Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 35:138 (Apr 1878)
Article: “Is Eternal Punishment Endless?”
Author: Frank Hugh Foster

BSac 35:138 (April 1878) p. 353

“Is Eternal Punishment Endless?”

Rev. Frank H. Foster

Two years ago there appeared, anonymously, a little book with the title, Is “Eternal” Punishment Endless? It was noticed variously by different publications, and then apparently sunk out of sight. Recent events have shown, however, that it had a wider influence than was supposed. One respectable edition of the book has been exhausted, and a second is now put forth.1 The new edition has a new preface, at the close of which the author signs his name, and an appendix containing some critical remarks, and some congratulatory extracts from private letters to the author; but the text stands unaltered. It is unfortunate that some alterations could not have been made, for the book would do more credit to its author were it cleared of certain unnecessary convolutions in the argument. The argument is defective in method. It proceeds in a series of whirls, rather than in the straight line of a logical discussion. Such phrases as, “Of this more at another stage of our inquiry”;2 and, “We shall presently make a strong objection to the traditional preference,”3 etc., are of too frequent occurrence. Such anticipation of the argument has an appearance which a candid writer should be

BSac 35:138 (April 1878) p. 354

careful to avoid, when it can be so easily avoided as here. The anticipated arguments, when they come, may sometimes be criticised, also, as not adding enough to what has already been said to justify repetition.

There are more serious errors of method than this. The argument does not begin at the right point, αἰώνιος is discussed by itself, and then its primitive αἰών, after which return is made to the derivative. The derivative should be discussed in the light of the primitive, and not vice versa. There is an improper change of base in the discussion. The author first discusses the meaning of αἰώνιος upon the supposition that it is quantitative, and then declares that it is qualitative. Certainly it is one or the other, and it is no more than proper to demand that the author should discover which, and then conduct his argument upon that supposition alone.

While, therefore, we follow our author’s general order of discussion, and consider first the explicit and secondly the implicit teachings of Scripture, we shall pay little regard to the order of his subordinate arguments. Let us begin with the explicit teachings of Scripture.

In t...