Page 44: clipping transcribed
Last evening Rev. A. R. Osborn concluded his series on the “”Life after death.” The work of previous sermons was that of analysis and of providing a groundwork for our conclusions. Throughout he maintained there was a revelation of truth. People asked them why it was so inaccurately defined. In answering this he took the analogy of a little child asking what the electric light was and where it a came from. Dearly the child’s conception must be inadequate, and to a certain extent inaccurate . To us who know a little more it seems absurd. Yet the light was there, and no one thinks that the little one’s confused and imaginative thinking discredits the existence of any light at all. So it was with the Jews. They began with the idea of Sheol. This idea was, however, disturbed by the growing perception that in this life there is not always reward or punishment, and also by their continual oppression. Gradually the revelation came that God will conquer all unrighteousness, and that in the life to be the wrong of the earth would be put right. This was the light; but we must not expect that they would define it accurately. Just as in the case of the child their description as we have it in their apocalyptic literature was inadequate, and often inaccurate and imaginary. Christ did not give accurate definition, because the people were not even then sufficiently developed to understand it; but he taught the correctives to know they would in time do their work. Among these were the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God and the Fatherhood of God. After Christ the church entered on a period of struggle which was followed by the empire resulting in a vast ecclesiastical system. It was only at the Reformation that men came back to the study of divine revelation. Of course they could not do all. We are working out what they began, and the more we understand Christ’s teaching about the spiritual nature of His Kingdom the more do we feel dissatisfied with the old description, though not with the light behind the description. Hence we may say first of all that there is undoubtedly a life after death. Even scientific men are coming to favour this view, though at first many opposed it. Science, however, confesses that it has no real objection to offer to a future life. Some indeed say that our sentient life is due to the union of soul and body, and that the destruction of the body means cessation of conscious existence. This however, is no objection if in the future state we inhabit a spiritual body which is what the Christian doctrine of a resurrection asserts. As to the nature of the future life little can be said. We can reverently only speculate. It is sufficient to say that it will be well for the good, and that evil and good alike will be rewarded. The preacher then into a discussion of future punishment, describing the objects of punishment, vindictive, deterrent and reformatory, and indicating how these bore on the question of future punishment. In conclusion he thought that while a few things are sure, and we must be guided by them, much regarding manner and ultimate issue cannot be answered. We can simply trust the Eternal Father.
Posts
