout eternity. Why did
God make death the penalty for sin, II
death will not stop man from shining
Why hang men if it did not stop them
from killing people
In Deut., 80, 10, God calls heaven and
earth to record, places life and death be-
fore them, and commands them to choose
not between two conditions of life, but be
tween life and it's opposite, which is death
Does it not seem strange that all the
terms used to denote the sinners destiny
never reveal it, but only leave it to be In
ferred? If eternal torment is the wages o.
Gin, instead of death. as the Apostle Pau
declares in ROM, 6, %, We could reason
ably conclude that sin will be eternal. Bu
If sin is eternal, must it not be from thu
fact that God has created a law for it'
everlasting preservation, by endowing mer
with eternal existence If not, would
not the fact Of it's eternal existence prove
that God WAS not omnpotent while ther'
remained something in the universe H'
could not destroyH Would not God suffe
an eternal defeat, if after all His attempt
to drive Gin out OF the universe it should
continue forever2 Does not the idea o
the eternity of sin rob Deity of its perfec
ticn, Christ of his glory, the Gospel of it
power, and the Christian of his peace
Has God given us a revelation of tina
which the heart refuses TO believe, tn
reason repudiates as impossible, and ou
love declares as unjust? If not, then ha
be revealed the doctrine of eternal tor
ment2 If We admit the justice Of God
must We not admit that He would not vt
tach a penalty to ain that was dispropor
tionate to the ofiense2 But would not in
finite suffering for finite offenses be disprc
portionate ? Then would it not be unjus
to make it the penalty for sin ? There
fore, if we admit the justice Of God mus
we not reject the theory Of eternal tormen
az the wages of sin
If God has forbidden us TO return eV
for evil will He do to his enemies what h
forbids us to do to ours Would not tb
endless torment of the lost be return
evil for evil2 Will 8 God of mercy VIII
requires men to love their enemies to
ment His eternallyP Can finite beln
perform an infinite act or finite Sin mer
. infinite suffering?
We are told the Judge of all the cart
will do right, and as He ia the author
reason as we'll as revelation, the two vi
y not conflict, for God is not the author
d confusion. II this Is sound proposition
z the Apostle Paul was correct when he sail
u IF We live after the flesh ye shall die
q ROM, 8, 19; and Ezekiel was right whit
y he informed us that "the soul that sinnet
u it shall die" Eek, s, 4; and Christ mac
q no mistake when be said "He that b
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting III
y and he that believeth not on the Son sh'
D. not see life," John 3, SO. The APoet
~ John was not teaching erroneous doctrll
Se when he declared "This is the reco
10 that God hath given to us eternal life, al
Or this life is in His Son. He that hath q
Son hath life, and he that hath not