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.
the bible,truth,God's kingdom,Jehovah God,New World,Jehovah's Witnesses,God's church,Christianity,apologetics,spirituality.
Monday 13 September 2021
The Taliban: a brief history.
4th of George Storrs six sermons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Cuban revolution:a brief history.
The Cuban Revolution (Spanish: Revolución cubana) was an armed revolt conducted by Fidel Castro and his fellow revolutionaries of the 26th of July Movement and its allies against the military dictatorship of Cuban President Fulgencio Batista. The revolution began in July 1953, and continued sporadically until the rebels finally ousted Batista on 31 December 1958, replacing his government. 26 July 1953 is celebrated in Cuba as the Day of the Revolution (Dia de la Revolución). The 26th of July Movement later reformed along Marxist–Leninist lines, becoming the Communist Party of Cuba in October 1965.
The Cuban Revolution had powerful domestic and international repercussions. In particular, it transformed Cuba–United States relations, although efforts to improve diplomatic relations have gained momentum in recent years such as the Cuban thaw. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, Castro's government began a program of nationalization, centralization of the press and political consolidation that transformed Cuba's economy and civil society. The revolution also heralded an era of Cuban medical internationalism and Cuban intervention in foreign military conflicts in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. Several rebellions occurred in the six years following 1959, mainly in the Escambray Mountains, which were repressed by the revolutionary government.
And still yet more primeval tech vs. Darwin.
Complexity Paper Details Complexity of Function and Assembly of Bacterial Flagellum
- Casey Luskin
In July I covered a paper in the journal BIO-Complexity that reviewed engineering constraints on the bacterial flagellum. I noted that the author, Waldean Schulz, an engineer with a PhD in computer science, was preparing future papers that would explore questions about flagellar evolution, such as, “Would such partial systems be preserved long enough for additional cooperating components to evolve?” Now Schulz has published a second peer-reviewed scientific paper in BIO-Complexity, “An Engineering Perspective on the Bacterial Flagellum: Part 2 — Analytic View,” which begins to address that question.
A “Bottom Up” Approach
His first paper took a “top down” approach to determining the components and design necessary to fulfill the functional constraints of the flagellum. The second paper takes a “bottom up” approach, and reviews “the known 40+ protein components and the observed and inferred structure, control, and assembly of a typical bacterial flagellum.” He provides a clear diagram of an “archetypical flagellum,” labeling features such as the motor stator, filament, hook, and rod:
Schulz notes that the assembly process requires a regular set of components and procedures in order to work properly — on this point, he quotes Cohen et al. (2017) from Science who state:
The bacterial flagellum exemplifies a system where even small deviations from the highly regulated flagellar assembly process can abolish motility and cause negative physiological outcomes. Consequently, bacteria … [possess] robust regulatory mechanisms to ensure that flagellar morphogenesis follows a defined path, with each component self-assembling to predetermined dimensions.
Schulz further explains that these proteins components themselves are fine-tuned to “Note that all proteins in each rotary subassembly need to (non-covalently) bind tightly to themselves and to the proteins of the adjacent subassemblies. This is noteworthy: the combinatorial configurations of the ensemble of proteins must be very specifically orchestrated.”
Biochemical Basis of Chemotaxis
Schulz considers not just the design and construction of the flagellum, but also the biochemical basis of chemotaxis. It’s a long passage but it’s worth reading to appreciate the complexity, elegance, and control of the system:
While there are diverse chemotaxis systems for differing bacteria, generally the concentrations of environmental chemistry are sensed by transmembrane methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins (MCP). In the case of our archetypical bacterium, these MCPs include Tar, Tsar, Trg, Tap (E. coli) or Tcp (Salmonella), and Aer. They have a periplasmic ligand binding region and a cytosolic signalling region. These are bound to CheA by CheW to form clusters located at one or both polar ends. CheA auto-phosphorylates according to the methylation of the MCPs. Presence of nutrients increases methylation; toxins or repellants decrease it. The methylation state implements the short-term memory of the sensor system. Rebbapragada states, “Repellent binding to a chemotaxis receptor induces a conformational change in the signalling domain [of the MCP] that increases the rate of CheA autophosphorylation. The phosphoryl residue from CheA is transferred to CheY.” CheY-P in its phosphorylated state, diffuses to a flagellum, and binds to the flagellar rotor. That causes the rotor to switch the direction of rotation of the filament so that the bacterium tumbles. Tumbling causes a random new direction for forward travel after CheZ dephosphorylates CheY-P. Then CheY unbinds from the switch, default (counterclockwise) rotation ensues, and forward travel resumes. This periodic tumbling occurs about every second. The upshot is a biased random “climb” up an attractant gradient.
Meanwhile the methyl esterase protein CheB demethylates the MCP-Che-CheW complex, eventually resetting it back to its non-signalling state. The response of CheB is slower than the transfer of phosphorylation to CheY, so CheY-P can interact with the flagellar motor rotor before CheW responds (as a kind of delayed negative feedback). In parallel, CheZ removes the phosphorylated state of CheY. So, CheB and CheZ provide adaptation (hysteresis) by a time-delayed negative feedback. If stimuli are present in abundance, the phosphorylation of CheA outdoes the negative feedback effect of CheB. If stimuli decrease, then the effect of CheB starts winning out, too few CheY proteins are phosphorylated, and the flagellum rotation reverts to its default rotation.
This control system alters the period between tumbles, with longer periods occurring in the presence of increasing attractants to prevent unneeded redirection.
Proteins as Gears
Schulz also explores the mechanisms by which the flagellum generates torque to spin the filament. While this process is not fully understood, he notes that the power output of the motor “is nearly 100% efficient,” and proposes that it involves proteins that effectively function as gears:
MotA in effect forms a “gear” and always rotates in the same CW direction. During normal CCW rotation for forward motion, the C-ring’s FliG engages with the side of MotA that is nearer to the C-ring axis. During CW rotation for tumbling, the MotA reconfigures so the C-ring engages with the side of the MotA cog gear that is farther from the C-ring axis. If this hypothesis is correct, the protein configurations of FliG and of MotA are exquisitely matched.
Schulz then turns to the assembly of the flagellum and notes that they have remarkably similar control across different species: “All flagellar systems coordinate flagellar gene expression through a transcriptional hierarchy central to an integrated regulatory network of multiple regulatory components. These networks exhibit a number of conserved circuit architectures reflective of the strong conservation found within the structural components of the flagellum.” In a series of illustrations he diagrams the flagellar assembly process through various pathways and at major stages in the production of various subcomponents. He notes that the complexity of the flagellum poses a challenge to evolutionary biologists:
The future work for an evolutionary biologist is twofold: (1) to provide a detailed explanation for how all the tightly constrained interlocking coherence described above could have evolved stepwise and naturalistically under real-world constraints; (2) to show evidence that such a scenario actually occurred in the past.
A Step-by-Step Pathway?
After concluding his review, Schulz expresses the view that a step-by-step evolutionary pathway is unlikely:
[T]he evolutionary biological community has yet to hypothesize a likely, detailed, step-by-step scenario to explain how the flagellum and its control system could have been blindly engineered naturalistically. Yet even that would still fall short of real evidence that such a thing actually happened, given real-world constraints. The flagellum seemingly is irreducible. How would portions of an incomplete, nascent flagellum be protected from degradation for generations while the remainder was yet to be gradually added? If some of the subassemblies discussed above could be omitted, what function would result?
Although Schulz notes that these are “hard” questions, he says they should not be dismissed: “These are real questions, and the challenge is to answer them.” In the meantime, despite our lack of total knowledge, he concludes that a design-option should remain on the table: “it seems disingenuous to dismiss teleology and intelligent causation, when so much is already known about the apparently ingenious, coordinated hierarchical assembly, control, and function of the flagellum.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)