The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN: Lutheran Bishop, Catholic Cardinal, and Anglican Rector Speak Out

I. Sweden’s Bishop Personne-Sweeping Denial of “Eternal Torment”

Even more remarkable, up in the European Northland, just as the first decade of the twentieth century was closing, Swedish Lutheran Bishop JOHN PERSONNE, ¹ Of the diocese of Linköping, wrote with characteristic Norse forthrightness that the traditional “doctrine of eternal suffering” for the damned is “both unbiblical and unreasonable.” CFF2 767.1

This he affirmed in his printed “pastoral letter” to the clergy of his diocese. It was an obvious attempt to influence the views of both the clergy and the laity under his jurisdiction. It expressed his candid convictions and his deep concern. He was discussing orthodoxy’s relationship to the Lutheran confessional writings. This notable communication from this leading cleric is so pertinent to the record of the early Continental witness of the century that I quote from it at some length. CFF2 767.2

1. MAN’S DESTINY-“WEAKEST POINT” IN CONFESSIONAL WRITINGS

Questioning the validity of the traditional doctrine “concerning the state of the dead,” and its relation to the “doctrine of the final things,” Bishop Personne wrote candidly concerning the vague and unsatisfactory position of the confessional writings on the “intermediate state“: CFF2 767.3

“‘As pertains to these our confessional writings, there is a very important doctrine, which is treated very briefly, vaguely and unsatisfactorily. I mean the doctrine concerning the state of the dead, and in general the doctrine of the last things. This was, and still is, the weakest point of the Lutheran confessional writings. This is due to the Reformers’ fear of the Roman doctrine of purgatory and indulgence. In view of this, the “orthodox” presentations relative to the state of the dead and the final things are very ambiguous. I understand that it is still “orthodox” to teach that the destiny of man is decided when he dies, so that he then goes [immediately] to heaven or hell. The doctrine of an intermediate state between death and the final judgment is really yet considered heretical. But how shall we “orthodoxly” consider the final judgment? Shall the spirits of the dead be summoned together from heaven and hell to be clothed with their bodies and again be judged? Why they have already at death received their final judgment according to the old “orthodox” doctrine.’” ² CFF2 768.1

2. “INTERMEDIATE STATE” IS “KINGDOM OF DEATH.”

Calling for a change in the confessional writings on this point, the bishop continues: CFF2 769.1

“‘It is evident that we must think of an intermediate state between death and the judgment, which the Bible quite clearly teaches, namely “Hades” or “Kingdom of death”.... If in this doctrine there shall be order or reason-and that we Lutherans, both clergy and laity, have a right to demand-then our confessional writings on this point must be considered changed in accordance with the teachings of the old [ancient church. Indirectly this began twenty-eight years ago [1883] when in the New Testament and the apostolic confession of faith, the old incorrect Lutheran translation of “Hades” by “hell” was changed to the correct translation, “kingdom of death.”’” ³ CFF2 769.2

3. DOGMA OF “ETERNAL SUFFERING” IS WHOLLY “UNBIBLICAL.”

Personne next strikes heavy blows at the disputed “doctrine of eternal suffering” as being “unbiblical” and subject to legitimate challenge, according to the latitude accorded by the Form of Concord: CFF2 769.3

“‘As far as I am concerned, I would wish further to change the doctrine concerning the state after death, for I must honestly confess, that I cannot believe the doctrine of an eternal suffering, because I consider it both unbiblical and unreasonable. And therefore I consider —with the privilege the Form of Concord gives me—the whole doctrine concerning the state of the dead and the final events, only as historical documents, which “show how the Holy Scriptures in various eras (here: in the period of the Book of Concord), as pertains to disputed articles within the church of God, were understood and interpreted by the teachers who lived then.”’” CFF2 769.4

“‘The general theory of the confessional writings, that after death follows “the blessed state” or “damnation,” I consider binding even on the orthodox Lutherans of the twentieth century, because this view is Biblical. On the contrary I do not consider that the twentieth century loyal Lutherans are obliged to believe the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession regarding an eternal suffering—when “eternal,” in harmony with our general usage of language, is taken to mean “without end”—because I consider this doctrine unbiblical.” ⁴ CFF2 769.5

4. AUGSBURG CONFESSION DICTUM TOT FOUNDED ON BIBLE

Challenging the Augsburg Confession’s declaration “concerning the damned” as tin-Biblical linguistically, the Bishop continues his contention, dealing with the limitations of the Greek words aion and aionios: CFF2 769.6

“‘The merciless words of the Latin Augsburg Confession concerning the damned in sec. 17 ut sine crucientur (“that they may be tormented without end”) are not, according to my belief, founded on the Bible. In the first place the Biblical philology, according to the sharpened philological knowledge of our time, supports my view. Because in linguistic Bible questions it is the original language of the Bible, not any of our translations, that decides the matter. Regarding this, all informed Bible friends must agree. CFF2 770.1

“‘It is a fact that both the Hebrew and the Greek, the New Testament Greek as well as the classical, lack words to express our conception of eternity. The word which in the Swedish New Testament is translated by eternal (both as pertains to “eternal life” and “eternal death,” etc.) is, as is known, in Greek aionios. This adjective is formed from the noun aion which does not mean “eternity,” nor is it ever thus translated in the New Testament, but it means “age” or “period of time.” This word is used both as pertains to the present time or age and the future time or age. CFF2 770.2

“‘For example, when Jesus in Matthew 12:32 says: “It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, neither in the world to come,” aion is used in both places. Our old church Bible and the 1883 translation translate this less correctly “this world and the world to come.”... It is sufficient to know that the meaning of eternity is not contained in aion, which is the Latin aevum. But then it is also evident, that the meaning of eternity cannot properly be contained in the adjective aionios formed from aion. Literally it means “belonging to a time period,” “lasting during a time period,” “time age,” if there were such a word in our language.’” ⁵ CFF2 770.3

5. ANGUISH OF DAMNED PRECLUDES JOY FOR SAVED

Personne poses a formidable question concerning any joy for the saved, if there is “endless torment and agony” for the damned, and particularly for one’s “nearest of kin“: CFF2 770.4

“‘For me it is inexplainable how a person, who holds that orthodox view, can at any time have a glad moment in this life. He is constantly mingling with people whose final destiny will be to be “tormented eternally without end“: and if he lives in a large community, he hears almost daily the church bells announce-according to his “orthodox” viewthat a human soul has been cast into the eternal torment, without end. To me it is even more inexplainable, that such an “orthodox” person can expect even a happy moment in eternity, when he knows that contemporaneously with his blessed estate, continue the endless torment and agony of innumerable millions of the accursed. Can he, if he loves his neighbors as himself, yes, even if he has just a little bit of human love and is not solely a selfish wretch, have even a single happy moment? For, according to such an orthodox person’s doctrine, death would often be the door to eternal damnation and to endless agony for his nearest of kin, for his parents, his brothers and sisters, for his companion, and his children. How can such a person, unless he is extremely wanton, have a single happy moment?’” ⁶ CFF2 770.5

6. FRIGHTFUL INTERPRETATION INVOKED TO SUSTAIN FALLACY

Bishop Personne closes this section of his amazing “pastoral letter” to the clergy by castigating the “miserable” exegesis sometimes invoked to sustain the eternal “agony of the lost” assumption. CFF2 771.1

Note the bishop’s searching words:
“‘The exegesis, that for example in Revelation 21:4 “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes,” etc., sees a guarantee that God shall cause the saved to forget the agony of the lost, that exegesis is so miserable that I am almost ashamed to mention it. And when I hear of a clergyman who rejects the apprehensions of his members concerning the eternal suffering with the exhortation: “Do not think about that, just see to it that you yourself will be saved,” I have difficulty in not thinking mean things of him. Yes, one can even yet hear the old, frightful interpretation: when the blessed think about or hear the wailing of the lost, it augments their joy at the thought that they could have been in the same flames, but were saved; and in that feeling they drown with their songs of praise the wailings of the damned. CFF2 771.2

“‘If in a fire a person were saved, while his parents, brothers and sisters, wife and children, and a multitude of others perished in the flames, and he, happy that he was rescued, would begin with songs of praise to drown the wailings of the others-what would we rightly say or think about such a person? Yet here it concerns only a suffering of short duration, not concerning an eternal fire and endless agony.’” ⁷ CFF2 771.3

Such, up in the far Northland, was the voice of one of Sweden’s leading bishops, speaking out, back in 1910, against the inconcealable fallacy of the dogma of Eternal Torment, which he viewed as but a holdover of the fabricated dogma of the dominant pre-Reformation, Medieval Church. His plea was not without effect. CFF2 771.4