p. 4 | Does Probation Extend Beyond Death? by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 18, 1915

Does Probation Extend Beyond Death?

By J. O. CORLISS

The Age-to-Come Doctrine — No. 2

Does Probation Extend Beyond Death?

J. O. CORLISS

The age-to-come theorists answer the question, Does probation extend beyond death? in the affirmative, because upon this decision hangs the weight of their millennial dawn speculations. But a candid comparison of their views with Scripture teaching ought to convince the most devoted adherent of those doctrines that they have no foundation in divine teaching. This being true, as the writer firmly believes, their theories must prove to be positively vicious, since they lead up to a false hope in the matter of personal responsibility for individual conduct.

If, as they affirm, one hundred and forty-two billions of people have lived and died without regard to a future life, who are to be raised from their graves at Christ's second coming, for the sole purpose of giving them an opportunity to acknowledge him and thus be saved, and that, too, in a “sinless age” where no temptations can assail, then what advantage has been a church organization for the propagation of Christian virtue in the midst of bitter opposition from the evil one? If all the heathen of past ages are to come forth from the dead to a sinless period to have a renewed probation and be saved without developing, under test, the hardness of Christian valor, then why not have postponed church organization until a second probation had been accorded to all mankind? Would not this course have more nearly equalized human opportunities for a common salvation? God being no respecter of persons, could he in justice hold one responsible for failure under temptation while in church affiliation, and then give the millions of all past ages, who in their lives cared nothing for salvation, the advantage of a sinless age and the righteous reign of Christ, to make their peace with him?

But upon what premise is such an assumption reared? Just this: it is argued that because Christ “tasted death for all,” and thus “gave himself a ransom for all,” every one for whom he did so much should have a positive benefit from the expenditure. To use their own words, “Why should not all come to a knowledge of the truth, that they may believe?” This question, assuming that God would not be rendering justice to the unsaved millions of past ages unless he should give them a second probation, is followed by this positive statement regarding the texts cited in the preceding paragraph: “The above, and many more scriptures, would be meaningless, or worse, if death ends all hope for the ignorant masses of the world.”—“Studies in the Scriptures,” page 105.

It certainly seems strange that one should be so strongly wedded to a pet theory as to declare an inspired text “meaningless” unless it can be made to teach the particular tenet upon which he bases his entire system of theology. This is, however, here positively asserted. But to strengthen this soul-easing proposition, an explanation is offered as to why all the heathen of past ages were permitted to die in ignorance. It is given on page 111, as follows:—

“But upon the supposition that death ends all probation, and that thereafter none may have opportunity to come to a knowledge of the truth and obey it, we may well inquire, Why did God see good to take away these people without giving them a chance of salvation through the knowledge of the only name whereby they can be saved? The answer is, Because it was not their due time.”

In other words, the point is intended to be made that every individual that has ever lived must have his due time in which to receive the benefits of Christ's offering in his behalf. If any die without the favor of salvation being granted, it is because their “due time” had not arrived, and they are therefore entitled to that due time in being accorded a post-mortem probation at the second coming of Christ. The thought is stated in this form: “They will be awakened from death, and thus blessed together with all the families of the earth, by the promised Seed. They will then be on trial for everlasting life.”

“We may well inquire,” says the author under review. Then the question may properly be raised, Why did he not inquire of God, instead of making statements having no Scriptural backing? Why did he not draw wisdom from the Word of God direct, and thus assure his readers of a solid foundation upon which to base their faith? Had he gone where wisdom crieth, he would have learned that because God's counsel was rejected by men while they lived, his ear is forever turned from their pleadings for salvation. Prov. 1:20-31. The prophet Jeremiah echoes this strain when speaking of those in his day who lived outside the teachings of Jehovah. Thus he says of them: “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.” Jer. 8:20.

This scripture certainly conveys the thought that the summer of that people, their time for salvation, was ended, their harvest had gone by. Their “due time” had come, and they had not improved it. How plain that their probation was limited to the period of their natural life! The prophet Amos reiterates this sentiment when he warns the world of a coming famine, in which the entire world will be searched for the bread of God, which will then be forever beyond their reach. Amos 8:11, 12.

Coming to the New Testament, we find the apostle Paul taking occasion to remove any supposition that the unsaved of past ages had not had their “due time” for turning to God during their natural lives. In this he maintains that they have no valid excuse for their lost condition, because the mysterious attributes of God, that is, his eternal power and divine character, have been made visible ever since the creation, by the things he has made and done. Rom. 1:20. The ancients had really known God, because the first man was made in the very image of Jehovah. But they made the choice of a sinful life, which disordered the intellect, and led the individual into every vile process, regardless of the claims of God's law. Verses 21-32. The inspired judgment of the apostle was that all these were “worthy of death.”

This same thought is continued in the next chapter, where we are told that God is no respecter of persons, but deals with all in strict accordance with the decrees of his holy law. In harmony with this rule, he declares that as many as have “sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; . . . in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.” Verses 11-16.

This is very far from saying that at the coming of Christ all these will have a renewed probation, in order to save them. The coming of Christ to earth is for an entirely different purpose, according to the Word itself. By that we learn definitely the object of his coming. He is to appear with ten thousand of his holy ones—all the angels of heaven—(Matt. 25:31) “to execute judgment upon all” (Jude 15). Mark well the expression “to execute,” that is, to give effect to the judgment already written against all the ungodly.

This establishes the idea that before Christ comes, those who may be accounted worthy of salvation at his appearing, will have stood the test of character beforehand. At the sounding of this trump of God, accompanied with the resounding “voice of the Archangel,” the dead in Christ rise first of all. 1 Thess. 4:15-17. This separation could not possibly take place unless those thus raised had been before “accounted worthy” of the honor, as stated by our Saviour. Luke 20:35.

This, too, seems perfectly just to all alike; for the fact that God made man upright, and that the creature himself has sought out the inventions of Satan (Eccl. 7:29), places the responsibility of man's lost condition upon himself. Besides, God even went infinitely farther, giving his only Begotten to redeem the lost creature; and this puts the responsibility for salvation upon the contingency of the needy one applying the remedy while under the condition he brought on himself.

But we should not forget to consider the “due time” relied on by age-to-come believers as the blessed period accorded for a second probation. It is true that Christ Jesus “gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” as stated in 1 Tim. 2:6. But let no one give these words a wrong setting. The testifying here spoken of was in regard to the

giving of Christ to the world, and does not in any sense justify the thought of a second probation. So we ask, When was Christ thus given? With God's infinite foreknowledge, the gift must have been provided even before sin entered the world. This is clearly stated by the assertion that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8.

But though this was the provided plan, and completed at so early a stage, the “due time” for his appearance in the flesh was reserved to a period pleasing to him who orders all things to suit his own will. This thought is conveyed in the message of the apostle who said that “when the fullness of the time was come [the due time for Christ to witness to the plan], God sent forth his Son” to redeem them that were under the law, and make them sons of God by adoption. Gal. 4:4, 5.

It is clear from the few scripture references cited that the second probation theory is a preposterous one, only calculated to lead the careless soul into an attitude of carnal security. If such an arrangement is only for the generations who have died out of Christ, because of ignorance of their privilege, why should the doctrine be drilled into living minds, except to divide their attention from present Christian duties, by inculcating the hope that they, too, may have a second chance to recover from the sin taints of some selfish interest? The safe side of this controversy is manifestly to follow the moral instruction of the Bible, to prepare to meet God, and at the same time to banish the thought of all Utopian views of a better time to find the Lord.

Glendale, Cal.