The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

VI. Physician Ives-Man Mortal; Dead Asleep; Wicked Destroyed

CHARLES L. IVES, A.M., M.D. (1831-1879), of New Haven, was in 1867 made professor of the theory and practice of medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, from which he had graduated in 1852. Then in 1873 he became professor of diseases of the mind and nervous system in the University Medical College in New York City. But he was also deeply interested in theology, and was known for his “fearless devotion” to the advocacy of what he deemed to be truth. Ives traveled for more than a year in Europe. Early in 1871 he had Constable’s The Nature and Duration of Future Punishment republished in this country. ⁷⁸ So his convictions on Conditionalism were obviously formed before that. Among his extracurricular activities Dr. Ives taught a Sunday school adult Bible class. One week he made the startling statement that CFF2 489.2

“immortality, as an essential attribute of the soul, is not only nowhere affirmed in the Bible, as theologians confess, but that it is in fact positively denied.” ⁷⁹ CFF2 489.3

Great surprise was expressed at such an assertion, one member insisting that the “Bible declared that the soul should never die, though he could not name chapter and verse.” At the request of the class, discussion was continued the following week, with the understanding that meantime each member was to study the question during the interim. But at the next assembly “no proof of the soul’s inherent immortality had been discovered.” Then he, as teacher, “presented a carefully selected list of references,” and promised for the following week “to bring each a written slip containing these references.” ⁸⁰ CFF2 489.4

1. HOW HIS BOOK CAME TO BE WRITTEN

However, the class was so large and the interest so great that it seemed easier to have the material printed, with the proof texts quoted in full, and an explanation of misunderstood passages. So the compilation developed into a book manuscript, and ultimately was made available for all Bible students. Dr. Ives’s sole desire was to “lead the reader back to the Bible, to study for himself the teachings of that inspired Guide.” ⁸¹ Then he comments: “If such return to the Biblical standard of our faith was demanded in Luther’s day, it is likewise sadly needed at present.” ⁸² CFF2 490.1

Declaring that the prophesied “falling away” from the apostolic faith had occurred in the Christian Church, as predicted, he speaks of the departure as involving “the deeply important question of the soul’s immortality.” Then he adds:
“Paul declares that immortality is given ‘to those who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for it’ (Romans 2:7). Our teachers assert that it is already the inalienable possession of every man!” ⁸³ CFF2 490.2

That, he maintains, is the heart of the issue. CFF2 490.3

2. SCRIPTURE SPIRITUALIZED TO SUSTAIN IMMORTAL-SOULISM

Asserting that we have no need to fear “for the truth, if the Bible be but permitted to speak for itself, untrammelled by human traditions,” ⁸⁴ Ives then lays down this basic rule of interpretation: “Written language must invariably be taken as literal, except the fact of its being figurative be beyond all question.” ⁸⁵ CFF2 490.4

He then plainly states:
“A false dogma has crept into the teachings of the Church, and is unthinkingly and generally accepted. Every soul is immortal, it is taught, though the Bible says, ‘The soul that sinneth it shall die.’” ⁸⁶ CFF2 491.1

In accommodating the Bible to his “traditional belief,” the Immortal-Soulist does not “reject” Scripture passages, as does the infidel, but “declares such passages are figurative.” ⁸⁷ Thus the intent is vitiated. “Away with such a mockery!” Ives urges. ⁸⁸ And he appeals to Protestants not to “uphold the Popish dogma.” CFF2 491.2

3. “SOUL” IS “ENTIRE MAN” AS “COMPLETE BEING.”

Then follow eleven sections, each with a declarative statement, and each supported with a series of texts. Dealing with the “difference” between man and beast, Dr. Ives says, first of all “we are to live again, they are not.” ⁸⁹ And such restoration to life is through the “resurrection,” for “without a resurrection the dead cannot live again.” ⁹⁰ He discusses the scriptural use of “soul,” stating that it commonly “applies to the entire MAN as one complete being,” which scriptural conception is “totally at variance with that of our popular theology!” ⁹¹ CFF2 491.3

4. IMMORTALITY CONFERRED ON “RIGHTEOUS ALONE.”

Coming next to “immortality,” Ives contends that absolute immortality is the possession of God alone. And conferred immortality is restricted to the righteous alone, through Christ, in contrast with the claim of the “proud philosophers of this world,” that it is the “inalienable possession of the whole human family.” Immortality must be “put on” (1 Corinthians 15:53, 54, 57). Is is the “special portion of the righteous.” ⁹² And this is not alone the New Testament teaching, but CFF2 491.4

“immortality for the righteous alone is the truth originally revealed [in the Old Testament] to the race. Is it not time for the church to return to the good old paths?” ⁹³ CFF2 492.1

5. FATE OF WICKED IS DEATH, NOT ETERNAL MISERY

The fate of the wicked, says Ives, is “everlasting punishment” —“death—the loss of life.” ⁹⁴ Moreover, the “soul” is the “organized being,” and is not immortal by “creation.” ⁹⁵ And the “organized being” of the wicked is to be “totally destroyed.” When he is destroyed, “the individual, as such, no longer exists.” ⁹⁷ But this question must always be decided by the Bible, not by “tradition” or “human authority.” CFF2 492.2

“Immortality is not yours by right; yet most freely is it offered to you.” ⁹⁸ CFF2 492.3

6. RECAPITULATION: “UNCONSCIOUS SLEEP”; “LOSS OF EXISTENCE.”

In a sort of recapitulation Dr. Ives covers the extended evidence in condensed form, and makes this statement:
“It cannot be denied that the Old Testament represents the Intermediate State, or the interval between death and the judgment, as an unconscious sleep, where ‘the wicked cease from troubling and the weary be at rest.’” ⁹⁹ CFF2 492.4

And as to the “second death,” he reiterates: “How it could properly be called a ‘second’ death, unless it be a repetition of the same loss of existence which was the ‘first’ death, we cannot understand.” ¹⁰⁰ CFF2 492.5