Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

to them. Other passages, such as Matt. 13:31,32; I Cor. 15:24-28; and Phil. 2:9-11 are
equally inconclusive. Some of them prove too much and therefore prove nothing.
3. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS DOCTRINE. The following considerations can be urged
against this theory: (a) Scripture represents the state of unbelievers after death as a fixed
state. The most important passage that comes into consideration here is Luke 16:19-31.
Other passages are Eccl. 11:3 (of uncertain interpretation); John 8:21,24; II Pet. 2:4,9; Jude
7-13 (comp. I Pet. 3:19). (b) It also invariably represents the coming final judgment as
determined by the things that were done in the flesh, and never speaks of this as
dependent in any way on what occurred in the intermediate state, Matt. 7:22,23;
10:32,33; 25:34-46; Luke 12:47,48; II Cor. 5:9,10; Gal. 6:7,8; II Thess. 1:8; Heb. 9:27. (c) The
fundamental principle of this theory, that only the conscious rejection of Christ and His
gospel, causes men to perish, is un-Scriptural. Man is lost by nature, and even original
sin, as well as all actual sins, makes him worthy of condemnation. The rejection of
Christ is undoubtedly a great sin, but is never represented as the only sin that leads to
destruction. (d) Scripture teaches us that the Gentiles perish, Rom. 1:32; 2:12; Rev. 21:8.
There is no Scripture evidence on which we can base the hope that adult Gentiles, or
even Gentile children that have not yet come to years of discretion, will be saved. (e)
The theory of a future probation is also calculated to extinguish all missionary zeal. If
the Gentiles can decide as to the acceptance of Christ in the future, it can only bring a
speedier and increased judgment upon many, if they are placed before the choice now.
Why not leave them in ignorance as long as possible?
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: Is the position tenable that sheol-hades always
designates an underworld whither all the dead go? Why is it objectionable to believe
that the Bible in its statements respecting sheol and hades simply reflects the popular
notions of the day? Must we assume that the righteous and the wicked at death enter
some temporary and provisional abode, and do not at once enter upon their eternal
destiny? In what sense is the intermediate state only transitional? How did the notion of
purgatory arise? How do Catholics conceive of the purgatorial fire? Is this fire merely
purifying or also penal? What sound element do some Lutherans recognize in the
doctrine of purgatory? What mixture of heresies do we meet with in Millennial
Dawnism? Does the intermediate state, according to Scripture, represent a third aion
between the aion houtos and the aion ho mellon? Is the Scriptural emphasis on the present
as “the day of salvation” in harmony with the doctrine of a future probation?
LITERATURE: Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. IV., pp. 655-711; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De
Consummatione Saeculi, pp. 25-116; Vos, Geref. Dogm. V, Eschatologie, pp. 3-14; Hodge,
768