Annihilationist Blogger Continues to Hide Identity and Promote Heresy: A Reply to Giovanni Camacho (Attorney, Resnick & Louis, P.C.) – Part 2
- Trinity Gospel Church
- Apr 14
- 24 min read
Updated: Apr 18
A response to the article: "Part 2: Why Predestination is not Evidence for Hell and Other Thoughts," located at The Neon GasLamp.
Introduction
For context, on Friday, February 7, 2025, friends altered me to a blog article against my book, Annihilationism Debunked: An Introduction (Trinity Gospel Church, 2025), hereafter [AD]. I welcome responses, but noticed this blog subtly hides the author's name. Strangely enough, the skittish writer of this blog site conceals his identity without linking anything to his legal name (how convenient is that?). Upon discovering it was a timid attorney in Colorado named Giovanni Camacho at Resnick & Louis, P.C. (I will refer to him as G), I reached out to him through his publicly available work email to find out if he was the author of the Neon Gaslamp page because I knew it would go directly to him. I chose this approach rather than message a blog site to discover the identity of a frightened author who seemingly hides his identity. G wasn't obligated to respond. However, he did reply via his work email at Resnick & Louis, P.C. (Tuesday, February 11, 2025):
Feel free to subscribe. The next article covering chapter 2 will post shortly... (to see the interaction, click on the following link).
What G called "shortly" turned out to be two months later, as he finally responded on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. This almost two-month-long delay had me wondering if his god was musing, relieving himself, on a journey, asleep, and perhaps G needed to wake him up. That's right, G affirms a false god. As proof, in his February 7, 2025 blog, he denied the doctrine of impassibility and thus thinks that sinners can passionately move the Supreme Being to change. Per the Word of God, impassibility means God is not a composite being; sinners cannot cause the Being of all beings to act emotively because the Creator is immutable; God does not derive anything from His creation because He is of Himself; the One True God has no competitors, equals, or potentialities, etc. G's blatant denial of this gospel truth is his delusional way of saying he thinks sinful creatures can cause the Ultimate Agent of Creation, God Almighty, to act and undergo changes, thus denying immutability (see the biblical response to G's false god).
The April 2, 2025 blog by G is merely another presentation and evidence of his love for the god of annihilationism. As proof, in this blog, he called out a known heretic named Kenneth Copeland, rightly so, but committed damnable heresy by calling it a "false gospel" to believe "Christ had a soul." G's position is an extreme form of heresy known as Apollinarianism. It's also full-blown Docetism because denying that Christ assumed a rational soul is no different than saying He is not fully human. Per Matthew 26:38, the first person pronoun mou ("my"), a genitive, plus psyche ("soul"), emphasizes what the two-natured person of Christ had possessed during the incarnation. That's why I appreciate it, in a sense, when annihilationist heretics like G write blogs against the biblical doctrine of Hell, i.e., eternal conscious torment (ECT). That's because it exposes what god they affirm.
Complaints, Hypocrisy, Compromise, etc.
Before addressing some of the theological content in G's April 2, 2025 blog, I must address some of his complaints and expose his gross compromise:
It's unclear whether G relied heavily on cheap lawyer tricks or used car sales tactics in his blog. Nonetheless, it's clear he desperately wants to redirect his audience away from the fact that he hides his identity from his blog. That tactic will not work on me. Like his February 7, 2025 blog, G continued to hide his name in his April 2, 2025 article, referring to himself many times in the third person ("this author"). Not shockingly, he played the poor little victim to deflect away from the fact that he hides his name. G whined that I engaged in name-calling ("coward") because I called him out for concealing his identity. He also accused me of trying to "dox" him for posting a video of his reply via his publicly available email. G's standards are unbecoming. Per G, it is acceptable for him to call out men by name and hide his identity. But, when questioned and criticized about this cowardly practice, he plays the victim and cries foul. Again, this cheap lawyer trick will not work on me.
Also, to deflect away from the fact that G does not appear to want anyone to know he is the author of the Neon Gaslamp blog, he claimed my church website and YouTube page have the comments turned off and noted, "Sonny's propensity to use the 'coward' moniker is a 'takes-one-to-know-one' sort of thing." Nice deflection, once again, G. Yes, the comments section are turned off on all of our YouTube videos and blog site, not just the replies to G. That's because both are under the direction of my church. Regarding our church website and YouTube page, our practice is to declare and defend the truth of Scripture, not leave it open for every heretic like G to smother our sites with their godless articles or comments. I welcome feedback or criticism, but folks can do it on their websites, not mine. I do, however, have an Amazon author page with many books. People leave comments there, positive and negative. So your comment ("How many annihilationists are responding to Sonny? His comments are turned off…") is laughable because annihilationists are not in any way deprived or forbidden from responding to me just because the comments are turned off on my church blog and videos; annihilationists can respond anytime on their own blogs just like you have, G.
Moreover, throughout G's blog, he referred to several logical fallacies, trying desperately to lead his readers to think he is a logician. However, he failed to explain what fallacy he commits when he espouses his dislike of my exegesis of Greek or Hebrew words but refers to Hebrew or Greek Lexicons to define words. For example, regarding my explanation of a text, G noted, "This could have been done without resorting to Greek grammar analysis." Yet, several times, this Google scholar referred to internet sources to explain Hebrew and Greek words such as ʿāzaḇ, Ruah, πνεῦμα, and Apōleia.
Poor G is so confused about his position on Hell that he contradicts himself so severely that it is hard not to feel sorry for him. In his April 2, 2025 article, he claimed that death "is the separation of God-given-life-sustaining-breath from the body leading to the cessation of all biological function, including consciousness..." (added emphasis), but repeatedly whines that I mischaracterize his position as "unconsciousness" in the afterlife. It makes no sense for G to constantly cry and say I misrepresent annihilationists when I refer to their position as unconsciousness in the afterlife when G, in his February 7, 2025 blog, described the lasting death and the bodily destruction in the lake of fire as the "permanent cessation of life and consciousness stemming from being burned to death" (emphasis added).
G's haphazard defense of the annihilationism heresy has exposed his blindness to his hypocrisy. For example, Anthony "Alex" A. Davis II (Texas), a long-time cheerleader of G's blog and one of maybe three or four of G's friends who actually comment on his page, wrote to me and referred to torment as "cessation of existence" (emphasis added). As a result, I referred to Anthony's "cessation of existence" view as "imbecilic" on my blog. This comment did not sit well with G as he played the defensive mommy role and accused me of trying to "dox" Davis and even alleged that I resort to "insults," "tribalism, and ad hominem" when challenged. Yet, G claimed, "Sonny's cessation of being objection is, with all due respect, patently absurd, if not dishonest and moronic" (emphasis added). Per G, I am guilty of "hurling insults" and trying to "dox" someone because I referred to an annihilationist's view as "imbecilic," but G gives himself a pass when he ridiculed my stance as "moronic." G may have a tremendous political future one day with the Democrat party.
Furthermore, G apparently believes that Arminianism is a damnable false gospel and does not regard Arminians as Christians. But these views did not stop G from brown-nosing an Arminian blogger (David Jakubovic) who published a review of my book because this semi-Pelagian is an annihilationist (see the biblical response to Jakubovic's article). Rather than evangelizing this Arminian blogger or explicitly stating what doctrines Jakubovic held to that he did not, G lauded this Arminian's article against my book and referred to it as a "succinct and well-written academic review of Sonny's book." It shows how the annihilationist bond is so strong among heretics that it has united an Arminian blogger with one (Giovanni Camacho) who supposedly believes that Arminians are not Christians and Arminianism is a damnable false gospel. Of course, in G's public support of the Arminian blogger, David Jakubovic, G did not dare make any adverse claims against any of the Arminian convictions held by Jakubovic because of their shared love of annihilationism.
G once led many to believe he denounced all forms of Arminianism. I find this laughable because G appears to support all forms of Arminianism when he wrote, "Jakubovic's review is well cited and researched, with a bibliography of 95 entries for a blog review of a book..." and "I would recommend that anyone interested in this topic or Sonny's book read that review." In Jakubovic's article, he favorably cited and agreed with the doctrine of universal atonement, the well-meant offer, an Arminian stance on Romans 9, conditional salvation, and Molinism. Yet, G, the one who once claimed Arminianism is a false gospel and Arminians are not Christians, gave no disclaimers on what he disagreed with, instead choosing to praise Jakubovic's blog because he, too, is an annihilationist. As a result, in the comment section of his blog, the Arminian, David Jakubovic, has reciprocated his appreciation for G, as evident in his blog's comments section dated April 4, 2025, at 12:11 am. He wrote,
"Readers who would like to pursue this topic are invited to check out these high-calibre blog posts by a fellow critic of Hernandez's book here:"
Despite this strange bond between these two annihilationists, one an Arminian and the other who supposedly claims Arminians are not Christians, I am thankful for G publicly writing about what he truly believes because it exposes him as a cultist and a compromiser, not a Christian. It will also show the populace how annihilationist heretics like G will twist the doctrine of God, Christology, anthropology, Hell, the afterlife, etc.
Heresy
The title of Chapter Two of AD is, “Annihilationism Distorts the Doctrine of Predestination.” It seems G is averse to the mention of heresy, and to the discourse in this chapter, to which he responds, as a ruse for allowing “provocative rhetoric.” However, the book uses the biblical terminology as found in Scripture:
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).
Calling out false prophets is a biblical tactic. That there will be heresies is a given. Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (11:19). So, calling the attention drawn to heresy as provocative is to malign the apostles themselves.
Red Herring
“Provocative” is not enough for G. He also claims I am “belligerent” and “boisterous.” One may have zeal without knowledge, but this approach found in AD hardly counts. G is not happy with being told that he is a heretic. He accuses me of utilizing the fallacy known as “No True Scotsman.” This is a ploy where it is assumed that the authentic advocate of a particular notion will line up in a prescribed manner, or with a clear definitional adherence. So, G quotes this line to, once more, malign: “Any Christian worth his salt knows Hell is a biblical doctrine.” To this, G objects. This shows that G is either “no true Scotsman” or, that he believes in Hell (ECT). But Hell for G is something quite different than what the believers have advocated through the years of Christianity. But his ploy of accusing the fallacy is aimed at anyone who would reject Hell simpliciter. The problem here is that G and his fellow-conditionalists have so defaced and re-defined “Hell” that though they claim to affirm its existence, they have effaced its eternal bite and eternal constitution. But this no Scotsman “fallacy” should not be a problem for G, as it is something he ought to affirm himself unless he wants to be labelled as an ‘untrue Scotsman.’
Maybe G is feeling the force of the ‘fallacy,’ which, rather than fallaciously failing, is hitting its mark! Whatever the truth may be, this is a tactical red herring. What of Paul’s use of a similar argument that no “true Scotsman lacks the spirit of God?” Forgive me, the apostle renders it a little differently, “…Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9). Or what of Jesus? He said, “No true Scotsman can even see the kingdom of God.” Oh, yes. It was a little different. Jesus’s version includes the double certainty: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). No true, born-again believer will fail to see the kingdom of God.” Hence, that “no true Christian will deny the doctrine of Hell,” is a biblically warranted argument. Again, nothing but a red herring here!
Missing the Point
G has a flair for missing the point of AD, but also more drastically of Scripture’s intent at some crucial junctures. Here is an example of the former and the latter all in one go. G says,
“purveyors of ECT are like pagan mystics who believe that they have eternal life apart from the body and outside of Christ, meaning they simply do not need the free gift of eternal life from Christ. Indeed, these men believe that all men have always possessed eternal life by merit of being human, and this eternal life they already possesses is not the free gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ. If man already has eternal life, what exactly is Christ going to add to that?
This is non-trivial error given 1 John 5 – God’s testimony is that He has given the elect eternal life, and that such eternal life is in His Son. By affirming that he and the non-elect inherently have eternal life outside of Christ, Sonny is denying God’s testimony that eternal life is only in Christ. Seems like a high price to affirm eternal life for people Christ did not die for.”
This is political gamesmanship at its best. He has decided, a priori, that what ECT advocates intend by being dualists, that is, believing that man is made up of body and soul, is that they have eternal life. If so, why does Christ even show up in history? To add what to these possessors of “eternal life?” This is even suggested to be ‘backed up’ by Scripture. However, nowhere in any argument about the constitution of man in the anthropology of any ECT advocate has it been claimed that man has eternal life outside of Christ. This misconstrues the opponent’s position as an absurdity and is a well-known ploy. But it cannot be sustained. To equate having a soul with possessing eternal life is just plainly naïve. Having a soul and where it ends up are not the same inherent thing. Moreover, one cannot equate said soul to possession of eternal life. This is a verbal sleight of hand.
Eternal death is the biblical term for the destiny of the unsaved post-resurrection and post-condemnation. The punishment for the wicked post-resurrection will be an eternal death. This is described as the second death, the lake of fire. This is clearly an everlasting condition that due to the way God has so ordered humanity to exist forever, and it is foolish to equate eternal conscious torment with the felicity of the saved. Matthew 25 has Jesus making a clear distinction. The sheep and the goats have two distinct and diametrically opposed destinations. The shorthand that is used is familiar: Heaven and Hell. To equate Hell with the possession of eternal life is like calling both white and black the same color. The depiction by Christ is a little more graphic:
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world . . . Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels . . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (Matthew 25:34, 41, 46, emphasis added).
Souls?
It is here that a confusion of categories emerges in G’s ridiculous presentation. That the soul of man is a feature that distinguishes them from the rest of creation is something G axiomatically rejects. This is how God distinguished the levels of creation by affirming everything good until the creation of man in the image and likeness of God rendered matters, with the inclusion of man, as very good. G would have us believe that man is no different from animals. He argues such a position, from a complete misunderstanding of Ecclesiastes 3, to which we shall return. Obviously, God makes a distinction between the image and likeness bearers, man and woman, and the rest of the created order, when he pronounces the intensifier: מְאֹד (very) to the adjective good. G’s ploy is to accuse the holders of such an anthropology as being neo-gnostic, philosophical, Platonic, etc. Yet, Christ noted:
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows (Matthew 10:28).
God certainly added something else to man than he provided to the animals, as men are worth more than sparrows. It may just be so, because man alone has a body and a soul, as Jesus said.
Ecclesiastes
As mentioned earlier, G has a passage from Ecclesiastes that he considers proof positive of his position that men and animals are the same, bodies inhabited with the breath of God. Here is the passage:
16 And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there. 17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? 22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him? (Ecclesiastes 3:16-22, emphasis added).
G bases his argument on verses 18ff. He takes these verses as a straightforward reality. And he feels that it is a legitimate inference to extrapolate from this text that men are no different from animals. On a superficial level, this appears to be so. However, the book of Ecclesiastes is a unique work that alternates its perspective throughout the material. The expression “under the sun” which G conveniently ignores, clues in the reader that this perspective is one of observation from a mere human existence without affirming whether it is true or not. In other words, the sentiments expressed are from a perspective “under the sun,” by a natural observer. No insight at this point is conclusive about ultimate reality. Thus, G is actually taking the side of an unbeliever or a misguided person who approaches the matters of life based on a limited perspective. Because Ecclesiastes alternates its position of awareness or its evaluation starting point, careful attention ought to be made in how one adopts the material. In the book, for example, in chapter 11, there is a penultimate summing up and a conclusion to the whole matter. The Preacher says, “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment” (11:9). This is a lead to the concluding chapter where it is said: “13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (12:13-14). It is the context of this end that the writer makes an interesting claim that at death: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (12:7). The notion that we are no different from animals is here set in the light of ultimate reality that dawns upon the reader as the book unfolds. Indeed, one learns that even in this life under the sun, man is ignorant, “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all” (11:5). Clearly, the spirit and the flesh are distinct, even while there is much mystery attached to each. All this to say that G has misused the book and, as such, has missed the point. His use of Ecclesiastes neither helps his cause nor his reputation as a trustworthy expositor. This is plain as he commits the error of “illegitimate sensibility transfer,” where he utilizes Strong’s concordance and claims a uniform meaning wherever the word “spirit” is found. G fails to see the range of clear semantic domains that indicate various meanings or senses in distinct contexts. Hence, G is a Strong’s concordance cripple who cannot walk an exegetical mile.
Christology
It is on this specific theological matter that G is most troubling. First, G uses another smear tactic to suggest that the writings in AD are similar to what is taught by Kenneth Copeland, a well-known word of faith televangelist. Here it is not surprising that the following statement appears from G’s pen:
“Sonny’s doctrine on Hell, along with his doctrine that Christ’s “soul never lost consciousness, nor did He cease to exist as a person” (Hernandez, 42), and that Christ’s “saving work” is that “He consciously bore the wrath of God and delivered the elect from conscious torment in Hell” (Id., 9) has logical implications which are similar, if not identical, to that of the “Word of Faith” sect, which teach that Christ went to Hell as a substitute to consciously experience torment when He died. . . First, Kenneth Copeland teaches a false gospel, including for his beliefs that Christ had a soul . . .”
Also, G adds, that the notion of spiritual death is false. This entire discussion is plagued with misunderstanding and in the positive affirmation by G is riddled with heresy. First, the idea that it is a false gospel to advocate that Christ had a soul is strange though not surprising, coming from G. G is driving his exposition of his thesis with this notion as the foundation. Of course, per G, Jesus does not have a soul. Nobody has a soul, silly! That is his mantra. But Christ said, my soul is vexed:
38 My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:38-41).
Moreover, Christ affirms the distinction between the flesh and the spirit in His admonition to sleepy Peter. In this depiction of the coming punishment, Christ affirms both components of the absorption of God’s wrath that He will imminently undergo. On the cross, Christ confirms this in the way He describes His experience. Before He died physically, He cried out, “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken Me.” Then, He gives up the Spirit, and so physical death is complete. Being spiritually abandoned and dying physically are thus two aspects of the punishment.
In his Christology, G approaches, if not ascribes to, Apollinarian theology. In the fourth century Arian crisis, many views of the person of Christ predominated. There were the Arians themselves that believed that the Jesus Christ in his pre-incarnate state was a created being. He was an intermediary between God and mankind. There were variations of Arianism, but they had this in common: Christ was not the true God. The Orthodox view emerged after the council of Nicaea in Anno Domini 325, and the emergence of the Nicene Creed, which included the watchword, homoousios, “of same substance,” to indicate that the Son was as much God as the Father was God, but distinct in person. This highlighted the doctrine of the Trinity: One God in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
During this time, Apollinaris or Apollinarius, a friend of Athanasius, had produced a view that had a tripartite view of the incarnate Christ. Apollinarius denied that Christ had an authentic human mind, and in its place, the pre-incarnate Word assumed the position normally ascribed to the human mind in traditional anthropology. One may see why G’s view approaches Apollinarianism. He has repeatedly claimed that Jesus did not and does not have a human soul or consciousness. Of course, ultimately, Apollinarius was considered a heretic, and his position was deemed heretical. He said that Jesus had a body, a lower soul, which was tantamount to a seat of emotions, and finally, the Logos functioning in place of an inner personal mind.
G dislikes the biblical view of Christ’s incarnation that has been the standard orthodoxy since Nicaea and confirmed by the definition of Chalcedon in Anno Domini 451. Included, in this statement is the doctrine that Christ is “One Person in Two Natures.” But more is involved. Let us hear from G, on his Christology. He says,
Is it possible that the apostle John was warning of Sonny’s position when he wrote:
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” 1 John 4: 1-3, ESV.
Why did Christ come in the flesh? Hebrews says Christ received a body to share
the same body the elect have, so that He could defeat the devil through His death. Hebrews 2:14-17. By claiming that Christ had a severable, immortal soul which did not die, and whose suffering is actually the atonement, is Sonny (and anyone else who affirms Christ’s soul suffering is the atonement) denying that Jesus came in the flesh?
Isn’t His incarnation inextricably related to His work as a High Priest? How does one separate Christ’s incarnation from His sacrificial substitutionary death?
Is John really just referring to a dispute about whether Christ came as a man or a spirit? Maybe, but what’s the logical distinction between that dispute and Sonny’s doctrine that Christ’s flesh is essentially a husk having nothing to do with the atonement in any case? Under Sonny’s doctrine, Christ didn’t need to be incarnated or even die on a cross to accomplish the atonement. He just needed to be forsaken in His soul.
Under this view, Christ’s incarnation has nothing to do with the atonement. This is in open opposition to Hebrews 2, 9, and 10, and seems to flirt with Docetism.
There is so much nonsense in this brief selection. Using 1 John to suggest that anyone that holds to a traditional Christology violates the teaching of this epistle is imbecilic. It seems that G, has overturned two thousand years of Christological orthodoxy in a single swipe. G seems to think that every time the Bible says “flesh,” this equates to the body only. He does not seem to get that when John’s gospel, for example, says, “The Word was made flesh,” that this means the Word added an individual human nature to Himself. Jesus is the eternal person, the Word, constituted newly in two natures. As a dual-natured person, Christ exhibits all the genuine faculties of humanity (body and soul) and deity in the incarnation. The Word was not just attached to the product of a new human body alone. G’s Christology leaves much to be desired.
G further appeals to Hebrews to sustain his body-only theory. He makes it sound that anyone that does not share his monist view is guilty of not believing that death is a part of the atonement and that suffering alone is. This is ridiculous, but also wrong as it is not the position he is attacking. The view that Scripture has maintained is that Christ, the one person in two natures dies as a human being or according to His human nature, but it is not the human nature abstracted that died. It is the person of Jesus Christ who died, and the atonement cannot be realized without this death. But as has been shown already, the spiritual forsaking of Jesus by His Father was before His physical death. Yet in death that closely followed the full wrath of God was absorbed by Christ. Nothing in this traditional understanding of Christ’s person or punishment suggests that the death is superfluous. Or even that Christ’s body is a “meat suit.” What a terrible expression. That is simply uncalled for and wicked, but not surprising coming form a heretic like G. No, G, it is not John or Paul that advocated a compromised Christ. One has to look to heretics and the like since the Enlightenment for that monist Messiah.
Finally, the statement that “Christ did not need to be incarnated or even die on a cross to accomplish the atonement. He just needed to be forsaken in His soul,” is fraught with misunderstanding. G is becoming quite adept at this. This is simply ludicrous. To suggest that the hundreds of thousands of true believers who have found eternal solace and salvation through Christ’s incarnated sacrificial offering could well nigh have gone without the actual coming as a man is laughable. This insults so many. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He accomplished what the Mosaic Law could not. He alone earned justification of life for His people by His obedience and death. This salvation could not be achieved in any other way. Must we repeat this over and over? No, once more. It is not an either-or matter, G. Christ came as a full and true human being, but not as a mere human. In His true humanity with a body and soul, He underwent the life and death of a substitute in the room and stead of His people. He came in the body of course, but he was a human to the full, as He possessed a body and a distinct soul. It is not one or the other, it is both. What was not assumed is not healed, as has been said by a theologian long ago.
Wrath of God
Because of Christ’s eternal constitution as God the Son, an eternal person, the value of His sacrifice merits eternal life for His sheep. His abandonment and death equal the eternal separation from God due to the value of His unique person. The remainder of humanity will thus face their own decreed subjection to the eternal punishment that awaits them.
In G’s scenario, it is not clear why the idea of death should be such a threat, as all men without exception will die. If Christ’s physical death is the payment for one’s sins, then should not elect men be saved from death? This is a problem for G’s position, so he must invent a false dichotomy that we are actually not subject to death because of our sins, but because of Adam’s. The notion of guilt in Adam per se is not the problem. Indeed, everyone born with natural conception is thus destined to inherit both a guilty standing and a corrupted nature because of that (Romans 5:12). But G says,
Christ took on the same flesh and blood that the elect have so that He could die, one time, the same death that Adam died 930 years later, which is the same death the elect would be required to die without His substitutionary sacrifice. The distinction was Christ was not abandoned in Sheol to corruption (i.e., decomposition in the grave) because His death was the result of guilt imputed, and because He was entitled to take His life back up again as a result of obeying His Father unto death. John 10:18.
By insisting that Christ has a soul that never lost consciousness/never died, dualists like Calvin, Copeland, and Sonny completely destroy the meaning of Christ’s incarnation and more importantly, the atonement which is His corporeal death which included the surrender of His breath back to God. Luke 23 (emphasis added).
G does not escape the challenge of why the elect still die. He says that Christ died the same death that Adam died, which in this scenario is physical death alone. Yet, G also claims that Jesus never had a soul but was able to ‘take His life back again.’ One may ask, who is it that is the agent in His taking back His own life, if He is dead? The only way to account for Christ’s agency is that His Spirit or Soul has survived physical death. Once He arose, He thus emerges as the “firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20) in an indestructible life, with the union of body and soul now glorified. As Paul adds:
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming (15:22-23, emphasis added).
The Mantra of Monism
G has a death scenario that leaves a “what,” a body, without a “who,” a person after death. The spirit or “breath” that he keeps reminding his reader, which animals also have, is just the life-force. There is no personality attached to it, there is no consciousness in it, and there is no value attached to it as separate from the body. For G, all we are is bodies. Our persons are nothing more than brain synapses without an inner personality. How is it that Paul then remains determined to insist that the outward man is decaying, yet the inward man is being renewed daily? How can Jesus say that authentic sins come out of the heart? How can there be a distinction between willingness and inability, a common component or dilemma of humanity? G is left with a monism that would make Enlightenment thinkers blush. We are like the animals. We are bodies. We are bodies, not including an immaterial soul, but we are souls, that is, material bodies with a life force. This is G’s mantra of monism.
Conclusion
Much has been left aside, as this piece would be near the length of G’s response. Predestination is the subject of the response, but it fails to make much of an appearance. What G is certain about is that predestination has nothing to do with Hell. This is rather strange as in Acts we see that those appointed to eternal life believed. This must also include that those appointed to eternal death did not believe. That God has means to His ends is something we have been suggesting for a long time. Now it seems we must have ends for the means that are ever so clear. If eternal conscious torture in Hell is not the destination for the non-elect, then what is? Oh, yes. Per G, they will simply die, a second time, then they won’t feel a thing!
Comments