Modern day animism?

 

The Miracle Worker: How Darwinism Dishonors the Enlightenment

Neil Thomas

Editor’s note: This article is excerpted from Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design, by Neil Thomas, newly released by Discovery Institute Press.

Life on Earth has traditionally and for good reason been termed the mystery of mysteries, and there is much to ponder in the contention of 19th-century Harvard professor Louis Agassiz that life’s mysteries were no nearer to being solved after the publication of The Origin of Species than they had been before it. Needless to say, neither Darwin nor Wallace would have been minded to see things in that way, because both were responding to their own internalized challenges in the competition to find something no one else had been able to find in generations of evolutionary thinking: a cogent explanation for the diversification of life that made no appeal to a directly interventionist natural theology.1 Both men pressed on, acting as much in the spirit of conquistadors as discoverers. (Darwin famously rushed out the publication of Origin when he feared Wallace might pip him to the post.)

Their goal, albeit not of course explicitly acknowledged (in deference to that laudable Victorian code of gentlemanly reticence which has fallen into disuse in the last half century), was to become recognized as the Lyell of Biology. They thereby hoped to establish the prestige of a discipline which, they were determined, should slough off old-fashioned and discredited biblical notions and so place biology within the prestigious sphere of “pure” science. By analogy with Lyell’s geological work, which had rendered the biblical flood superfluous, the quest of Darwin and Wallace was to render the Christian God superfluous to the rolling out of the universe after the moment of Creation, or at least after the appearance of the first self-reproducing organism. But in order to advance their new paradigm, they were obliged to transfer agency to the process of natural selection which, unfortunately, contained within it an insurmountable problem, as Wallace later acknowledged.

Two Problems with Natural Selection

Actually there were two problems. The less fundamental but hardly trivial one was the lack of empirical evidence for the power of natural selection to generate new forms. Darwin appealed to the success of plant and animal breeders to fill the evidential gap, but even setting aside that artificial selection is purposive and therefore an odd stand-in for a mindless process, there is also what Bishop “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce underscored. Contrary to the common caricature of him as an unctuous and obscurantist buffoon, Wilberforce was an Oxford First in Mathematics with a keen interest in natural history and a good working knowledge of animal breeding methods. In his 1860 review of the Origin, he noted that domesticate breeders never succeed in breeding a fundamentally new animal form, and what progress they do make always comes with trade-offs. “The bull-dog gains in strength and loses in swiftness; the greyhound gains in swiftness but loses in strength,” wrote Wilberforce. “Even the English race-horse loses much which would enable it in the battle of life to compete with its rougher ancestor.”2

The more fundamental problem is that the “agency” of natural selection invoked by Darwin and, less expansively, by Wallace,3 was held to operate unselectively, with no notion of purpose permitted to obtrude into the multiple revolutions of its biological lottery. It’s not unlike the bonkers situation of a car salesman marketing a car without an engine underneath its hood, the fellow assuring his customer that the car would nevertheless function perfectly well. 

Darwin wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Natural selection is a mindless process; Darwin was adamant about that. Yet he habitually repaired to purposive terminology in his descriptions of it, as when he limned natural selection’s construction of the eye: “We must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration of the transparent layers [of the eye]; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image.”4

One might legitimately ask, how it is possible to “intently watch” and “carefully select” unintelligently? That is entirely discrepant with what Darwin elsewhere claimed for the process he invoked. The contradiction points to a more than trivial conceptual confusion, and I would surmise that the very phraseology Darwin uses reveals that he must have had some awareness of the illogicality of his own position, even if only at some barely conscious level of apprehension.

An Apartheid-Like Antipathy

In the course of my professional life in higher education, an area that proudly regards itself as inclusive, it has often struck me as disturbingly contrary to that ideal that some colleagues in science departments betray an almost apartheid-like antipathy to philosophers, with philosophy coming second only to theology in the demonological hierarchy of some of their number. My vague understanding of this antipathy has, however, become much clarified in the course of preparing this volume. For it is philosophers in particular who have typically been the ones responsible for calling out many “mad genius” ideas put forward by representatives of the scientific community — a task for which said philosophers have received few thanks, needless to say — and which doubtless explains something of the animus towards them.

The problem with “natural selection” for philosopher Antony Flew was that it no more resembles any kind of conscious selection procedure than “Bombay duck is a species of duck.”5 It has been described as a would-be materialistic although in reality miraculous explanation. As Le Fanu put it, “Darwin’s explanation was in its own way profoundly ‘metaphysical’ in that it attributed to natural selection powers that might reasonably be thought to be miraculous — that it should somehow fashion perfection from a blind, random process, and transform one class of animal into another.”6

Again, we come up against the difficulty of scientists having to impute creative powers to phenomena with no creative capacity, rather like the way Richard Dawkins anthropomorphizes genes as being “selfish” — apportioning perception and decision to inanimate entities quite incapable of any decision or action whatsoever, selfish or unselfish, as philosopher Mary Midgley and others have pointed out,7 some going so far as to accuse him of animism.

Rationalist Principles and the Darwinian Narrative

If the reigning materialist paradigm had even a tolerably convincing weight of evidence behind it, I would be the first to accept it. In fact, I would embrace it wholeheartedly and with a sense of relief, even closure, since it would provide an excellent fit with a prior educational formation which has habitually foregrounded rational, evidence-based criteria. However, it is those very rationalist principles which bid me reject the Darwinian narrative, in its original, neo-Darwinian, and extended manifestations. I find it the grandest historical irony that the most fervent defenders of Darwinism claim to be advancing the ideals of the European Enlightenment. My view is that they are in reality dishonoring the foundational principles of that admirable project by perpetuating a hypothesis without empirical foundation or even the slightest approximation to verisimilitude.

As philosopher Richard Spilsbury once noted, “The basic objection to neo-Darwinism is not that it is speculative, but that it confers miraculous powers on inappropriate agents. In essence, it is an attempt to supernaturalize nature, to endow unthinking processes with more-than-human powers.”8

The case might even be made that the Darwinian narrative can work only by implicitly disregarding the Enlightenment program through its appeal to ways of thought supposed to have died out countless centuries before Darwin was even born. By that I mean that to attribute creative potential to nature itself is a deeply archaic, animistic way of thinking which takes us back even to the paganism of the Homeric age.

In the imaginative works of those early eras, nature through its many deified incarnations is routinely credited with directive capability. Zeus, called the Thunderer by the poet Hesiod in his Theogony, was believed to be able, inter alia, to control the weather; Demeter, the fertility goddess, could exert an influence on the annual crop yield; Aeolus, Keeper of the Winds in the Odyssey, provides a gentle breeze to waft Odysseus back to Ithaca after his long travels. To the ancient Greeks and many peoples who preceded them, the gods were essentially personifications of different aspects of Nature itself. The pre-scientific mind imputed agency to Nature by way of the personification of Nature’s various aspects as individual divinities.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection, although it struck most at the time and even since as an intellectual innovation, appears in reality to be something of a throw-back to those earlier modes of thought. In what seems to be a confirmation of the “nothing new under the sun” adage, Darwin appears, wittingly or not, to have channeled the spirit of the older, polytheistic world by crediting Nature with an infinite number of transformative powers.

Notes

1. For Wallace at least it would be going too far to say he was long intent on an anti-theistic model. In his 1856 article titled “On the Habits of the Orang-Utan of Borneo,” in Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2nd ser., vol. 17, no. 103, he is already hinting at the theistic direction he was contemplating and would eventually take. Historian Michael Flannery writes, “It is no exaggeration to see this 1856 essay, written in the wake of his Sarawak Law paper the year before and ahead of his famous Ternate letter, as an early creedal statement. It would mark the emergent tenets of his inchoate teleological worldview, which consisted of the following: a non-reductionist, holistic view of nature; an admission of inutility in the plant and animal kingdoms and this given as reasonable evidence of higher and even intelligent causation in nature; a special place for humankind in the appreciation of features beyond mere survival utility such as beauty of form, color, and majesty; and the allowance that all of this may be the intentional expression of a theistic presence or force.” Flannery, Nature’s Prophet: Alfred Russel Wallace and His Evolution from Natural Selection to Natural Theology (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2018), 64.
2. Samuel Wilberforce, “On the Origin of Species,” Quarterly Review (1860), 237–238.
3. Regarding natural selection, historian Michael Flannery notes (in private correspondence) that a major point of difference that came to separate Wallace from Darwin was the question of artificial selection’s evidential import. In On the Origin of Species Darwin offered breeding examples as analogous to natural selection. Wallace, from his Ternate paper (1858) on, clearly distinguished between the two, and by implication limited the explanatory power of natural selection. We find this in his paper presented to the Anthropological Society of London in 1864, and it led to his open break with Darwin in 1869.
4. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 141–142.
5. Antony Flew, Darwinian Evolution, 2nd ed. (London: Transaction Publishers, 1997), 25. Bombay duck is a gastronomic delicacy composed of dry, salted fish.
6. Le Fanu, Why Us?, 107.
7. On this point see now John Hands, Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe (London: Duckworth, 2015), 382.
8. Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 19.

On Darwinism's 'simple' beginning.

 

The First “Simple” Self-Replicator?

Granville Sewell

Although no one really claims that science can yet explain how the first living thing arose on Earth, the point of view of many scientists, including Darwin, has been: we can explain how the first simple living things evolved into advanced life forms, including humans, so explaining how life began is a relatively small problem that will surely be solved eventually. 

I do not believe scientists actually have any clue as to how the first living things evolved into intelligent, conscious human beings (see my video “Why Evolution Is Different“). However, to appreciate that the first step is not a small problem you only have to realize that with all our advanced technology we are still not close to designing any type of self-replicating machine. That is still pure science fiction. So how could we imagine that such a machine could have arisen by pure chance?

A Self-Replicating Box

To understand why human-engineered self-replicating machines are so far beyond current human technology, let’s imagine trying to design something as “simple” as a self-replicating cardboard box. Let’s place an empty cardboard box (A) on the floor, and to the right of it let’s construct a box (B) with a box-building factory inside it. I’m not sure exactly what the new box would need to build an empty box, but I assume it would at least have to have some metal parts to cut and fold the cardboard and a motor with a battery to power these parts. In reality, to be really self-replicating like living things, it would have to go get its own cardboard, so maybe it would need wheels and an axe to cut down trees and a small sawmill to make cardboard out of wood. But let’s be generous and assume humans are still around to supply the cardboard. Well, of course box B is not a self-replicating machine, because it only produces an empty box A. 

So, to the right of this box, let’s build another box C which contains a fully automated factory that can produce box B’s. This is a much more complicated box, because this one must manufacture the metal parts for the machinery in box B and its motor and battery and assemble the parts into the factory inside B. In reality it needs to go mine some ore and smelt it to produce these metal parts, but again let’s be very generous and provide it all the metals and other raw materials it needs. 

But box C would still not be a self-replicating machine, because it only produces the much simpler box B. So back to work, now we need to build a box D to its right with a fully automated factory capable of building box C’s with their box B factories. Well, you get the idea, and one begins to wonder if it is even theoretically possible to build a truly self-replicating machine. When we add technology to such a machine to bring it closer to the goal of reproduction, we only move the goalposts, because now we have a more complicated machine to reproduce. Yet we see such machines all around us in the living world. 

Keep Adding Boxes

If we keep adding boxes to the right, each with a fully automated factory that can produce the box to its left, it seems to me that the boxes would grow exponentially in complexity. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe they could be designed to converge eventually to a self-replicating box Z, although I can’t imagine how.

As I said in “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design,” if engineers someday do construct a box Z self-replicator, I’m sure it will not happen until long after I am gone, if it ever happens at all. And I’m sure it will not — to put it mildly — be simple. Nevertheless, I can confidently predict that if it ever happens, origin-of-life researchers will announce to the world that science has finally shown that life could have arisen through natural processes. In fact, it will have shown that it could have arisen only through design. 

Guy Fawkes: a brief history.

 Guy Fawkes , also known as Guido Fawkes while fighting for the Spanish, was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics who was involved in the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. He was born and educated in York; his father died when Fawkes was eight years old, after which his mother married a recusant Catholic.

Fawkes converted to Catholicism and left for mainland Europe, where he fought for Catholic Spain in the Eighty Years' War against Protestant Dutch reformers in the Low Countries. He travelled to Spain to seek support for a Catholic rebellion in England without success. He later met Thomas Wintour, with whom he returned to England. Wintour introduced him to Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. The plotters leased an undercroft beneath the House of Lords; Fawkes was placed in charge of the gunpowder that they stockpiled there. The authorities were prompted by an anonymous letter to search Westminster Palace during the early hours of 5 November, and they found Fawkes guarding the explosives. He was questioned and tortured over the next few days and confessed to wanting to blow up the House of Lords.

Immediately before his execution on 31 January, Fawkes fell from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of being hanged, drawn and quartered. He became synonymous with the Gunpowder Plot, the failure of which has been commemorated in the UK as Guy Fawkes Night since 5 November 1605, when his effigy is traditionally burned on a bonfire, commonly accompanied by fireworks.

Nature's acrobats vs. Darwin.

 

Squirrel Acrobatics Amaze Scientists

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

The other day, walking down a tree-lined street, we were startled by a sudden crash and scramble at our feet. A squirrel had fallen from a tree! It quickly recovered and dashed away, back up the same tree trunk from which it had come. That never — or almost never — happens. Why not? Scientists at UC Berkeley have been investigating just that question.

The desire for a peanut is enough to make a squirrel give an Olympic performance. The scientists practically held up “9” and “10” score signs as they watched their guest squirrels run an obstacle course the researchers set up. The squirrels, which live in eucalyptus trees on the campus, even used creative moves when the course was made more difficult. This story shows that good-old empirical science still has the power to fascinate and build understanding, without a need for Darwinian storytelling.

How many movies show a protagonist running from danger, having to make a split-second decision whether to leap over a gap? The scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark showing Indiana Jones running from a rolling boulder, leaping over a chasm, and hanging by his fingernails comes to mind. For squirrels leaping from branch to branch in the trees, this is par for the course. Speaking of that, they also know parkour — the ability to bounce off a wall for extra oomph in a dangerous leap. Parkour is a popular urban sport highlighted in many YouTube videos, where a runner tries to leap from rooftop to rooftop through a rapid series of daring leaps without assistance. It is as dangerous as it looks, but some get really good at it, performing flips and twists in some of the riskier sequences. 

UC Berkeley biologists Nathaniel Hunt and Robert Full, with help from two colleagues in the psychology department, set up the outdoor experiments on campus. A quick video shows the setup and some of the squirrel performances in slow motion.

The results made the cover story in Science on August 6 with the title, “Acrobatic squirrels learn to leap and land on tree branches without falling.” It begins with alacrity:

Every day, there are acrobatic extravaganzas going on above our heads. Squirrels navigate remarkably complex and unpredictable environments as they leap from branch to branch, and mistakes can be fatal. These feats require a complex combination of evolved biomechanical adaptations and learned behaviors. Hunt et al. characterized the integration of these features in a series of experiments with free-living fox squirrels (see the Perspective by Adolph and Young). They found that the squirrels’ remarkable and consistent success was due to a combination of learned impulse generation when assessing the balance between distance and branch flexibility and the addition of innovative leaps and landings in the face of increasingly difficult challenges. [Emphasis added.]

Parkour Engineering Specifications

A novice is not going to nail a new parkour move on the first try. Squirrels, however, seem to be born with ability to do it. A combination of traits is necessary: a flexible body, good senses, strength, agility, rapid decision-making ability, instinct, and ability to learn. The UCB research team seems vague about the ratios of these specifications. Which traits are the most critical for success? Lack of any one of them could prove fatal. It looks like an irreducibly complex set of specs is required for parkour, no matter which animal does it. This is the case for monkeys, apes, lizards, cursorial birds, and the deer bouncing over the truck hood and trotting off.

In their Perspective article about the research, “Learning to Move in the Real World,” Adolph and Young bring up another specification: the ability to adjust quickly to internal changes. Animals gain weight; females become pregnant. The body during growth and development is continuously changing mass. This happens to human infants as well, as every parent knows:

During development, new affordances emerge as animals’ bodies, skills, and effective environments change. Human infants can grow up to 2 cm in a single day. One week, babies are crawlers; the next, they are walkers — yesterday, objects on the coffee table were out of sight and beyond reach; today, they are accessible. Thus, learning occurs in the context of development, and the flux of body growth and motor-skill acquisition ensures that infants do not learn fixed solutions. Indeed, static solutions would be maladaptive in a continually changing ecosystem. Instead, infants “learn to learn.” They learn to detect information for affordances at each moment to determine which actions are possible with their current body and skills in a given environment.

Think Fast!

In the experiments, the team gave the squirrels challenges that required calculating risks and rewards. To get to the nut, a squirrel had to negotiate a narrow flexible strip and then leap to a post. Squirrels instinctively knew whether the strip could support their weight and was stiff enough for the launch. If the strip was sufficiently stable, they would crawl out to the end and jump. If not, they would start their jump farther back with more energy. Sometimes they would “parkour” off the vertical wall to get to the post. If they overshot or undershot, they had a backup plan: they knew their claws could save them. They would grab the bar and flip over or under it and land on top like a star gymnast. Most of the time, they nailed the landing with all four feet fitting on the tight platform provided. The scientists were amazed at their quick calculations.

“They’re not always going to have their best performance — they just have to be good enough,” he said. “They have redundancy. So, if they miss, they don’t hit their center of mass right on the landing perch, they’re amazing at being able to grab onto it. They’ll swing underneath, they’ll swing over the top. They just don’t fall.”

Well, almost never. And that adds another specification: an excellent kinesthetic sense. The animal must know its body’s strengths and weaknesses, its position, and its current weight. If a mother squirrel is leaping while carrying a baby, it must calculate its resources without error each time.

An Engineering Perspective

The “acrobatic extravaganzas” going on all around us in the living world are easy to take for granted. An engineering perspective helps unpack the requirements. What must be true for this phenomenon to occur? Evolutionists defame the achievements of squirrels and humans with their dismissive statements that phenomena just evolved. The UCB scientists seem to recognize the requirements, but attribute them to evolution anyway:

Gap traversibility depends on the complement of environmental properties with an animal’s locomotive capacities. The synergy between biomechanical energy management and learned information for launching and landing likely determines arboreal leaping and ultimately the path through the canopy. The role of fast and accurate leaping in driving the evolution of biomechanical capabilities, learning-based decision-making, and innovation promises to reveal the mechanisms and origins of arboreal agility

In that last sentence, they admit they cannot account for the origin of these mechanisms. So how can they speak of “the evolution of biomechanical capabilities”? Their worldview forces them to imagine an unguided origin, because at some earlier time in their view animals did not have these biomechanical capabilities. How and when did they emerge? What good is one specification when the others are not yet present?

It’s the engineering perspective that intelligent design offers that brings light to these questions. A complex ability like leaping over a gap to a reward presupposes a set of specifications. Each spec is measurable: for a squirrel mass m, needing to clear a gap of distance d, launching from a platform with springiness x, an engineer can calculate the force needed and test it with robotics. More variables can be specified for in-flight correction (parkour moves) and claw strength for grasping and swinging. The specs are likely to get increasingly complicated when requirements for sensing and balance are considered. But this is science that is precise, measurable, and testable. It also has explanatory value: once the requirements are known, the set of causes necessary and sufficient to achieve them can be evaluated.

Lead author Nathaniel Hunt, who also works in the Department of Biomechanics at the University of Nebraska, should welcome mechanical engineers to his team. It’s not a long leap to a Department of Biomechanical Engineering. That, not evolution, is what would promise “to reveal the mechanisms and origins of arboreal agility.”

How is Jesus Christ the firstborn of creation?

 Colossians1:15 NASB "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. "

Clearly this scripture is indicating that Christ is the first of Jehovah's creatures.No? Our dear friends in Christendom insists that we are misinterpreting the verse.Once again I am forced to point out their failure to be consistent with their interpretive logic.

 If someone could point to a single scripture where the firstborn (prototokos) of a set is not a member of that set I would at least have some grounds to reassess what seems like more special pleading from Christendom's apologists but thus far in my innumerable discussions on the subject all I get is a lot of hand-waving and irrelevant referrences to scriptures like 89:27 .David is of course a member of the set of anointed kings and in point of fact literally the first Judean king i.e the first of the line of kings leading to Jehovah's greatest messiah.

  So whether the first born is first in rank or first in number in the Holy scripture he is ALWAYS the first of the set.As tends to be the case they generally have no problem applying sound interpretive logic when no cherished preconceptions are on the line,e.g Revelation1:5 NASB "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead,..." few would argue that this must mean that Jesus was never resurrected,even though jesus is the one through whom Jehovah resurrects the rest of the dead see 1Corinthians 15:21. So once again our interpretive logic is consistent ,that of our would be instructors not so much. 

    

The Taliban: a brief history.

The Taliban , which refers to itself as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), is a Deobandi Islamist religious-political movement and military organization in Afghanistan, regarded by many governments and organizations as terrorists. It is currently one of two entities claiming to be the legitimate government of Afghanistan, alongside the internationally recognized Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Taliban's ideology has been described as combining an "innovative" form of Sharia Islamic law based on Deobandi fundamentalism and militant Islamism, combined with Pashtun social and cultural norms known as Pashtunwali, as most Taliban are Pashtun tribesmen.

From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held power over roughly three-quarters of Afghanistan, and enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. The Taliban emerged in 1994 as one of the prominent factions in the Afghan Civil War and largely consisted of students (talib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan who had been educated in traditional Islamic schools, and fought during the Soviet–Afghan War. Under the leadership of Mohammed Omar, the movement spread throughout most of Afghanistan, shifting power away from the Mujahideen warlords. The totalitarian Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was established in 1996 and the Afghan capital was transferred to Kandahar. It held control of most of the country until being overthrown after the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in December 2001 following the September 11 attacks. During the group's previous rule parts of the northeast were held by the Northern Alliance, which largely maintained international recognition as a continuation of the interim Islamic State of Afghanistan. At its peak, formal diplomatic recognition of the Taliban's government was acknowledged by only three nations: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The group later regrouped as an insurgency movement to fight the American-backed Karzai administration and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the War in Afghanistan.

The Taliban have been condemned internationally for the harsh enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, which has resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans. During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians, and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. While the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they banned activities and media including paintings, photography, and movies that depicted people or other living things. They also prohibited music using instruments, with the exception of the daf, a type of frame drum. The Taliban prevented girls and young women from attending school, banned women from working jobs outside of healthcare (male doctors were prohibited from treating women), and required that women be accompanied by a male relative and wear a burqa at all times when in public. If women broke certain rules, they were publicly whipped or executed. Religious and ethnic minorities were heavily discriminated against during Taliban rule. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, and 80% in 2011 and 2012. The Taliban also engaged in cultural genocide, destroying numerous monuments including the famous 1500-year-old Buddhas of Bamiyan.

The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community and the Afghan government to have provided support to the Taliban during their founding and time in power, and of continuing to support the Taliban during the insurgency. Pakistan states that it dropped all support for the group after the 11 September attacks. In 2001, reportedly 2,500 Arabs under command of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden fought for the Taliban. Following the Fall of Kabul on 15 August 2021, the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.

4th of George Storrs six sermons.

 

SERMON FOUR

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
1Thess. 5:21

The fact is - God appeals to man's reason. "Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord." The  disciples "communed together, and reasoned." See Luke 24:15. Acts 17:2, we are told, "Paul, as his manner was - reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." And chap. 18:4, "He reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Before Felix he "reasoned" till his royal hearer trembled. 

We may rest assured, then, that God has given us our reason to be used; and we are commanded to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us. 

There may be many truths that reason can never find out; hence the necessity of revelation; but revelation can contain nothing contrary to reason - that is impossible; for, I repeat it, it would be no revelation at all, but darkness and obscurity itself. Reason then occupies an important place. It is its province to judge of the truth of that which professes to be a revelation; if that professed revelation is clearly contrary to reason, no man can credit it but a rank fanatic: It is to confound truth and falsehood, and take away all power of discriminating between them. 

Reason, however, is to be allowed to do her work untrammeled. Reason may be blinded. There is no way in which it is so likely to be perverted as by the love of sin. If men are in love with sin, and are determined to persist in it, they may expect to reason incorrectly - though their decisions, in that case, can hardly be said to be the voice of reason; it is rather the voice of passion, or appetite; for, even in such cases, the strife of reason, to be heard, is easily discovered, if a man will observe the workings of his own mind. But our Saviour has decided that the man who "will do" the will of God, i.e. has a purpose, or determination, to do that will, wherever it may lead him, "he shall know of the doctrine." – Before reasoning, then, we should see to it that we have that purpose: else we may go astray. 
​
With these remarks, I proceed to a further examination of objections to the theory I advocate. If those objections are reasonable, and the unreasonableness of them cannot be shown, then you are bound to "hold" them "fast," as "good." If they are to your mind shown to be without reason, as well as without Scripture authority, you are equally bound to give them up. 
​

EXAMINATION OF OBJECTIONS CONTINUED
​

It is said, "the fathers believed in the endless torments of the wicked." In reply, I remark, Our Lord and Master has prohibited my calling any man father. But, if the fathers, as they are called, did believe that doctrine, they learned it from the Bible, or they did not. If they learned it there, so can we. If they did not learn it from the Bible their testimony is of no weight. It may have been an error that early got into the Church, like many others. 

Mosheim, in his Church History, tells us, as early as the third century, that the defenders of Christianity, in their controversies, "degenerated much from primitive simplicity," and that the maxim which asserted the innocence of defending truth by artifice and falsehood, "contributed" to this degeneracy. And he adds: - 

"This disingenuous and vicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and striking them down, as it were, by lies and fictions, produced, among other disagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falsely attributed to certain great men, in order to give these spurious productions more credit and weight; for, as the greatest part of mankind are less governed by reason than authority, and prefer in many cases, the decisions of fallible mortals to the unerring dictates of the divine word, the disputants, of whom we are speaking, thought they could not serve the truth more effectually than by opposing illustrious names, and respectable authorities to the attacks of its adversaries." 

This practice, spoken of by Mosheim, increased as the darker ages rolled on; and through those dark ages, what there are of the writings of the "fathers" have come down to us. It is a truth, also, that the practice of corrupting the simplicity of the apostolic doctrine was commenced much earlier than the third century. Enfield, in his philosophy, says: "The first witnesses of Christianity had scarcely left the world when" this work began. Some of the "fathers" seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy with Christianity, and early commenced the practice of clothing the doctrines of religion in an allegorical dress. 

You may judge, my hearers, what dependence can be placed upon the "fathers" in settling what is Bible truth. 

Again it is said, - The Jews held the doctrine of eternal conscious being in torments. This is proved, not from their Scriptures, the place where it should be found, if true, but from the writings of Josephus. 

The same may be urged against the infallibility of some things found in Josephus, as in the "fathers;" for it is certain, as I have before shown, that there was a large class among the Jews that did not believe it; viz. the Sadducees, who did not believe in the existence of spirits at all, and of course could not have held to their eternal conscious existence in sin and suffering. 

But what if the Jews did believe it? They believed too "many other such like" foolish things. Are we to go to their ignorance and superstition to learn the knowledge of the Most High? The fact is, the Jewish Scriptures, the Old Testament, no where teach that doctrine. 
​
My attention will be called to Is.33:14. "Who among us shall dwell with devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" This looks the most like teaching that doctrine of any thing in the Old Testament. But the text itself refutes the theory it is brought to prove; for it tells us, expressly, the fire is a devouring fire. What is the meaning of the term "devour?" According to Walker, it signifies "To eat up" - "to consume" - "to annihilate." 

Surely then, my opponents gain nothing from this text, for it is wholly in my favor. 

Besides, such questions often imply the impossibility of a thing; e.g. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" i.e. There is no escape. So -"Who shall dwell with devouring fire?" implies the impossibility of any person doing it, as it will utterly destroy, or consume him. I will give the objector one text from the old Testament, that he may weigh along with this. It is Ps.92:7, "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that shall be destroyed forever." I have said, the Jewish Scriptures no where teach the common theory; so far from it, they wind up with the most solemn declaration, calling the attention of all men to the fact, "Behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven: and all the proud, yea, all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up,  saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." 

But suppose I were to admit, that the Jews did hold the doctrine of endless suffering, as my opponents say: what then? Why, say they, that is strong evidence it must be true; because, if it had not been, the Saviour and his apostles would have taught the contrary. 

I reply, first: Many of the Jews believed in the pre-existent state of souls; or, their existence in some other body prior to those they now inhabit. It was owing to this idea, that we find the disciples of our Lord in John 9:2, asking him, "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" This question shows, that even the apostles had imbibed the notion common among the Jews at that time. They supposed that in some previous state he might have sinned; and hence, as a judgment, was born blind. Does not the same reasoning which says, the Jews believed in the eternal sinning and suffering of the wicked, and therefore it must be true, because the Saviour did not refute it, prove that the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is true, because the Jews believed it, and our Saviour did not refute it? 
​
But again, - I maintain, that Christ and his apostles did teach the contrary of endless sin and suffering: and that, as clear as language could make it; and I think I have already shown this. I have read the New Testament carefully through, and noted down every text that speaks of the final destiny of the wicked; or that can be construed as referring to it. Let us look at these texts, and see if any language could well express more clearly and forcibly, the utter extirpation of the wicked. 
​

TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
​

John the Baptist. Matt.3:10 - "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." It appears to me –This language imports, clearly, an utter extinction of being, and nothing short. Again in the 12th verse, John says of Christ - "He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Here the language denotes nothing less than the previous: and is, most clearly, a reference to the words of the Lord by Malachi, chap. 4:1. John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." John, then, does not teach the common notion of eternal conscious being in torments, but utter destruction of being, if there is any meaning in language. If, then, the Jews did hold the doctrine of endless sin and suffering, or the immortality of the wicked, as some pretend, John's preaching was directly calculated to overthrow it. The next witness is,

Jesus Christ, our Lord. Matt.5:29,30 - "For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Let it be kept in mind that the term perish, primarily, signifies "to cease to have existence." Now, I ask the candid, if the one member here is not, by our Lord, put in opposition to the whole body? and if so, is not the sense of this passage expressed thus - If one member is diseased it will cause the whole body to perish unless that member is removed; better, therefore, that one member should be cut off and perish than that the whole body perish.

But, again, Matt.7:13,14 - "Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat; because strait is gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life."

Here, as destruction is put in opposition to life, and signifies to be consumed; or, as Walker says, "In theology, eternal death," it cannot mean eternal life in sin and suffering, but a "ceasing to be;" unless we would confound the use of all language, and adopt the notion, that the common people cannot understand the Bible, and therefore it ought not to be put into their hands. In fact, have we not come to that pass already?

How much short of this is it, when we are told, at least indirectly, that the language of the Scriptures is so figurative, or mystical, that we are not to give the obvious and literal sense of the words, as in reading other books?

But let us hear our Saviour further: Matt.7:19 - "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." The same idea and the same language as that used by John the Baptist. I ask if it imports any thing short of utter destruction?

Matt.10:28 - "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." I ask if this language does not clearly imply, that God is able to kill the soul? –whatever the term soul imports - and does it not as clearly affirm, that he will kill or destroy utterly the wicked? I have no fear for the answer from the candid and unprejudiced.

Once more; Matt.13:40,50 - "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world: the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just; and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." How is it possible for words more clearly to denote an utter destruction of being, accompanied with the most bitter anguish? How can these words be tortured to mean eternal conscious existence in sin?

Matt.16:25,26 - "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it," &c. "For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

Here is no idea of eternal conscious existence, or a miserable eternal life: but a loss of life. It could not be a loss of the soul, if the soul continues in being. No, says the objector, it means loss of happiness to the soul. I reply, a loss of happiness is one thing, and the loss of the soul is another and a very different thing. Suppose I should interpret the expression, "Whoever will save his life shall lose it," to signify that the person who seeks to save his life shall lose, not his life, but the happiness of it! Would not the objector himself call it a perversion of the Scriptures? But it is no more a perversion than for him to say, the loss of the soul means only the loss of its happiness.

Again, Matt.18:8,9 - "Cut off thy hand; pluck out thine eye if" they "cause thee to offend," for "it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed," or "with one eye, than to be cast into everlasting" or "hell fire."

Here the punishment is the opposite of life, which it could not be, if the wicked are to have endless life or eternal conscious being.

Thus then we fail to find, in the language of our blessed Lord, the doctrine of eternal existence in sin and suffering; but we do find that the punishment of the wicked will result in the loss of life; preceded by sufferings more or less protracted; set forth as the anguish fire produces on this corporeal system, and by the "wailing and gnashing of teeth." We find, then, if I mistake not, no countenance to the supposed Jewish notion of eternal sin and misery.

Peter's Testimony. Acts 3:23 - "Every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." This language cannot relate to a temporary destruction, nor, as some suppose, to a violent destruction from this world, unless it can be shown that all who have refused to hear Christ have been thus destroyed. But this cannot be done; for, many unbelieving Jews have existed on earth to this day.

Besides, the original is much more expressive than our translation. The term translated destroyed is exolothreutheesetai; which Dr. Bloomfield in his "critical" notes on the Greek text, edited by Prof. Stuart, - says, "is a word found only in the Septuagint and the later writers; signifying to `utterly exterminate.'"

In this text, then, we have a clear testimony against the idea of endless sin and suffering, or the immortality of men in sin.

Acts 8:20 - "Thy money perish with thee." Again, 2Peter,2:1 - "Bring upon themselves swift destruction." Also 12th verse - "These as natural beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, shall utterly perish." This, certainly, does not look like teaching the common theory, that the wicked are immortal; and I know not how any form of expression could more forcibly teach the utter extermination of the wicked. At the 17th verse, he says of certain wicked characters, "To whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever." This expression, to my mind, carries the idea of a total destruction; as light is sometimes put for life in the Scriptures; as, for example, "the life was the light of man," so darkness is put for death; and the "mist of darkness forever," I conceive, implies an utter extinction of being.

But again, 3d. chap. - "The heavens and earth - are reserved unto fire again the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." "Perdition," according to Walker, signifies "Destruction - Ruin - Death - Loss, Eternal Death." Which of these definitions favors the common theory of eternal conscious existence?

Again at the 9th verse, Peter says: "The Lord is not willing that any should perish," &c. Lastly he tells us, at the 16th verse, that some "wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction."

Thus I have noticed every passage found in Peter's testimony concerning the final destiny of wicked men; and I ask, if it were not for the trammels thrown around our minds by tradition, if we should ever give any other interpretation to these texts than the plain obvious one of destruction of being? So it seems to me. I come to:

James' Testimony. Let us now hear what he has to say. 1st chap. 15th verse, he says: "Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death;" and again, 5th chap. 20th verse, he says: "He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death." How can a man maintain that the soul is "deathless," with such testimony before his eyes? And why should we submit to this mystifying the plain language of the Holy Spirit to keep an old theory alive, which cannot live in the light of a literal construction of scripture language, and when no good reason can be given for departing from the literal meaning?

John's Testimony. 1st John 22:17. "The world passeth away and the lusts thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." The inference is irresistible, that the wicked will not abide forever."
Again - Rev.20:14,15. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire:" i.e. they experience the second death, a death of the whole man: and this because they would not come unto Christ that they "might have life."

Let us hear this apostle once more. Rev.21:8. "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death."

Other passages in Rev. supposed to refer to the final punishment of the wicked, I have noticed in another place. I leave my hearers to judge to which theory, that of endless being, or destruction of being, the testimony of John belongs.

Jude's Testimony. Sixth verse, he says: "The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." Here we have an account of sinning angels, and learn that they are "reserved;" but for what are they reserved? First - for judgment; i.e. to be judged; and the fair inference is, they are after that to receive their punishment, according to the declaration of Peter, that "God knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." I suppose it will be admitted by all, who believe in the existence of fallen angels, that they are now tormented; but that is not the punishment they are to have for their sins, though it is a consequence of their sins. What, then, is to be their punishment? Let them speak for themselves. "Art thou come to destroy us?" said they to him of whom the apostle says to the Hebrews, he shall "destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil." But if the testimony of the devils, nor that of the apostle are sufficient, then hear that of the "Lord God" Himself. Addressing the old serpent, the devil, he said: "The seed of the woman shall bruis e thy head;" an expression so familiar to all, that I hardly need add, that no language could more forcibly point out the utter destruction of the devil.

Again - Jude, speaking of certain wicked characters says, - "Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." The figure here used denotes an utter, total, and eternal obscuration, or disappearing. - No language could more forcibly denote the utter destruction of the wicked - of their being itself, so that they appear no more forever.


Testimony of Paul. If there is immortality in sin and suffering, we shall expect to find that doctrine clearly stated by such a writer and preacher as "Paul" the "Apostle of Jesus Christ." In other words, if the punishment of impenitent sinners is endless life in misery, Paul cannot be supposed to overlook it, who had constantly to preach to sinners of the worst class, and often speaks of their doom. Now, if it should appear that Paul never once gives countenance to the doctrine of the immortality of the wicked, or their conscious being in endless suffering, then it must be evident he did not believe that doctrine. It will be my object to examine fully what Paul did say and teach on this question; and not a text shall be omitted where he touches the subject.
​
In Acts 13:40,41, Paul utters a strong word of caution to his hearers on the danger of despising the gospel. Does he say, "Behold, ye despisers and wonder and" sink to endless misery? No. What then? "Perish." This phrase does not mean preserve, under any form or circumstances, but "to decay, to die, to cease to have existence, to be destroyed." Again, at verse 45, the Jews are found "contradicting and blaspheming," showing an awful state of wickedness. If Paul is a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, we shall expect him to state in the strongest and most emphatic terms the danger of such wicked conduct: but we find not a word that gives countenance to the notion that these wicked men were immortal, and would be tormented eternally. Just the reverse of this is clearly expressed: "Seeing ye put the word of God from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." What can be plainer and more forcibly expressed? It was "everlasting life" they forfeited by their sins; and that is the highest penalty of God's law, or Paul was unfaithful.

The next place where we find the apostle speaking on this subject is Rom.1:29,-32. Let us first attend to the description he gives of the wickedness of those of whom he speaks. He says, v.28-31, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those thing which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable unmerciful."

Can a blacker catalogue of sins be furnished than this? Surely if any men deserve unending being in indescribable torments these do. Let us hear what further the apostle has to say concerning them: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy" of endless torments in hell fire! Is that what they "are worthy" of, Paul? "No, I did not say any such thing." Well, what did you say? "I said they are worthy of DEATH." Is that all? Those who profess to be your "regular successors" tell us such wicked men are immortal, and cannot die, but must live eternally in misery. However, we believe you, and think those who claim to be your "successors" may not have sufficiently heeded the apostolic injunction to "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit; after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the [pagan] world, and not after Christ."

I now follow the apostle into Rom.2. After showing that God's judgment of men will be impartial, both on the Jew and Gentile, he give us to understand who will have "immortality, eternal life," viz: those "who seek for" it, by a "patient continuance in well doing:" while the opposite character will have "indignation and wrath:" and that this will be the case with all who have sinned "without law," or "in the law;" so, that "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," they shall "perish." In this chapter, then, the apostle gives no countenance to the theory that wicked men are immortal, or that any man can have immortality unless he "seek for" it: all others shall experience the "wrath" which they have "treasured up," under which they shall "perish" in the day of judgment. To "perish" and have "immortality, eternal life," are put in contrast by the apostle.

Next, look at Rom.6:21-23, "What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is endless torments!" Have we read Paul right? Does he talk thus? Let us look again, "For the end of those things is death." Modern divines say it is "endless misery" - Paul says it is "death." Which shall we believe? Paul continues, "But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the END EVERLASTING LIFE," He then adds, "For the wages of sin is" everlasting life in indescribable and unutterable torments! Is that right? Did he say so? He ought to say so, if modern theology is true. Let us take off the old sectarian spectacles and look at this text again. What did Paul say? He said "the wages of sin is death." Well, we thought so; but his words have been so often "tormented" to make them speak "endless misery," we did not know but we might be mistaken, and that death meant life. "No," cries the apostle, "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus Paul has a perfect contrast - Death to the sinner - Life to the saint. One dies, and his death is eternal: he other lives, and his life is everlasting. Thus far Paul is clear of the heresy of endless life in sin and suffering.

Rom.8:13, the apostle says, "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." How perfectly plain. It needs no learned perverters of God's truth to make common sense men understand it. So sure as one lives, the other will die: and just as certain as life implies consciousness, death implies unconsciousness. "To be, or not to be," depends on the character men form here. If they have been made free from sin and had their fruit unto holiness, they live, by the gift of God, eternally. If destitute of this character they die, and thus reap the wages for which they labored.

Rom.9:22: the apostle inquires, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" What, Paul! Are you coming out a Destructionist? Beware how you favor that class of men, for we hate them, as Ahab did Micaiah. 2Chron.18:7.

Again, Paul says, Rom.14:15, "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died:" and verse 20. "For meat destroy not the work of God." Now, that is provoking, Paul: we called you, as Balak did Balaam, to curse our enemies, and behold thou hast blessed them altogether. But, come I pray thee unto another place - and curse me them from thence. Very well, answers Paul, we will go to 1Cor.1:18:

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that are to be endlessly tormented foolishness." Will not the endless misery theorists cry out now, as did Ahab king of Israel to Micaiah, when he said with the false prophets, Go ye up to battle, and prosper, &c.; and the king said, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the Lord? Very well - if truth is what you want, then I, Paul, say, "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness." Well, have you anything more to say? Yes, "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy:" 1Cor.3:17. More destruction! Yes - "and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died:" 1Cor.8:11. And, "if the dead rise not - then they also that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished:" 1Cor.15:17-18. Worse and worse - truly Paul, you only prophecy evil of our theory: for, you not only teach the wicked are to be destroyed, but that the saints who die are perished if there is no resurrection, and if so, they cannot be conscious now! But we are not satisfied yet, Paul; so please come with us to another place, it may be we shall make out these Destructionists heretics from there. We turn to 2Cor.2:15-16, "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that" are preserved in endless misery! Have we read Paul right? No - He did not say any such thing. What did he say? "In them that perish." But, don't that mean preserve? No, for "to the one we are the savour of death unto DEATH; and to the other the savour of Life unto LIFE." But, Paul, by such testimony do you not corrupt the word of God? "No - we are not as many who corrupt the word God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ:" v.17.

Alas for the advocates of inherent immortality - take Paul to what place they will, he is stubbornly set in giving no countenance to their Pagan fable. Let them, however, try him to their heart's content, and Balak like, drag him to another place. Gal.6:8, What do you see now Paul? "He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, [not immortality,] but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." Phil.1:28, "And in nothing terrified by your adversaries, which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God." Also, chap. 3;19, "Whose END IS DESTRUCTION." 1Thess.5:3, "Sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape." Shall not escape what? Destruction. But they would escape it if eternally preserved. Now, Paul, do let us try you once more: come to another place. Speak now, we pray thee, so as to confirm our theory this once, for we cannot bear to think we and our fathers have been in error, and that we are not gods. 2Thess.1:9, "Who shall be punished with everlasting" preservation in indescribable agonies, where "the presence of God in his vengeance catters darkness and woe through the dreary regions of misery; for God is present, himself, in hell to see to the punishment of these rebels; his indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful presence and operation maintains their being, - and renders all their powers most acutely sensible; thus setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep." Now, immortal-soul believers, shout and clap your hands, for you see Paul is fairly and fully on your side! But stop one moment: we have made a mistake. We began with Paul, but the railroad track has got so badly worn by much travel that we run off, and took Benson's track, in his Sermons on Future Misery. Badly as we are off the track of Paul, we must get back again. We start anew then: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power," &c. Thus Paul differs from Benson and his immortal soul coadjutors immensely.

Again, the apostle, in speaking of the man of sin, chap. 2:10, says his working is "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved: and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned [condemned] who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Then Heb.6:8, he says, "That which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned;" not preserved; for John the Baptist declares, Matt.3:12, that the chaff, same as thorns and briars, shall be "burned up with unquenchable fire;" no preservation, but utter destruction. Let us hear Paul once more, Heb.10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Devour, which signifies to eat up, to consume, to annihilate. "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition," [destruction,] v.39.

Thus closes up the testimony of Paul. I have now placed before you every word that he has spoken on the doom of the wicked, so far as recorded in the Bible. And where is one solitary expression that gives countenance to the theory of endless sin and suffering? Again I ask - Where? Paul a sustainer of the God-dishonoring theory shadowed forth in the words of Benson, quoted above, which is the doctrine of all who, like Benson, believe in endless misery! No - never. Paul did not so learn of Christ. The endless sin and suffering theory was manufactured in a Pagan and Papal mill. Paganism is the father cause, and Papacy the mother cause of the fable of endless torture to any being in the universe. Well did Bishop Newton say "It is impossible for any creature to live in endless torments." And again he said, "God is love; and he would rather not have given life, than render that life a torment and curse to all eternity." Whatever Bishop Newton might think or say, a greater has said, even the eternal Jehovah himself - The soul that sinneth it shall die: Eze.18:4,20. Also, by the Spirit of God, the Psalmist says, But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke they shall consume away: Ps.37:20.
​

CONCLUDING REMARKS
​

God, has set life and death before us. We are called upon to choose life. God invites, commands, expostulates, entreats, and warns; but God cannot compel man to turn from death without destroying man's moral agency, which would be, in fact, to unman man, and make him as incapable of higher happiness as any other mere animal. Man must turn and live, or he will pass on and die, - die because he would not have life; - die because he is unfit for any purpose of life – wholly disqualified for the employment of life. And the sinner, persisting in the course of sin and death, will as certainly pass the period of being restored, and when death entire must be the result, as certain as the man with a fatal physical disorder will certainly, by neglecting proper medical aid, pass the period when death cannot be arrested. And if you would think the man unwise, and acting insanely, that procrastinates, and puts off application to a proper remedy in such a physical disorder, how much more is every careless and dying sinner chargeable with folly and madness, who delays applying to Christ, the great Physician? Every day increases the danger; and every day the moral disease is increasing in malignity - every day is bringing the sinner nearer to that point, where, when once past, there is no recovery - destruction and death must follow. 
​
Let none, then, delay longer: - God is now calling - "look unto me and live." The Lord Jesus Christ is stretching forth his hands, and saying, - "This is that bread which came down from heaven, that a man might eat thereof and not die." "Whosoever drinketh the water that I shall give him" - it "shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." Hasten to Christ, then, who only has eternal life to give - believe in him, trust in his power and skill to make alive; abide by his directions - follow him. Remember no man can come to the Father but by Christ. There is no other way of salvation, or eternal life, but by the Son of God alone. All other physicians and remedies are of no value. If you stay away you die. O, come to Christ and live.