THE DOCTRINE OF HELL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 6 November 1926, Page 6

THE DOCTRINE OF HELL.

(To the Editor.) • ,Sir, —The question is asked, in Isaiah 40, 18: “To whom then will ye liken God.’’ In the verses which follow, and also in Romans 1, 21-25, we find the thoughts of men revealed by the images they made. As each imagined God to he, so they constructed their idols. iSome likened Him to corruptible man, some to creeping things, etc. In our day people are still likening God. Now, as God said (Gen. 6,5) < < that every injpgination (this includes desires —marginal reading) of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, ’ ’ we can understand why man has such corrupted ideas about God. But to those who would really know God, it is hopeless to depend upon the imagination at all. Jesus, the Christ, came to declare Him; and we also have the fuller revelation through the writ ings of the Apostles. With, those people in Isaiah and Romans it was first the imagination, then the image. To-day it seems that the follows "the imagination. Some people imagine things, then seek. to interpret Scripture accordingly. Little wonder there is such confusion of doctrine. The same Bible that tells me “'God is love” (1 John 4,8) tells me that “God is also a consuming fire” (‘Heb. 12, 2-9) and that “it is a fearful thing to fall into' the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10, 31). It also says “he that despised Moses’ law died without rncrcey. . . Of how much sorer punishment . . shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?” What right have I then to uphold the one aspect without the other. Far better to discard the Bible altogether than change it into a lie. There is perfect harmony if only it is rightly divided. If some take a dictionary as an interpreter of Bible doctrine, they can expect trouble. But in doing so they should be honest with it. What are we to think when one takes the dictionary meaning of the words ‘‘death ’ ’ and “dead,” but turns aside from the dictionary meaning of ‘‘for ever’’? B.A.P.’s remarks rebound with humiliating effect. Sir, I pointed out before, that in the Bible, as in our ordinary language, the meaning of a word is ‘ usually decided by its use, or context. And B.A.P. has quoted sufficient Scripture to prove my contention. After all, what we wish to know is not so much what a word means or may mean, but what the doctrine is concerning or attached to that word. In my last letter I gave instances where the same words, applied equally, or with the same meaning, to 'God, to the Christian and to the unbeliever. So far, those who ‘have written have agreed that the Bible teaches there is everlasting punishment for those who reject Jesus, the Christ. llow, then, do they reconcile their sentiments about the love of God with those of Dean Inge and Canon Grant Cowan? You see, 'Sir, once we depart from 'Scriptural doctrine, one person’s imagination is of the same worth as another ’s. In the Bible alone we have authority and finality. And how do they reconcile the story of the rich man being consciously tormented in the flame or “they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” with the love of God? 'We have no need to apologise for what is written, but it is our responsibility to accept. Jesus Himself said concerning the unbeliever that “the wrath of God abideth (that is, continues to abide) on him” (John 3, 36). B.A.'P. and T.L. have both failed to show that death means to “cease to .exist.” T.L.’s trouble is caused through not properly dividing the Word. The Bible reveals its. own teaching and there is no need to eonfuse the Bible with a dictionary. Although I must admit that the modern scientific definition of death—cessation of correspondence with pre-existing tilings or environment —comes very ncar the Bible teaching; never cessation of existence. The father said of the returned prodigal son, “This my son was dead, and is alive again ’ ’ (Luke 15, 24). Then we have those who are dead in trespasses and in sins (Epli. 2). Again, Christians are exhorted to “reckon themselves dead indeed unto sin” (Rom. 6. 11). Sir. these references should suffice to show that death is separation from or on account of something else. A cessation, not of existence, but of correspondence. The story of the rich man confirms this. He remembered about his five brethren, but was unable to communicate with them, so desired that someone be sent to them. The doctrine in Scripture then is separation from God. The second death is the final and eternal separation (not cessation of existence) from God. —I am, etc., ‘ ‘BELIEVER. ’ ’ Otakeho, Nov. 3. [May we suggest to correspondents that this controversy can do no good by being prolonged further?—Ed. Star.]