The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment

QUESTION: On what grounds does the doctrine of eternal punishment rest?

ANSWER: On the authority of Christ, Matt. 25:46; Mark 3:29, "eternal sin," R. V., and that of his apostles, Heb. 6 2, "eternal judgment;" Rev. 20:10, "tormented day and night forever and ever;" and 14:11, "the smoke * * * forever and ever." The human reason sustains this in its highest upreaching, as in Plato, who supports this doctrine in the case of the incurable wicked. Given these two terms: a perverse free will forever refusing to repent, and the immortality and indestructibility of the soul, and eternal misery is the only possible inference. Both Revelation and Reason prove this awful doctrine.

— Steele's Answers pp. 261, 262.

Who Changed the Sabbath?

QUESTION: When and by whom was the Sabbath changed to the first day of the week?

ANSWER: Indirectly by Christ on the day before his crucifixion, when he relegated to the Holy Spirit the many things the disciples could not then bear (John 16:12, 13), and directly by the church filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). "I was in the Spirit on the Dominican Day;" the adjective Dominican described the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11:20). This shows that the Lord's Day kept by John is not Jehovah's day; but the first day. Christ had much trouble with the Jews about the Sabbath. If He had made the change, His disciples were so weak as not to be able to bear it; some Christians even are so infantile that they cannot bear it now. Let them go eastward around the world, keeping every seventh day, and when they get back, having gained a day, they will be keeping the first.

— Steele's Answers p. 261.

Are the Ten Commandments Still in Force?

QUESTION: Are the Ten Commandments still in force? (2) If so explain II Cor. 3:7-11.

ANSWER: Christ confirmed them in Matt. 22:10, and in Mark 10:19. (2) There is no collision between these passages. The more glorious dispensation of the Gospel does not vacate or abrogate the moral law. The atonement made by Christ honors and establishes the law (Rom. 3:21-31). We are still under the law as the rule of life, but not as the ground of justification. If we were, we should all be condemned. Nor are we under the law as the impulse to service, which is not fear of the law, but love to the Lawgiver.

— Steele's Answers pp. 260, 261.

A New Heart

QUESTION: When is this prediction to be fulfilled, Ezekiel 36:26; "A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you"?

ANSWER: This seems to be a type of the rich blessings of the Gospel dispensation under the imagery of the happy condition of Israel after restoration from captivity in Babylon.

— Steele's Answers p. 260.

The Fiery Trial - 1 Peter 4:12

QUESTION: What is the fiery trial in I Pet. 4:12, "Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you," etc.?

ANSWER: This epistle was written in A. D. 64, the date of the imperial edict of Nero authorlsing and commanding the persecution of Christians. It is natural that Peter should forewarn the churches he had founded in Asia Minor of this trial of their faith, which would put them to the test as the furnace tests and purifies gold. Yet it may mean an actual suffering by literal fire, called the fire torment.

— Steele's Answers pp. 259, 260.

Churches That Oppose Holiness

QUESTION: Is it right for a person professing sanctification to remain in a church where they oppose holiness?

ANSWER: "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Do not let Christian perfection get the bad repute of being schismatic, a thing that Satan very much desires.

— Steele's Answers p. 259.

Did Paul Disobey the Spirit in Going to Jeruslem?

QUESTION: Did not Paul disobey the Holy Spirit by going up to Jerusalem against the warning of the Prophet Agabus, who came down from that city and warned him by word of mouth and by an impressive object lesson (Acts 21:10-14) that he would there be bound and delivered into the hands of the Gentiles?

ANSWER: The Holy Spirit did not forbid Paul's going, but loudly revealed the consequences, if he did go. It brought out the true heroism of the apostle to the Gentiles. He could have interpreted the warning as a permission to secure his own safety, in accordance with Christ's command, "when they persecute you in one city flee ye to another," a command which Paul several times obeyed. But he believed that it was God's will that he should go on even if it cost him his life. It was God's way of bringing him to Rome, where he and not Peter organized the church in the world's capital city.

— Steele's Answers pp. 258, 259.

Could God Have Prevented Sin?

QUESTION: Could not God have refused to create the tree bearing forbidden fruit, and in this way have prevented the sin of Adam and Eve?

ANSWER: He could have refrained from such a creation, but in that case there would have been some other way of testing their obedience to their Creator. A test must consist in something which appeals to desire. The good-looking fruit appealed to appetite. It would have been too severe if there had not been a great variety of permitted fruit for their health and pleasure. Every free agent, without intelligence and experience, in attempting to find the line between right and wrong, will probably sooner or later find out by stepping over this fiery boundary and getting well scorched for his daring act. The liability of free agents to sin can be prevented only by suppressing their freedom and converting them into machines, i. e., by uncreating them. It is reasonable to suppose that out of all possible plans of a moral universe God selected that one which he foresaw would involve the least suffering. Therefore we should praise God for creating us with all our moral risks instead of censuring Him for the self-induced failure and suffering of as few perhaps relatively as the prisoners in our State prisons are to the entire population outside.

— Steele's Answers p. 258.

Did God Forsee Sin?

QUESTION: Did God foresee that some men would sin and, refusing the Savior whom He provided, would be eternally punished?

ANSWER: A few good men, such as Bishop Wm. Taylor and Prof. McCabe, say God foreknows only the foreknowable; that the future moral acts of a free agent are not knowable. This would make prophecy impossible. Theologians almost all of them believe that God foreknew that some men would make themselves forever miserable. He could have avoided the misery by refraining from creating persons and by  being satisfied with a universe of things. This would be a dull universe without a single moral intelligence to commune with. God had from eternity just such a universe. I do not blame Him for preferring a chance with all the risks involved in the creation of free agents.

— Steele's Answers p. 257.

What is the Sin Against the Holy Spirit?

QUESTION (1) What is the sin against the Holy Spirit? (2) Must a person have a Christian experience before he can commit the irremissible sin?

ANSWER: Some think it is the culmination of a long period of resistance to the Holy Spirit, a fixity of sinful character towards which all sinners are steadily drifting. When this point has been reached the Spirit abandons the soul (Isa. 63:10). Others say that the unpardonable sin is ascribing Christ's miracles to the devil, a sin which only those who lived when Christ was on the earth would be apt to commit. See Mark 3:29,30. Others think that when after a course of sin some aggravating insult is offered to the Spirit, most sensitive Person of the Trinity, then does he resent it with a justice that knows no mercy. A good illustration of this sin is this: There is a fatal disease for which there is but one cure. One finds the remedy; another compounds it, and the third applies it. Neither of the three will do the work of either of the others. If the sick man refuses to have the remedy applied, but trusts in a general way to the kindness of either of the others, he must die, though the supply of prepared medicine is ample. The same dreadful result would follow, if, because of some great insult to the third man, a philanthropic physician, he should decline to medicate the blasphemer. (2) He need not have been a Christian, though a Christian may commit this sin. (John 5:16.).

— Steele's Answers pp. 256, 257.