Objection:
The doctrine that a Christian at death goes down into the grave, there to lie unconscious until the resurrection day, is a gloomy belief.
Answer:
Even if we granted that the doctrine is gloomy, this would not be any proof that it is false. The question is not whether a doctrine appears gloomy or bright to our way of thinking but whether it is taught in the Bible. Indeed, the objector will agree that the doctrine of never-ending torment for the wicked is even worse than gloomy, yet it does not occur to him that the doctrine is, therefore, proved false. No, our feelings and fancies are hardly a safe guide in making any final decisions on questions of doctrine.
But we do not grant the charge made in this objection. It is more sentimental than sound. What does a sleeping man know of the passage of time or his condition in sleep? Likewise, what do those who “sleep in the dust of the earth” (Dan. 12:2) know of the passing of millenniums or that the earth is their couch? Their return to consciousness at the voice of Christ is the signal for them to “come forth.” John 5:28, 29. And as the righteous, raised from the dead, look back over the centuries of their “sleep,” the whole period will seem but a moment, and as they look forward to an endless eternity, their period of unconsciousness will appear even less than a moment.
We repeat the charge is more sentimental than sound, and sentiment, when not re-enforced with Scripture, is not a valid objection. But we go further and say that the charge is not even sentimentally sound. The minister, who becomes eloquent in describing the happiness of Mr. Brown’s departed son, finds his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth when he attempts to preach the funeral sermon for the late lamented son of Mr. Jones, who died in a drunken debauch. Mr. Brown is always cheered by the thought that his beloved son is enjoying the happiness of heaven. At the same time, Mr. Jones is ever haunted by the belief that his equally beloved, though wayward, son is suffering constantly the unspeakable tortures of hell. Yet the state of mind of both fathers is the result of the same doctrine! If the matter is to be decided on sentiment, then we insist that Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown be asked to answer the question: Is the doctrine of “soul sleeping” more gloomy than that of the soul’s immortality?
Or view the matter from another standpoint. Let us say that the godly Mr. Jones dies, and the wayward son lives. According to the immortality doctrine, a departed father gone to glory can see what his children are doing and hover near them as a spirit. Would heaven be any place of happiness for Mr. Jones as he gazed down upon the course his wastrel son was following? The father’s state would be even more distressing in heaven than on earth, for while on earth, he could possibly do something by counsel and example to reform his son, but in heaven, he could only helplessly watch this child of his heart move steadily on to destruction. And then, when the son finally dies, the father’s anguish is only intensified by the thought that this erring son has been transferred from earth to the endless tortures of hellfire. All this logically follows from the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
Because of this, we marvel that an objection based on sentiment should ever be raised against the doctrine called “soul sleeping.” We freely grant that any thought of death and the grave is tinged with sorrow and gloom, for death and the grave are enemies in God’s universe. But is the sadness lessened for the human family by belief in the immortal-soul doctrine? No, the very opposite. We believe both the Bible and sentiment agree with the doctrine of unconsciousness in the grave until the resurrection.
