The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

II. Homiletic Monthly’s “Clerical Symposium on Immortality”

A highly illuminating “Clerical Symposium on Immortality” ran through the “Theological Section” of the Homiletic Monthly during 1884 and 1885, and dealt with both the theological and the historical aspects. Famous scholars presented both sides of the question. Conditionalist Canon Row opened the series, and at least a dozen distinguished men contributed. The over-all theme was “The Foundations of the Belief in the Immortality of Man.” CFF2 438.9

1. STOKES’S STRONG CASE FOR CONDITION ALISM

One noted participant was Prof. (Sir) George G. Stokes, of Cambridge, and secretary of the Royal Society. Ably presenting the Conditionalist side, he covered the physical, metaphysical, teleological, moral, and Bible arguments put forward for natural immortality. He says the “physical evidence” is “notoriously negative.” In death “all traces of organization are lost.” Any so-called evidence of natural immortality is a “mere suspicion,“ and the “most probable inference” is perishing “at death.” ⁶⁵ One by one Stokes dismisses the points as “assumptions,” and without the “slightest weight.” On the teleological argument, he says: CFF2 438.10

Picture 1: Sir George Gabriel Stokes, Joseph B. Rotherham
Left: Sir George Gabriel Stokes (d. 1903), professor at Cambridge University—immortality only through redemption. Right: Joseph B. Rotherham, Greek and Hebrew scholar—immortality conditional and dependent.
Page 439

“We have clearly no right to assume that man’s destroy in his fallen state corresponds with aspirations which may have been implanted in him in his natural, i.e., unfallen condition. The desire of immortality no more proves that a man will be immortal, than the desire of happiness proves that he will be happy.” ⁶⁶ CFF2 439.1

Then, turning to the Biblical side, Stokes declares:
“In the scriptural account of the creation and fall of man, there is nothing to indicate that man was by creation an immortal being. On the contrary, his immortality is represented as depending, not on his condition by creation, but on something outside of him, his right to the use of which (the tree of Life) was contingent on his obedience, and from which he was cut off at his fall, ‘lest he should live for ever.’” ⁶⁷ CFF2 439.2

He adds that “there is nothing to indicate that the ‘death’ which his disobedience entailed affected one part only of his nature, or was anything short of utter abolition.” ⁶⁸ CFF2 440.1

Professor Stokes states that “over and over again in the New Testament,” “eternal life” is offered on “conditions.” Clearly, he says, it “would not be offered as a gift” if f it is already our inherent “possession.” To the Christian, “immortality rests upon its promise as a gift, a gift supernatural in its nature,” and it “involves resurrection.” If we “once accept the scriptural account of the fall,” and that “disobedience forfeited immortality,” then it is reasonable to believe that it is only “restored” under the provisions of redemption and “complete righteousness.” That view, of “very early times” has of “late years” been revived. ⁶⁹ Stokes closes with two important statements:
“Man’s whole being was forfeited by the fall, and the future life is not his birthright, but depends on a supernatural dispensation of grace...
“Man must not look into himself but out of himself for assurance of immortality” ⁷⁰ CFF2 440.2

2. WHITE: WIDESPREAD CONTEMPORARY REVIVAL OF CONDITIONAIISM

In the March, 1885, issue, the “Symposium on Immortality” included a strong article by Dr. Edward White, constituting an over-all survey of contemporary Conditionalism in France and other lands. He reports that in October, at a Synod meeting at Montpellier, some fifty Reformed Church of France clergymen listened to a paper presented by M. Babut, prominent Protestant leader, denying inherent immortality. In this position he was supported by Professors Bonnet of Frankfort and Sabatier of Montpellier. Then in December the noted Prof. T. G. Bonney, British scientist and preacher, in his Hulsean lecture at Cambridge, similarly took the position of Life Only in Christ, and denied the Innate Immortality of all souls. ⁷¹ He had declared: “There is not even one single mention in any of the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, covering a space of 1500 years.” ⁷² CFF2 440.3

White also challenged the common contention of “general belief,” among ancient nations, of natural immortality. “Nothing can be farther from the fact,” he replied. The Egyptians, for example, held to a “restricted immortality,” with eternal life only for the “good,” and only a “temporary survival of the wicked.” ⁷³ CFF2 441.1

White cites Edouard Naville, of Geneva, as concurring that the “Egyptian belief” was the “destruction” of the wicked—not to mention the same view held by Egyptologists De Rouge, Lichtenberger, and Lenormant, with R. S. Poole, of the British Museum, all agreeing that the Egyptians held only to “the immortality of the good,” with the wicked at last “utterly destroyed.” Such, he said, is the consensus of belief among the “most learned authorities on Egypt.” White then turns to Jewish writers—such as Grand Rabbi Stein—adducing the statement that “man searches in vain” for a declaration of natural immortality in the Mosaic writings. ⁷⁴ CFF2 441.2

3. HOST OF CONTEMPORARY CONDITIONALISTS MERIT HEARING

White then alludes to Dr. Cairns’s discussion of the Presbyterian Concession of Faith (which holds to Innate Immortality and Eternal Torments for the wicked). But Cairns admits that there is “no mention of eternal misery” in the Old Testament. Then White refers to the “determined effort” in Germany, Switzerland, France, England, and America, to restudy “Death, Life, and Immortality” in the light of Life Only in Christ. And he declares that “many of the ablest scholars and theologians” In these lands, taking their stand upon “Divine Revelation alone,” are contending that Christ the Incarnate Word is the “true author of everlasting life for sinful man”— and that “eternal life” was “lost for the race by the sin of Adam.” ⁷⁵ CFF2 441.3

White closes by asserting that some of the “very greatest” are “lending their sanction” to the Conditionalist Movement, of going back to Early Church emphasis, later suppressed for long centuries but now being strongly revived. White names a number—Dorner, Byse, Rothe, Gess, Bonnet, Dale, Cesar Malan, Hudson, Babut, Lotze, Schultz, Jonker, Petavel, Bushnell, and Renouvier. ⁷⁶ And there are many others. Because of this, Dr. White claims that Conditionalism has a right to “at least a respectful treatment from its adversaries.” ⁷⁷ While Conditionalists are still a “minority,” he reminds his readers that— CFF2 442.1

“majorities are formed of persons, nine-tenths of whom have never been persuaded to examine with care the evidence for traditional opinion; so that the authorities pro and con must, in the early stages of a controversy, be weighed rather than counted.” ⁷⁸ CFF2 442.2