The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

III. Tinling—“Promise of Life” Through Christ Alone

J. F. B. Tinling (1841-1933) was educated at Liverpool Collegiate and St. John’s College, London, studying for the ministry in the Church of England. But he became increasingly convinced that he should become a Free Churchman, and as part of a practical preparation Tinling made a six months’ gospel tour of India among English-speaking Hindus. Returning to England, he became pastor of the Bethesda church in Bristol, near the George Müller orphanage center. CFF2 357.2

1. ACCEPTED CONDITIONALISM FROM BIBLE ALONE

Although he enjoyed more than thirty years of close friendship with Conditionalist Edward White, prior to this association he was led by the Bible alone to accept the position of Life Only in Christ. It came neither by man nor through literature. Following a frank public statement of his inability any longer to subscribe to the doctrine of natural immortality and endless suffering for the wicked, he was subjected to severe censure on the part of some in influential positions. In fact, he, with two others, was put “out of fellowship” by George Muffler, who exercised a dominating influence in the community. CFF2 357.3

Tinling ministered for five years at Reading, then took the pastorate of Albion Chapel, Hull, which was followed by a period at Eastbourne. And in 1886 he went to East Finchley, London. Beginning in 1889 he devoted himself to evangelistic work, the work he loved best of all. His most prominent published work was The Promise of Life, or Revelation of Conditional Immortality, which ran through several editions. He was one of the speakers at the important Conditionalist Breakfast Conference of 1876, at the Cannon Street Hotel in London. He was one of the effective heralds of Life in Christ. CFF2 357.4

2. ETERNAL TORMENT A “STUMBLING-BLOCK” TO WORLD

Timing’s 139-page closely reasoned The Promise of Life, or Revelation of Conditional Immortality, first issued in 1881, was reprinted in 1903 upon the urging of Dr. Petavel, whom Tinling describes as “the most lucid and scholarly exponent of the doctrine herein advocated.” ¹⁰ In his first chapter (“The Modern Revolt From an Ancient Creed”) he alludes to contemporary widespread rejection of the “traditional view” of Eternal Torment of the wicked as the “penalty of earthly sin,” and declares that the subject involves both “the destiny of man and the character of God.” He calls the theory of eternal punishing the “greatest stumbling-block of the world, and the greatest difficulty of the church.” ¹¹ Here are some of the high lights. CFF2 358.1

Tinling first of all denies the contention of universal acceptance of the doctrine until the “modern revolt,” and declares: “Protests against it by the most distinguished Christian teachers reach back to the earliest age in which it was asserted.” ¹² And after reciting, as an example, the historical controversy in the Church of England, and the decision of 1864, he declares that “everlasting torment was not a doctrine of the Church of England.” ¹³ Furthermore, “the Church has never agreed upon this question.” ¹⁴ CFF2 358.2

3. BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSERTIONS

In his next chapter (“The World’s Beliefs Respecting Immortality”) Tinling is compelled to “dispute what has so long been taken for granted that it has grown into the semblance of self-evident truth”—but which rests only on the “assertions of the learned or the arrogant in times of ignorance.” ¹⁵ Carefully distinguishing between an after-death resuscitation of all men “through resurrection,” and the postulate of “natural immortality,” Tinling challenges the thesis that “there is a human nature, apart from the operations of redeeming grace, a soul or spirit that must live for ever.” ¹⁶ CFF2 359.1

4. ETHNIC RELIGIONS TAUGHT ULTIMATE LOSS OF PERSONALITY

Not all the ethnic religions teach an “individual immortality.” For example, in India the Rig-Veda teaches that the soul returns to, and loses individuality “in, God, like a drop of water returning to the ocean.” ¹⁷ And Greek philosophy, springing from Chaldea and Egypt, likewise had “transmigration, and final absorption of souls.” ¹⁸ So Innate Immortality “finds neither proof nor illustration among the master-thinkers of the past.” ²⁰ One fifth-century writer implies that the “preponderating belief of the Jews was the destructibility of the soul.” And only as apostasy made fatal inroads into the Christian Church did Immortal-Soulism take possession of one large wing of the church. The other, and earlier, group taught the mortality of man, and immortality only through Christ. CFF2 359.2

5. NOT LEFT IN IGNORANCE FOR 4,000 YEARS

After showing that Innate Immortality and Eternal Torment have no basis in Scripture, Tinling chides advocates of Innate Immortality for their preference for settling its “orthodoxy” by “philosophical reasonings” rather than by revelation, and warns against the “vicious circle of sophistry” involved in such reasoning. ²¹ On the Biblical side, as to the intent of the term “everlasting,“ he cites Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon as stating that “the extent of duration is restricted or not according to the subject of which it is predicated.” Tinling holds that the word “everlasting” does not therefore support the doctrine of endless suffering, except on the theory of “natural immortality.” Such a premise must be based on “the doctrine of the eternal existence of all men,” ²² and the supposition that “death” does not mean death. But if eternal torment be the fate of the wicked, Tinling declares: CFF2 359.3

“The obvious but incredible implication of this theory is that, during four thousand years of human history, Divine revelation, which at that time was chiefly conveyed in the form of law and its sanctions, did not inform the world of the final consequences and therefore of the real character of sin; that is, that God not only allowed men for forty centuries to remain helplessly ignorant of the terrific doom which hung over them as sinners, but that this discovery of eternal woe was concealed from the age of severity and reserved as a fit background of revelation for the glorious gospel of the love of God. Anything more dishonouring to God or revolting to a Christian conscience than such a representation of Divine government and grace it would be difficult to imagine.” ²³ CFF2 360.1

Tinling boldly asserts that the Bible “does not contain a single passage in which immortality is directly attributed to the human race.” ²⁴ CFF2 360.2

This, he comments pointedly, is a “very remarkable omission,” for one single authoritative statement would have settled forever the “vast amount of ancient speculation and modern assertion which it [such omission] has occasioned.” ²⁵ And no fundamental truth of such “unsurpassed practical importance” should ever be established “upon the narrow and indefinite basis of questionable inference.” ²⁶ CFF2 360.3

6. NO MORE “IMMORTAL” THAN OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OR OMNIPRESENT

Turning to the record of man’s creation in Genesis, Tinling declares: “It is entirely arbitrary to suppose that because God formed man in His own image He communicated to him His own attribute of immortality” ²⁷ — any more than any other divine attribute, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, or perfect holiness. Furthermore, the term “living soul” is “in no way suggestive of immortality.” ²⁸ Otherwise, according to Genesis, it would also apply to the lower animals. The term means living being. CFF2 360.4

Man was made for immortality. And immortality for fallen man comes by redemption, not by creation. It is brought about “by union with the sinless Son of God.” The tree of life was a “provision for the maintenance of man’s physical life”—in the time of his innocence—“from the use of which he was cut off as soon as he became unworthy to live.” ²⁹ So “neither the creation of man nor his connections as described in the Book of Genesis prove human nature to have been originally immortal, but tend powerfully to establish the opposite conclusion.” ³⁰ CFF2 361.1

7. ETERNAL. LIFE THROUGH CHRIST ALONE

Discussing the “second life,” in chapter four, Tinling says that since man does not have natural immortality, he is “short-lived.” ³¹ Immortality is brought to light through the Gospel. God “only hath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16). He is “immortal” (1 Timothy 1:17). Immortality is something we are to “seek for” (Romans 2:7). And its reception is brought about through the resurrection, when our corruption will put on incorruption, and our mortality will put on immortality. ³² And all this is through Jesus, the “Desire of all nations.” He is the “full answer of God to the cry of man, the infallible Teacher whose words were to supersede all tentative philosophies.” ³³ CFF2 361.2

He is our “life” (John 1:4). Eternal life is in Him, the Selfexistent, Imperishable One. And from Him it is “communicated” to us. It is with the uplifting of the Son of man that there is “gracious restoration of forfeited life.” In John 4 eternal life is made dependent upon Him as the “living water.” In John 5 His power to quicken the dead and give life is revealed —a “new right and power of existence.” In John 6 He is the “bread of life”—a term expressing “continuance” and the “meat which endureth unto everlasting life,” which if one eat he shall “not die” but “live forever”—i.e., “eternal continuance in contrast with destruction.” In John 11, by the “opened grave of Lazarus,” the life to be bestowed is through the “resurrection.” Tinling holds that in John 12 the whole issue involves “continuance, or non-continuance.” ³⁴ CFF2 361.3

The “primary meaning of life throughout the Gospel of John is the principle of imperishable existence, in contrast with the present life of dying men”—and this life centers solely in the life of the Son of God. And our “boon of eternal existence” is “by participation in the life of the incarnate God.” ³⁵ Thus it is also with Paul’s teaching, ³⁶ and John’s. ³⁷ CFF2 362.1

8. EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON IMMORTALITY THROUGH CHRIST

Passing much similar valuable material, we come to his statement:
“Everyone who ultimately perishes dies for his own sin, having been raised up from the death in which he was involved by Adam to stand or fall according as he has or has not secured immortality through Christ.” ³⁸ CFF2 363.1

But it is “equally clear” that while “the wicked rise,” they do not rise to “immortality.” Their portion will be the second death. ³⁹ CFF2 363.2

The “second death, which is the doom of the finally impenitent, must be the destruction or extinction of body and soul.” From the beginning to the close of Scripture that fate is presented as “the extreme penalty for sin.” That is the “loss of life.” ⁴⁰ CFF2 363.3

That is a conspectus of Tinling’s message. CFF2 363.4