The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

VII. Anglican Rector Bateson-Arraigns Traditionalist Fallacies

Another stalwart current contender for the Conditionalist faith is the Reverend BERNARD L. BATESON, ⁷³ currently rector of Holton, Somerset, England, and periodic contributor to the Conditionalist Words of Life. In a searching article titled “Human Tradition or Biblical Truth?” in the August, 1961, issue, Bateson begins with this truism: CFF2 1013.1

“During the course of the Church’s history times have come when the tradition of the centuries has had to be examined and set aside as unscriptural, despite its prevalence. Such was the case at the time of the Reformation, when many long-standing traditional teachings of the Church had to be swept away under the clear light of Biblical truth, including such dogmas as Transubstantiation and Purgatory.” ⁷⁴ CFF2 1013.2

Then he adds:
“But there has always been, on the other hand, a tendency to hold on to traditions at all costs, and a refusal to re-examine them afresh in the light of the Bible. For example, it was only in the last century that the Church of Scotland ventured to repudiate the idea of the eternal torment in hell of non-elect infants who died in infancy. Yet to-day such an idea is revolting and abhorrent to the last degree to the Christian believer.” ⁷⁵ CFF2 1013.3

1. FIVE BASIC PLANKS IN “TRADITIONAL SCHEME.”

Noting the tendency among many Evangelicals to regard the Reformation as “complete and final,” with no further light to come, Bateson cites Pastor John Robinson’s memorable farewell sermon to the Pilgrims in 1620-that more light was to “break forth” from the Word, and be received. He comments on the blessings that would have come had this sound counsel been heeded. On the contrary, ostracism has been the usual reward. This has been specifically true of the doctrine of “Life only in Christ.” ⁷⁶ Bateson then lists five basic planks in the “traditional Scheme of Salvation,” as generally held. These are: CFF2 1013.4

“1. Adam was created an immortal being”—the term “living soul,” being understood as indicating an “immortal soul.” CFF2 1014.1

“2. He was placed in paradise on probation for everlasting life”—the death warning for disobedience referring only to the “body,” not to the “immortal soul,” which would “go on living for ever.” CFF2 1014.2

“3. By his fall he brought upon himself and all mankind” the “prospect of eternal misery of the soul,” whether “through imputation to them of Adam’s sin, or by possession of a sinful and corrupt nature.” CFF2 1014.3

“4. The curse of breaking God’s law being death, Jesus Christ came to bear that curse through death upon the cross.” Incongruously it is held that “in the case of mankind this death means conscious eternal torment in hell fire.” CFF2 1014.4

“5. For those who receive Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, there is... eternal happiness,” while for rejecters there is “everlasting life in torment.” ⁷⁷ CFF2 1014.5

Such, Bateson holds, is a fair statement of the “traditional teaching of the churches.” ⁷⁸ But he earnestly avers that in each of these “traditional” positions a “human interpretation” has been “added” to the “plain teaching of the Bible.” These additions he proceeds to examine with care and effectiveness. Note them. CFF2 1014.6

2. DIVERGENT “INTERPRETATION” ADDED TO BIBLE TRUTH

(1) The Bible nowhere teaches that man became “an immortal being,” for God “only hath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16). Man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7). The animals also are said to be “living souls” (Genesis 1:21, 24), and to have “spirit.” If “man is immortal,” then the “animals are immortal too.” That goes too far. CFF2 1014.7

(2) The Bible nowhere states that man’s “immortal soul” goes on “living for ever.” Nor is the “spirit which returns to God some immortal, living, personal entity.” “At death” man truly “returns to the dust”—for “dust thou art” (Genesis 3:19). In support Bateson cites Principal J. Stafford Wright’s ⁷⁹ What Is Man? (1955, page 151), on “spirit, or breath” as the “lifeprinciple,” which at death returns to God, who gave it. CFF2 1015.1

(3) The Bible nowhere states that “because of Adam’s sin all were made liable to everlasting misery”—except by twisting the Biblical expression, “death,” to mean “everlasting misery. CFF2 1015.2

(4) The death that Christ died on the cross, in payment of the “wages of sin,” is literal “DEATH.” Jesus Christ “actually and literally took the wages of sin.” “He bore the threatened penalty-DEATH!” ⁸⁰ CFF2 1015.3

(5) For those who fail to heed the gospel the punishment is not, according to Scripture, “everlasting life in torment” but “destruction.” It means going into “eternal fire,” just as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah-“not because they are still burning, but because the fire burnt them with eternal results.” In support, Bateson this time cites Dr. Basil Atkinson’s Pocket Commentary of the Bible. ⁸¹ Here is the Atkinson quotation: CFF2 1015.4

“This [the illustration of Sodom and Gomorrah] is the Scriptural picture of eternal fire, and ought to make quite plain to us that eternal fire consumes once for all with an irrevocable result, and does not continue burning for ever. Not only does our Lord select the destruction of these cities as an illustration of the final judgment, but the language is taken up in the Apocalypse to describe the same thing.” ⁸² CFF2 1015.5

3. SUPPORTING CITATION FROM ARCHDEACON GUILLEBAUD

Bateson closes his illuminating and logical article by quoting three pertinent paragraphs from the late Archdeacon H. E. Guillebaud, able missionary to Rwanda, ⁸³ on the relation of the traditional doctrine of Eternal Torment to the sound preaching of the gospel. The venerable archdeacon contends that the supreme question is “‘What does the Bible really say?’” He stoutly denies that fear of the “‘eternity of endless torment’” is the “‘mightiest motive of soul-winning,’” and challenges anyone to find a single text that “‘connects soulwinning with even a seeming suggestion of the doctrine of endless torment.’” Paul, with all his “‘driving force’” as an evangelist, never used such an argument. Guillebaud suggests that the proponents of “‘eternal torment’” consider whether they have “‘been resting more on tradition than on the Word of God.’” ⁸⁴ Bateson closes with Guillebaud’s earnest appeal: CFF2 1015.6

“‘No Protestant should object to being asked to re-examine any traditional belief in the light of the Word of God, searching the Scripture to see whether these things be so.’” ⁸⁵ CFF2 1016.1

So, vigorous and respected voices continue to ring out in the new decade in defense of Conditionalism and in denial of the dogma of the eternal torment of the incorrigibly wicked. CFF2 1016.2