II. Guillebaud’s Summary of Conclusions

1. NO ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF EXISTENCE, FOR WICKED

In chapter nine (“Conclusions Summarized”) Guillebaud “summarizes the conclusions reached in the foregoing chapters,” and considers “the doctrine as a whole.” ^{3030) Ibid., p. 60.} His first conclusion is:CFF2 810.3

“An inquiry into the meaning of the word ‘eternal’ showed that, though permanence is an essential part of it, this does not necessarily prove that eternal punishment must be a punishment which the condemned endure in a conscious existence for ever and ever. The Bible speaks of ‘eternal salvation,’ ‘eternal judgment,’ ‘an eternal sin’ (Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 6:2; Mark 3:29 RN.). But these expressions do not mean a salvation which is eternally being effected, or a judgment which is eternally being pronounced, or a sin which is eternally repeated: they mean a salvation, a judgment and a sin which have eternal results. So then just as we are saved for ever, we are not for ever being saved, so we believe that the term ‘eternal punishment’ does not mean that the condemned will for ever be in a state of being punished, but rather that they will be punished for ever, i.e. that they will be for ever separated from God, and their existence will be ended for ever. ^{3131) Ibid.}CFF2 810.4

2. PENAL PUNISHMENT DOES NOT INVOLVE “EVERLASTING TORMENT.’

His next conclusion declares suffering to be part of penal punishment:
“Apart from four or five passages, there is not even an appearance of teaching everlasting torment in the Bible. What it does teach is that He who had said ‘Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,’ and ‘Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out,’ will say to those whom He condemns, ‘Depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity,’ and they will be driven into the outer darkness, separated by an eternal judgment from God’s presence. The Lord Jesus and John the Baptist compare them to useless weeds or chaff, thrown into the fire to be burned up, or again to barren branches of the vine, which men gather, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. It will be observed that it is the destructive function of fire which is emphasized here, but of course destruction by fire is a very awful thing, and it is made clear that there will be penal suffering.” ^{3232 Ibid., pp. 60, 61.}CFF2 811.1

3. A DESTRUCTION WITH NO RETURN

Guillebaud then turns to the “end of existence” for the wicked, as a denial of universal restoration:
“God only has immortality, and eternal life is His gift, bestowed on the believer through Jesus Christ, but the wages of sin is death. Thus the general drift of the teaching both of our Lord and His apostles about future punishment is that it will be a final exclusion from God’s presence, a destruction for ever (Psalm 92:7), from which there can be no return. The Bible nowhere gives any ground for hope that any who have been condemned will ever be restored to eternal life with God. The judgment, the punishment, the destruction are eternal.” ^{3333Ibid., p. 61.}CFF2 811.2

The purpose of Matthew 18:34, 35 isCFF2 811.3

“to emphasize the finality of the judgment, and close the door to any hope of restoration. Sin is compared to an unpayable debt: a slave handed over to the tormentors till he should pay two million pounds would never come out free, and would suffer awful things, but in the end he would assuredly die.” ^{3434) Ibid., p. 62.}CFF2 811.4

4. GOD CANNOT TOLERATE ETERNAL REBELLION

Piercing to the heart of the whole issue of sin, salvation, and the ultimate disposition of sin, Guillebaud draws these important conclusions:CFF2 812.1

“It is impossible even to begin to understand Eternal Punishment, if it is considered in isolation from the problem of evil and the doctrine of the atonement. Why evil was allowed to come into the universe is an insoluble mystery: but it is certainly here, and it is certain that a holy God cannot have fellowship with it, and must will its destruction.CFF2 812.2

“But because God is Love, He longs to save man from destruction, and the Bible tells us that through the Cross He found a way of condemning sin and yet saving the sinner, a way infinitely costly to Himself. But the purpose of that Sacrifice was not only to save the sinner from death, but also to save him from sin. The sinner must repent-that is, he must desire to be delivered from sin-and he must believe in his Saviour. Those who refuse God’s salvation on God’s conditions are not saved by the sacrifice of the Cross, they come before His judgment with their sin, and the wages of sin is death.” ^{3535) Ibid., p. 63.}CFF2 812.3

5. SEPARATE FROM SIN OR PERISH WITH SIN

As to “what is ultimately to happen to the evil which has defiled God’s creation,” Guillebaud sagely observes:
“God provided a way of redemption, and thereby many of His sindefiled creatures have been and are being separated from their sin, and He has given to them eternal life that they may be with Him for ever. But for those who choose evil, and reject God’s way of deliverance from it there is nothing left but to share the doom of that evil principle which they have made their own. It must be destroyed when the kingdom of God becomes supreme, for evil cannot be permanent in the universe, and as they have refused the only way of becoming separated from it, they must be destroyed with it.” ^{3636 Ibid., pp. 63, 64.}CFF2 812.4

This, he affirms, is the uniform testimony of the Word.CFF2 812.5

Guillebaud’s general conclusion on the “principle of eternal punishment” is cogently stated:
“This we believe to be the fundamental principle of eternal punishment, that evil must ultimately be destroyed out of God’s universe, and that the sinner who rejects God’s way of salvation, whereby he might be separated from his sin, must perish. This is primary and fundamental: all else, even the awful fact of penal suffering in the process of destruction, is secondary.” ^{3737 Ibid., p. 64.}CFF2 812.6

6. TWOFOLD BASIS FOR GUILLEBAUD’S CONCLUSIONS

As to the charge that Conditionalists, in adopting the destruction-of-the-wicked position, have “deserted the old paths,” Guillebaud replies with, “The old paths are good.... when they are Bible paths.” Then he adds, tellingly:CFF2 813.1

“We Evangelicals, who criticize the Roman Church for putting tradition on a level with the Bible, must be very careful that we ourselves do not unwittingly fall into the same snare.” ^{3838) Ibid., p. 67.}CFF2 813.2

He soundly states: “The only question that really matters is whether or not he [the expositor] has rightly interpreted the Word of God” for “only God knows the facts.” ^{3939) Ibid., p. 66}CFF2 813.3

He defends the Conditionalist position in this terse statement:
“The fundamental reasons which led the present writer to abandon the doctrine of everlasting torment are two, both founded on the Word of God itself. First, the Bible teaching that God will sum up all things in Christ, and that ultimately He Himself will be all in all, seems incompatible with the external existence of sin and sinners in hell. Secondly, the belief that the Bible teaches everlasting torment rests mainly upon the notion that every soul, good or evil, is immortal; and this latter idea is entirely lacking in Bible authority.” ^{4040) Ibid., p. 68.}CFF2 813.4

Guillebaud then makes this pertinent appeal:
“We would appeal to those who accept the doctrine of everlasting torment to consider very carefully whether, quite unconsciously, their belief has been resting more on tradition than on the Word of God....CFF2 813.5

“No Protestant should object to being asked to re-examine any traditional belief in the light of the Word of God, searching the Scriptures to see whether these things be so.” ^{4141 Ibid., p. 70.}CFF2 813.6

7. INCONSISTENCY OF EVOLUTIONISTS’ OBJECTIONS TO CONDITIONALISM

As to the bearing of the widespread theory of evolutionary progression on the question, and the notion that “sin is simply the victory of man’s inherited beast instincts over the higher nature which evolution has produced,” Guillebaud answers:CFF2 813.7

“Anyone who takes this position is most inconsistent in objecting to Conditional Immortality, if he believes in God and a future life at all. According to such a belief, God did not give man the clean sheet which the Bible says He did, but allowed him to start his career with the inheritance of animal instincts from the beasts, against which a slowly evolving higher nature must constantly struggle. If he can believe this of God, it is more than strange that he should insist that God gave man an immortal soul, and that without even making the immortality conditional on man’s submission to Himself.” ^{4242) Ibid., p. 79.}CFF2 813.8

It is a telling point.CFF2 814.1

Guillebaud closes his impressive treatise with this comprehensive statement: “We can look forward, with Paul, to a future when God shall be all in all, and evil shall not only be conquered but shall have ceased to exist.” ^{4343) Ibid., p. 97.} Such is the candid testimony of another competent witness-archdeacon, missionary, Bible translator.CFF2 814.2