-
-
-
- Restoration Preachers
on Eschatology
David W. Hester
Eschatology means the study of the last things.
In particular, it refers to the Second Coming of Christ, Heaven
and Hell, and the nature of the soul of man, among other things.
Several prominent preachers in the restoration of New Testament
Christianity took public positions, through their writing, on
these matters.
Some, like Jesse B. Ferguson, advocated doctrines
completely at odds with what the Bible teaches. Ferguson advocated
that Scripture offered a second chance for the dead. Ferguson
went beyond that, though, advocating spiritualism and communication
with the dead. Due to his charisma, and his dynamic speaking ability,
he nearly wrecked the church in Nashville. But, due to the efforts
of Alexander Campbell, P. S. Fall, and others, Ferguson's influence
was minimized. Indeed, when Ferguson died, David Lipscomb wrote,
"He apostatized from the faith...He attempted to build up
a congregation of adherents on his loose views. He failed, turned
politician...He lost respect of all parties here."
Other restoration preachers, like Barton W. Stone,
would by and large teach what the Bible says on the subject, but
would also leave open the question of supposed "signs"
of the Lord's Second Coming. That is, the signs of Matthew 24
(which apply to the destruction of Jerusalem) are erroneously
applied to the last days. While Stone did not press the issue,
neither did he forcefully teach the truth on the matter.
Alexander Campbell represented those restoration
preachers who made every effort to teach only what the New Testament
advocates. In 1861, several of Campbell's articles from The
Millennial Harbinger were compiled into one volume, entitled
Life And Death.
In the volume, Campbell begins:
- Any theory of a future state founded upon human
wisdom and science, however elevated the rank and standing of
its author and its adherents, wanting the sanction of Divine
authority and scriptural demonstration, can afford neither confidence
nor comfort to any reflecting mind. If, indeed, it be a truth
worthy the assertion of an Apostle, that "the world by wisdom
knew not God," equally true and worthy of the same authority
is the declaration;--that Jesus Christ "hath abolished death,
and brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel."
Philosophy, in her wisdom and modesty, has at length confessed
that the soul of man, as to its origin, nature, and destiny,
is wholly beyond the precincts of her jurisdiction; and, therefore,
she utterly refuses to dogmatize or reason on the subject. We
are, therefore, thrown upon the Bible and faith for all that
we can know or learn of this most mysterious and absorbing subject.
Till we have "shuffled off this mortal coil," and have
learned the first lessons of that "great teacher, death,"
we must be content with what the Bible teaches on the spiritual
nature of man, and on the future destiny of the righteous and
the wicked.
-
He continued:
But that volume must be subjected to the equal
laws of interpretation by which we ascertain the meaning of the
words of other authors addressing us from ancient times, and
in languages long since dead. Regardless of that tribunal, we
are, to all intents and purposes, without a revelation in human
language; and, still worse, we never can have one. It is absolutely
essential to the very idea of a Divine communication in the form
of a revelation, that its words and sentences be understood according
to their usual sense at the time in which that communication
was made, and amongst the people to whom it was addressed, and
to whose care it was committed. Since the apparel of thought
changes as the apparel of our persons; and words, in the lapse
of time vary from their original and primitive meaning, a very
strict regard must always be had to their received acceptation
and sense in the age and country in which they were employed
as the vehicle of a Divine revelation.
Through an ignorance of these facts, or through
a disregard of them, it has come to pass that we now have very
dissimilar and contradictory theories of the future state amongst
those who profess to believe and teach the Bible. Take, for example,
the future state of the disobedient and unjust, and how dissimilar
the representations of it given by the Universalist, the Restorationist,
the Destructionist, the Romanist, and the Christian, yet all
professing to hold the same book as a Divine revelation!
Campbell then explained:
The Universalist proper teaches that a full retribution
of sin takes place in this life; and hence, after death, the
wicked are as holy and as happy as the righteous. With him, the
scriptures that speak of future punishment are mere metaphors,
inasmuch as there can be no future punishment neither according
to their theory of the Divine attribute, nor according to the
gospel. Hence the words of Jesus: "He that shall have believed,
and shall have been baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth
not shall be condemned," mean "he that believeth, etc.,
and he that believeth not shall be saved."
The Universal Restorationist teaches that there
will be punishment of a disciplinary character after death, which
shall, in all cases, issue in perfect reformation, holiness,
and happiness. Hence, there will be, hereafter, a continual egress
from hell to heaven until the latter shall have received the
entire population of the former.
The Destructionist teaches that, ultimately,
the souls and the bodies of all the wicked shall be destroyed:
that is, reduced to perfect nonentity. Some of them, (for there
is less unanimity among them than among the theorists above mentioned,)
teach that the soul and body die together and are never again
conscious, any more than a vulture, or a dove; a horse, or a
lamb. Others teach that the souls of the wicked sleep from death
to the final resurrection, and then with their bodies, shall
revive and undergo a second death, proportioned to their former
sins. Some will suffer more, others less, both in duration and
intensity, but finally they shall all be annihilated. This, with
them, is "the second death."
These three theories agree in one great point,
viz:--that the wicked shall all be destroyed out of the universe;
not one left. The Universalist and Restorationist destroy their
character and make them saints; while the Destructionist reduces
them to nothing; giving them neither sense nor reason, neither
person nor name, neither habitation nor existence; thus making
them absolute nonentities.
The Romanist has, for some of the dead, an intermediate
state of purgatorial purification. All men die under certain
liabilities to punishment because of venal offenses, which disqualify
them for heaven. They must, therefore, pass through purgatory,
an imaginary place, concerning which, an infant knows just as
much as Gregory the XVI with all his ecclesiastic conclaves.
Their residence and sufferings in purgatory are to be commensurate
with the number and character of their various offenses; for
which, indeed, they must make expiation. Still, their passage
through that imaginary region will be much shortened and alleviated
by reason of the masses said for the dead, which are always repeated
in number and efficiency according to the contributions given
to the priests. Hence, the rich pass through on steam cars, while
the poor trudge along on crutches. Ultimately, indeed, all its
inmates get through; the irremediably wicked passing directly
into punishment.
The Christian believes that the wicked suffer
an "everlasting punishment," and that, therefore, they
never cease to exist. He believes that the wicked are cast into
hell and there suffer "an everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power," that
in that state "the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Campbell then made his point:
Now, as the Universalist, the Restorationist,
the Destructionist, the Romanist, and the Christian equally profess
to believe the Bible, and, therefore, equally profess to build
their respective theories on divine revelation, follows it not
that they have adopted different methods of interpreting and
applying the words of that sacred record? The difference is not
in the standard to which they all appeal, (for they all have
the same Bible,) but in the mode of interpreting it.
Indeed, Campbell was right in his assessment.
Even today, those who advocate the position of premillennialism
claim to believe in the Bible; however, it is their theory that
gets in the way.
After addressing several doctrines of men in vogue
in the 19th century, Campbell closed in his usual forceful way:
I have by no means exhausted this subject. A
mere miniature view of its prominent points and aspects is all
that we had either room or leisure for. I suggest these views
and considerations to those whose minds have been unsettled by
presumptuous and wayward dogmatists; rather as a help to their
own investigations, than as a full and perfect treatise on the
subject. Believing as I do, that there is but a very narrow isthmus
between absolute scepticism and the affirmations of those views
of the new philosophy of man, and of the intermediate state--the
denial of a universal resurrection, and the eternal punishment
of unbelieving and ungodly men--I can not but observe with great
solicitude every attempt made to weaken the sanctions of the
gospel and to reduce man to a mere two legged animal, whose soul
is blood, whose spirit is breath, and whose destiny in sin is
but the punishment of an insect--the decomposition of an organized
atom. From such philosophists and prosing dreamers--such conceited
dogmatists and reckless schismatics, may the Lord save his cause
and people!
Alexander Campbell captured the spirit of those
dedicated to preserving New Testament Christianity in saying such.
Indeed, he expressed what ought to be the attitude of all Christians
toward man-made doctrineswhether they address eschatology or any
other subject. May we teach only what the Bible says about the
Last Things!