Newspaper Agrees with Unbeliever Against Hell
The newspaper applauded an unbelieving lecturer who preferred the human race in oblivion to admitting eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal, conscious judgment.
Por Rodrigo Custódio ·
The moment
On Thursday, December 16, 1880, the Signs of the Times published on page 564 of vol. 6 no. 47 a note titled "An Infidel Lecture." The text, unsigned, echoed the account of A. A. Phelps, editor of the periodical Bible Banner, about a lecture heard about a year earlier in Little Rock, Arkansas, delivered by a certain B. F. Underwood — an openly unbelieving lecturer.
The newspaper transcribes Underwood's words without censorship: he had said he would rather go to hell with men like Tyndale, Huxley, and Spencer than go to heaven with another class of people — for the presence of such men would make hell so pleasant that the best would try to emigrate from the other place — and, as for the popular idea of hell, he would rather the entire human race sink into oblivion than that a part of it suffer eternal torment. Thus far, the record of an infidel speech.
The scandal comes in the next line, in an editorial voice: "With the latter sentiment we fully agree." The newspaper that presented itself as a herald of biblical truth declared total agreement with the unbeliever — not with his faith, which he did not have, but with his repulsion toward eternal torment.
And the text explains the reason for the agreement: Underwood had confused "the theological hell of tradition with the biblical hell of destruction" — and the dogma of eternal torment, according to the newspaper, "probably made more infidels than any other sentiment ever promulgated." The blame for the lecturer's unbelief would lie with the doctrine of hell, not with the rebellion of the heart.
Artisanal typography with stacks of paper tied in a paper diorama — atmospheric illustration.
The absurdity
A newspaper that claims to be Christian applauds a declared unbeliever: faced with the statement that it would be better for the entire race to disappear into oblivion than for a part of it to suffer eternal torment, the editorial staff responds with a "we fully agree." The theological alliance forms on the spot — the skeptic and the newspaper, hand in hand against the biblical hell. Read the exact words of the print:
"I would rather the whole race sink into oblivion than that a part of it suffer eternal torment." "With the latter sentiment we fully agree."
Source: Signs of the Times, vol. 6, no. 47, December 16, 1880 — p. 564.
Highlighted clipping of the printed page with the quoted passage, December 16, 1880 edition, p. 564.
Why this is serious
The first problem is one of company: the newspaper chooses its side in the controversy, and the side chosen is that of the unbeliever. When the issue is eternal torment — a doctrine taught explicitly by Christ in person — the editorial staff does not side with Jesus; it sides with Underwood, a lecturer who declared himself an open enemy of Christianity. "We fully agree" leaves no room for misunderstanding: it is integral adherence to the skeptic's sentiment.
The second problem is the inversion of blame. According to the newspaper, the dogma of eternal torment "probably made more infidels than any other sentiment ever promulgated" — that is, the blame for Underwood's unbelief would lie with the biblical doctrine, not with Underwood himself, as if faithful preaching were responsible for the rebellion of those who hear it. Scripture, however, teaches the opposite: men are lost because they love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), not because they heard too much about hell.
The third problem is the method: in order to "save" hell from disrepute, the newspaper redefines it. The "biblical hell of destruction" replaces the biblical hell of torment — and the swap is presented as fidelity to the Scriptures, when it is in fact a concession to skepticism. Underwood rejected eternal torment out of unbelief; the newspaper rejects it out of doctrine. The practical result is the same: Jesus' hell vanishes from the picture.
And there is the final irony: the newspaper laments that Christian ministers, by preaching eternal torment, drive away "thinking men of generous impulses" — as if human generosity were the criterion for measuring divine truth, and as if fidelity to Scripture should be calibrated by the reaction of the hearers. Apostolic preaching never softened judgment so as not to offend the "generous": Paul preached "about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come" until Felix trembled (Acts 24:25). The gospel that does not make one tremble is not the gospel.
Empty nineteenth-century lecture hall with stage and lamps in watercolor — atmospheric illustration.
The verdict of the Scriptures
Jesus left no doubt about the nature of the final punishment: "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). Eternal punishment — the same words, the same "eternal," for the destiny of the wicked and for the life of the righteous. Whoever denies the first must, for consistency, deny the second.
Revelation describes the destiny of the condemned without euphemism: "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10), and "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever" (Rev. 14:11). There is no "oblivion" in the sacred text — there is conscious, continuous, endless torment. Underwood's preference for universal extinction is exactly the opposite of what the Bible reveals.
As for the accusation that the doctrine of hell "makes infidels," Scripture answers that unbelief is born of the heart, not of doctrine: "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18). Men do not reject the gospel because judgment is too terrible; they reject it because they love sin. Softening hell has never converted anyone — it has only produced believers comfortable with a domesticated god.
And regarding the "biblical hell of destruction," the Bible uses "destruction" and "perish" for the eternal ruin of the wicked — definitive separation from God in conscious torment — never for annihilation or cessation of existence. The rich man of the parable, in Hades, was in torment and asked for relief (Luke 16:23-24): he existed, felt, suffered, remembered. The newspaper of 1880 preferred the company of the unbeliever to the word of Christ; Scripture commands us to stand with Christ, even if the whole world prefers oblivion.