7
1
7
download/literature/watchtower/1900-11.pdf
../literature/watchtower/1900/11/1900-11-1.html
VOL.
XXI
ALLEGHENY,
PA.,
JUNE
1,
1900
No.
11
VIEWS
FROM
THE
WATCH
TOWER
WHY
REV.
LYMAN
ABBOTT
IS
NOT
A
UNIVERSALIST
all
men
righteous;
otherwise
he
would
not
be
.a
ri~hteou"
At
a
General
Convention
of
Universalists
one
session
was
God.
But
I
start
from
the
o.ther
pole.
I.
begm
.
Wlt~
my
set
a
art
as
"Interdenominational
Evening,"
and
amongst
OW?
absolute
fr~edom.
I
rec?gmze
as
~
fact,
m
my
hfe,
.m
my
th
p
k
Dr
Lyman
Abbott
a
representative
Con-
philosophy
and
III
my
preachmg,
that,
III
the
last
analysIs,
the
0,
er
spea
ers
was
.
,
.
d
t'
f
.
.
h'
h
ds
Father
may
per
re
ationalist,
who
ave
his
reasons
for
not
believi?g
i~
unI-
es
my
0
every
man
~s
I~
IS
own
an
.
.
.
-
~er~al
salvation.
sg
eaking
as
a
liberal
CongregatiOnahst
he
suade,
mother
ma.y
entice,
m~uences
may.
enVIron,
~od
hImself
declared
that
modern
Congregationalism
does
not
accept
the
may
s~rround
w~th
all
possIble
pe.rs~asiO.ns,
but
m
the
last
doctrine
of
eternal
punishment
as
preached
by
the
celebrated
analysIs
th~
destmJ:'
of.
every
man
IS
m
hIS
own
hands.
And
J
th
Ed
ds
of
the
last
century.
what
he
wIll
do
WIth
It
I
do
not
know.
.
.
ana
an
war
.
,
.
as
fol-
"Why,
if
God
be
good,
has
he
made
a
world
III
which
We
make
quotatiOns
from
Dr.
Abbott
s
discourse
there
is
sin?
Why
has
he
not
made
a
world
sinless?
Could
lows:-
"
1
1
b
he
not?
Certainly'
he
not
only
could,
he
has.
The
birds
"I
do
not
?elieve
that
~ny
one
?f
God
s
creatures
WI
~
are
sinicss.
But
h~
could
not
make
a
world
in
which
are
~ept.
by
God
I.n
eternal
eXIstence
simply.
t.hat
he
n;a
y
go.
0
free
moral
agents
able
to
choose
the
good
without
giving
them
In
sm
an.d.
mIsery
for~ver.
The
proposit.iOn
has
ong
s~nce
at
the
same
time
power
to
choose
the
evil.
Power
to
cho?se
become
spIrItually
unthmkable
to
me.
I
mIght
perha~s
beh~v~
the
one
is
powpr
to
choose
the
other;
and
a
world
in
WhICh
that
a
soul
could
suffer
eternally;.
but
I
can
J.lot
b~lIeve
t
a
there
are
some
men
who
choose
shame,
dishonor,
sin
and
any
being
that
God
ever
made
wIll
be
kept
m
eXIstence
by
death
is
a
better
world
I
dare
to
say
than
a
world
made
of
God
that
he
may
go
on
in
s~n
eternally..
machines
that
could
choose
neither
the
good
nor
the
evil."
"What
was
the
old
doctrme
of
eter~al
pumsh~ent?
The
We
fully
concur
with
the
foregoing,
reminding
our
readers
Savoy
Confessi?n,
up
to
~bout
the
middle
of
this.
cent~ry,
nevertheless
of
the
necessity
for
remembering
the
two
opposi.te
was
the
r~cogmzed.
e~pressiOn
of
orthodox
Cong~egat~on~hsm.
views
of
free
agency
which
may
prope~ly
be
taken
from
dif
Not
that
it
was
bmdmg
on
orthodox
CongregatiOnahst~,
but
ferent
standpoints
as
shown
in
our
issue
of
Dec.
1,
1899,
it
was
the
only
historic
creed
they
pos~essed.
Except.
m
the
page
264.
'
matter
of
polity,
and
on~
?r
two
mm~r
matters;
it
was
But
two
queries
naturally
arise:
identical
with
the
West~mister
ConfeSSiOn
of
Faith;
and
(l)
How
does
Dr.
Abbott
harmonize
his
two
pr?positions,
this
was
the
substance
of.
itS
stateme~t:
It
dec~ared
that
our
(a)
that
the
decision
respecting
his
harmony
or
disharmony
first
parents
fell
by
eatm~
the
fo.rbidd~n
frmt!
that,
they
with
God
lies
with
man
himself,
individually;
(b)
that
God
being
the
root
of
all
mankmd,
theIr
gUilt
was
Imputed
a~d
has
made
no
provision
for
the
eternal
torture
of
any?
The
their
sinful
and
corrupted
nature,
was
co?ve.yed
to
a~l
theIr
logical
mind
will
surely
inquire,
What
then
will
become
of
postenty;
that
as
a
result
we
are
utterly
mdlsposed,
disabled,
the
wicked
who
are
unwilling
to
be
saved
on
divine
terms
and
and
made
opposite
to
all
good;'
that
from
the
race
thus
lost
hence
unfit
for
the
rewards
of
eternal
bliss,
if
the
time
is
to
and
ruined
in
the
Fall,
'by
the
decree
of
God,
for
the
~an-
come
when
"every
creature
that
is
in
heaven
and
on
earth
ifestation
of
His
glory,
some
men
and
ange.ls
are
predestIJ.led
and
under
the
earth
and
such
as
are
in
the
sea
shall
give
unto
everlasting
life,
and
others
are
foreordamed
to
everlastmg
praise
and
glory
to
the
God
of
their
salvation"?
death;'
that
those.
not
effe?tually
called,
Go~
was
pleased,
Is
it
possible
that
so
fine
a
logician.
as
Dr.
Abbott
has
'for
the
glory
of
hiS
sovereign
power
over
HiS
creatures,
~o
overlooked
the
10O'ic
of
his
own
expresSiOns?
Oh
no!
\Ve
pass
by,
and
to.
ordain
t~lem
to.
dish~nor.
an~
wrath
for
theIr
answer,
The
conn~cting
link
in
the
Doctor's
lo~ic
is
clear
t:o
sin,
to
the
praise
of
hiS
gloriOUS
Justice;
a~d
.
that
those
his
own
mind,
but
he
does
not
care
to
make
it
very
public
'not
elected,
altho
they
may
be
called
by
t~e
milllstry
of
.t?e
because
it
is
not
very
popular
yet-the
same
is
true
of
many
'Word,
and
may
have
some
common
operations
of
the
Spint,
others
of
the
ablest
ministers
in
all
denominations.
The
yet
they
never
truly
come
to
Christ,
and
therefore
cannot
be
connecting
link
of
his
logic
will
be
see~
at
once
.when
.
i~
is
saved.'
stated
-he
believes
in
the
utter
destructwn
of
the
lllcorngibly
"Specifically,
and
clame
by
clause,
I
disown
that
state-
wicked
as
we
do
and
as
we
teach
publicly.
ment
.
.
.
.
.
This
doctriJ.le
is
inconsistent
with
t~e
character
But
public
t~achers
who
keep
silence
on
this
subject
and
of
a
righteous
God.
I
might
fear
such
a
God;
I
might
tremble
put
their
light
under
a
bushel,
do
so
at
a
great
cost-the
before
such
a
God;
I
might,
because
I
was
a
coward,
ob~y
cost
of
further
guidance
of
the
Lord
into
the
"all
truth"
Buch
a
God;
but
I
cOl~ld
not
reverence
~uch.
a
God.
I.t
IS
promised.
Oh,
how
many
ministel
s
in
seeking
to
avoid
the
inconsistent
with.
the
faith
tha.t
Jesus
Chnst
IS
God
mamfest
senseless
charge,
"Annihilationist,"
have
suffered
God's
char
in
the
flesh,
for
!t
was
not
HIS
nature
t~
P?SS
an.y
by
or.
to
acter
to
be
blasphemed
and
his
people
to
be
deluded
by
~he
ordain
any
to
dishonor
and
wrath.
It
is
mconsistent
~ith
doctrine
of
an
eternal
torment
of
the
unsaintly;-preferrmg
the
Scr!ptu.re;
in.co~lsist~nt
with
the
parable.
of
tl:e
prodi~al
numbers
and
popularity
and
honor
among
men
and
the
financial
Bon,
which
is
Chnet
s
epitome
of
the
Gospel;
lllconsistent
With
emoluments
of
these
rather
than
the
truth!
Alas!
they
seek
the
declaration
of
Paul
that
'every
knee
should
bow
and
every
to
be
wise
and
prudent
according
to
this
world's
standards,
tongue
confess
Jesns
Christ
to
be
the
Lord,
to
the
glory
of
entirely
overlookinO'
the
fact
that
the
Lord
declares
he
will
not
God
the
Father';
inconsistent
with
the
vpry
chapters
of
Rom~ns
reveal
his
secrets
to
such.
Our
Lord
pointed
this
out,
saying,
on
\\
hich
it
is
supposed
to
be
founded,
for
.they
close
With
"I
thank
thee,
Father,
Lord
of
heaven
and
earth.
because
the
declaration
that
'God
hath,
c.onclu~ed
all
t~t
unbeltef,
th~t
thou
hast
hidden
these
things
fr01n
the
wise
and
prudent
and
he
might
haL'e
mercy
upon
aU
j
mCOll9istent
With
the
splendid
hast
revealed
them
unto
babes"-who
will
utter
the
truth
picture
John
paints,
of
the
time
when
every
creature
that
is
regardless
of
conseqnences.-Matt.
11:
25.
!n
heaven
and
on
e~rth
an~
under
the
earth,
and
such
as
a:e
(2)
Some
one
will
say
then,
If
Dr.
Abbott
bel~cves
thus
III
the
sea,
shall
give
praise
and
glory
to
the
God
of
theu
in
the
final
reign
of
riO'hteousness
and
the
de"tructiOn
of
the
salvation."
incorrigibly
wicked,
is
lie
not
very
close
to
the
truth
and
a
These
noble
words
and
logical
arguments
surely
appeal
very
hopeful
subject?
to
all
God-loving
and
God-honoring
hearts
and
heads;
and
We
answer,
No.
At
one
time,
so
far
as
we
might
judge
we
are
glad
so
to
think:
it
is
a
sign
of
heart
enlargement
of
any
man's
heart
by
his
writings,
Dr.
Abbott
was
very
which
should
be
admired,
even
tho
the
speaker
(like
other
close
to
the
truth-a
believer
not
only
as
above
but
also
great
men
of
our
times)
has
swerved
far
from
the
Bible
in
the
Atonement
and
in
the
spcond
coming
of
him
who
made
under
the
influence
of
Evolution
and
Higher
Criticism,
and
is
the
atonement
with
hi'S
own
precious
blood.
But
the
Doctor
no
Ion
O'er
trusting
in
the
great
sacrifice
for
sins
"finished"
at
seems
to
have
permitted
himself
to
become
one
of
the
"wise
Calvar~
for
salvation.
But
Dr.
Abbott
said
some
more
good
and
prudent"
who
prefer
honor
one
of
another
rather
than
things'in
that
discourse.
In
telling
his
Universalist
audience
that
which
cometh
from
God
only.
(John
5:44)
At
any
rate,
why
he
does
not
believe
in
universal
salyation,
he
.displayed
instead
of
coming
out
more
and
more
boldly
for
the
t~uth
excellent
logic.
In
reasoning
that
"the
ultimate
fact
m
human
on
these
unpopular
subjects,
he
seems
to
have
put
tlle
lIght
life
is
the
freedom
of
the
human
will,"
he
said:-
he
had
under
a
bushel
until
it
has
gone
out.
For
according
"I
know
that
I
can
choose
the
good,
and
therefore
I
can
to
Dr.
Abbott's
present
tea~hin~s
he
un~ou~tedly
is
now.
an
choose
the
evil.
What
I
find
true
in
myself
I
believe
to
be
Evolutionist
with
all
that
implIes
of
rejection.
of
the
Bible
true
in
every
other
man;
he
can
choose
the
good,
and
~herefore
doctrine
of
a
fall
by
our
fi~st
parents.
(and.
we
m
t.hem)
from
he
can
choose
the
evil.
And
while
I
wistfully
deSire-yea,
perfection
and
harmony
Wit~
God-mto
sm
and
itS
IJ.len~al,
and
sometimes
devoutly
hope-that
when
the
great
drama
moral
and
physical
degeneratiOn
and
death.
And
t~e
reJecti~n
of
life
here
and
hereafter
is
ended,
all
God's
creatures
will
of
this
implies
a
rejection
of
the
Atonement;
for
If
man
did
have
chosen
the
good-I
do
not
know.
If
I
were
a
Calvinist,
not
fall
he
needed
no
redemption
fr0!U
the
fall-:-no
~edeemer.
I
should
be
a
Universalist.
If
I
believed
that
God
could
And
if
the
"ransom
for
all"
(I
Tim.
2:
6)
IS
demed,
then
make
all
men
righteous,
I
should
be
sure
that
he
would
make
logically
"times
of
restitution"
to
a
former
estate
(Acts
[2639]
063-164)
Vou. XXI ALLEGHENY, PA., JUNE 1, 1900 No. 11 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER WHY BEV. LYMAN ABBOTT IS NOT A UNIVERSALIST At a General Convention of Universalists one session was set apart as “Interdenominational Evening,” and amongst other speakers was Dr. Lyman Abbott, a representative Congregationalist, who gave his reasons for not believing in universal salvation. Speaking as a liberal Congregationalist he declared that modern Congregationalism does not accept the doctrine of eternal punishment as preached by the celebrated Jonathan Edwards of the last century. We make quotations from Dr. Abbott’s discourse as follows :-— “J do not believe that any one of God’s creatures will be kept by God in eternal existence simply that he may go on in sin and misery forever. The proposition has long since become spiritually unthinkable to me. I might perhaps believe that a soul could suffer eternally; but I can not believe that any being that God ever made will be kept in existence by God that he may go on in sin eternally. “What was the old doctrine of eternal punishment? The Savoy Confession, up to about the middle of this century, was the recognized expression of orthodox Congregationalism. Not that it was binding on orthodox Congregationalists; but it was the only historic creed they possessed. Except in the matter of polity, and one or two minor matters, it was identical with the Westminister Confession of Faith; and this was the substance of its statement: It declared that our first parents fell by eating the forbidden fruit; that, they being the root of all mankind, their guilt was imputed and their sinful and corrupted nature was conveyed to all their posterity; that as a result we are ‘utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good;’ that from the race thus lost and ruined in the Fall, ‘by the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death;’ that those not effectually called, God was pleased, ‘for the glory of his sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice;’ and that those ‘not elected, altho they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.’ “Specifically, and clause by clause, I disown that statement..... This doctrine is inconsistent with the character of a righteous God. I might fear such a God; I might tremble before such a God; I might, because I was a coward, obey such a God; but I could not reverence such a God. It is inconsistent with the faith that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, for it was not His nature to pass any by or to ordain any to dishonor and wrath. It is inconsistent with the Scripture; inconsistent with the parable of the prodigal son, which is Christ’s epitome of the Gospel; inconsistent with the declaration of Paul that ‘every knee should bow and every tongue confess Jesus Christ to be the Lord, to the glory of God the Father’; inconsistent with the very chapters of Romans on which it is supposed to be founded, for they close with the declaration that ‘God hath concluded all in unbeltef, that he might have mercy upon all,’ inconsistent with the splendid picture John paints, of the time when every creature that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, shall give praise and glory to the God of their salvation.” These noble words and logical arguments surely appeal to all God-loving and God-honoring hearts and heads; and we are glad so to think: it is a sign of heart enlargement which should be admired, even tho the speaker (like other great men of our times) has swerved far from the Bible under the influence of Evolution and Higher Criticism, and is no longer trusting in the great sacrifice for sins “finished” at Calvary for salvation. But Dr. Abbott said some more good things in that discourse. In telling his Universalist audience why he does not believe in universal salvation, he displayed excellent logic. In reasoning that “the ultimate fact in human life is the freedom of the human will,” he said:— “T know that I can choose the good, and therefore I can choose the evil. What I find true in myself I believe to be true in every other man; he can choose the good, and therefore he can choose the evil. And while I wistfully desire—yea, and sometimes devoutly hope—that when the great drama of life here and hereafter is ended, all God’s creatures will have chosen the good—I do not know. If I were a Calvinist, I should be a Universalist. If I believed that God could make all men righteous, I should be sure that he would make [2639] all men righteous; otherwise he would not be a righteous God. But I start from the other pole. I begin with my own absolute freedom. I recognize as a fact, in my life, in my philosophy and in my preaching, that, in the last analysis, the destiny of every man is in his own hands. Father may persuade, mother may entice, influences may environ, God himself may surround with all possible persuasions, but in the last analysis the destiny of every man is in his own hands. And what he will do with it I do not know. “Why, if God be good, has he made a world in which there is sin? Why has he not made a world sinless? Could he not? Certainly; he not only could, he has. The birds are sinless. But he could not make a world in which are free moral agents able to choose the good without giving them at the same time power to choose the evil. Power to choose the one is power to choose the other; and a world in which there are some men who choose shame, dishonor, sin and death, is a better world, I dare to say, than a world made of machines that could choose neither the good nor the evil.” We fully concur with the foregoing, reminding our readers nevertheless of the necessity for remembering the two opposite views of free agency which may properly be taken from different standpoints, as shown in our issue of Dec. 1, 1899, page 264, But two queries naturally arise: (1) How does Dr. Abbott harmonize his two propositions, fa) that the decision respecting his harmony or disharmony with God lies with man himself, individually; (6) that God has made no provision for the eternal torture of any? The logical mind will surely inquire, What then will become of the wicked who are unwilling to be saved on divine terms and hence unfit for the rewards of eternal bliss, if the time is to come when “every creature that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea shall give praise and glory to the God of their salvation”? Is it possible that so fine a logician as Dr. Abbott has overlooked the logic of his own expressions? Oh no! We answer, The connecting link in the Doctor’s logic is clear to his own mind, but he does not care to make it very public because it is not very popular yet—the same is true of many others of the ablest ministers in all denominations. The connecting link of his logic will be seen at once when it is stated,—he believes in the utter destruction of the incorrigibly wicked, as we do, and as we teach publicly. But public teachers who keep silence on this subject and put their light under a bushel, do so at a great cost—the cost of further guidance of the Lord into the “all truth” promised. Oh, how many ministers in seeking to avoid the senseless charge, “Annihilationist,” have suffered God’s character to be blasphemed and his people to be deluded by the doctrine of an eternal torment of the unsaintly ;—preferring numbers and popularity and honor among men and the financial emoluments of these rather than the truth! Alas! they seek to be wise and prudent according to this world’s standards, entirely overlooking the fact that the Lord declares he will not reveal his secrets to such. Our Lord pointed this out, saying, “JT thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes’—who will utter the truth regardless of consequences.—Matt. 11:25. (2) Some one wili say then, If Dr. Abbott believes thus in the final reign of righteousness and the destruction of the incorrigibly wicked, is he not very close to the truth and a very hopeful subject? We answer, No. At one time, so far as we might judge of any man’s heart by his writings, Dr. Abbott was very close to the truth—a believer not only as above but also in the Atonement and in the second coming of him who made the atonement with his own precious blood. But the Doctor seems to have permitted himself to become one of the “wise and prudent” who prefer honor one of another rather than that which cometh from God only. (John 5:44) At any rate, instead of coming out more and more boldly for the truth on these unpopular subjects, he seems to have put the light he had under a bushel until it has gone out. For according to Dr. Abbott’s present teachings he undoubtedly is now an Evolutionist with all that implies of rejection of the Bible doctrine of a fall by our first parents (and we in them) from perfection and harmony with God—into sin and its mental, moral and physical degeneration and death. And the rejection of this implies a rejection of the Atonement; for if man did not fall he needed no redemption from the fall—no Redeemer. And if the “ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6) is denied, then logically “times of restitution” to a former estate (Acts (163-164)
To enhance your experience on our website, we use cookies and similar technologies. Some cookies are essential for the core functionality of our site and cannot be declined. You can choose to accept or decline additional cookies. We want to assure you that none of this data will be sold or used for marketing purposes. You can adjust your preferences at any time by accessing the Privacy Settings from the footer of the page. For more information, please refer to our
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
.
