Why is Annihilationism Heresy? A Defense of the Biblical Doctrine of Hell

By Sonny Hernandez

Excerpt from my book, Annihilationism Debunked [Available on Amazon, Paperback and Kindle (104 pages)]

Introduction

Hell, biblically defined, refers to the final destination of the non-elect, where these objects of God's wrath and hatred will suffer eternal conscious torment (ECT).[1] The key words, eternal conscious torment in Hell, distinguish ECT as a Christian principle from what the cultists posit: unconsciousness in Hell.

            ECT points to the non-elect consciously suffering the Lord's eternal wrath, a reflection of the divine essence, whereas the cultish perspective points to the unconsciousness of the non-elect in the afterlife. Living without consciousness in Hell seems more like an annihilationist version of a final reward for God haters and not Hell.

            Many cultists or false teachers—i.e., the Jehovah's Witnesses[2] and Seventh-day Adventists,[3] etc., who affirm the doctrine of annihilationism, soul sleep, or conditional immortality (CI)[4]—will say they do not reject but affirm "Hell." Despite this cultist opinion, rejecting ECT is equivalent to denying the biblical doctrine of Hell.

            Infiltrating churches with doctrines like annihilationism, soul sleep, or CI is not a difficult practice for false teachers.[5] People suffer from biblical illiteracy on theology proper, so it's not a surprise many are thus duped by the cultists who slavishly assert that rejecting ECT is not a gospel issue. It's a typical ploy by cultists because it affords them opportunities to take advantage of biblically illiterate pastors who are either unaware or unsure about the devastating implications of denying the biblical doctrine of Hell.

            Hell is often regarded by many as an insignificant doctrine or sadly ignored in the same way many are too ashamed to publicly proclaim what God’s Word says about His hatred. Yet, embracing the biblical doctrine of Hell or ECT is a gospel issue for several reasons:

• Hell does not exist outside of God; on the contrary, Hell reflects the eternal, unchanging nature of the one true God.[6] Hell is what it is because it reflects the eternal punishment of the eternal Punisher.

  
  

• God's Word indissolubly connects the biblical doctrine of Hell and Heaven with the decree of double predestination.

  
  

• ECT emphasizes why Christ's saving work is eternally glorious and effectual: He consciously bore and appeased the wrath of God in place of the elect, guaranteeing they will never consciously endure God's rage for an eternity in Hell, whereas all the non-elect will suffer ECT because Christ never appeased the Father's wrath in their place.

  
  

• Opposing ECT requires endless Bible twisting, a practice of Satan, not the Savior.

            Therefore, this chapter aims to demonstrate that rejecting ECT is identical to denying the character of God, perverting the doctrine of predestination, depreciating the value of Christ's completed and saving death on behalf of the elect, and grossly twisting Scripture, just as Satan did.[7]

I. Annihilationism Attacks the Character of God

            No one can comprehend why the doctrine of Hell reflects the essence of God until one begins to understand the basics of theology proper or the doctrine of God, such as simplicity, aseity, and impassibility—all essentials of the gospel.

a. Theology Proper and Hell

            First, God is not a composite being; on the contrary, He is a simple being as pure act without any potentialities in Him. God is all He is, the "I AM" (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58). So, whatever the Bible affirms about God is God, or the divine attributes are interchangeable with who God is.[8] John Owen held these same assertions, as he believed the attributes of God are "...the same with one another, and every one the same with the essence of God itself."[9]

            Consider how 1 John 4:8 reveals one of the divine attributes: "...God is love." Love exists and is eternal because God exists and is eternal. No one can destroy love because no one can destroy God. Love does not exist outside God but reflects His nature. God is love. Love is a communicable attribute of God. Similarly, wrath, vengeance, and hatred refer to divine perfections, all identical to His nature. So, God's Word reveals that He "...is love" (1 John 4:8), but it also underscores that He "...is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29).

            People who argue that God's wrath, vengeance, and hatred are only outpourings of His justice and thus do not reflect His character are, at best, using euphemistic assertions because they think God needs to be defended and, at worst, demonstrating their blatant ignorance of God's constitution as a simple being, namely divine simplicity.

            Second, when the Bible stresses that God is a se—or of Himself—it refers to divine aseity or self-existence, as "God is the ground of His own existence. His only necessity is the necessity of His own being. It is God's nature to be."[10] While the Bible identifies sinners as dependent beings, God is not dependent upon His creation, nor does He derive anything from sinners because He is of Himself and self-sufficient.

            God's aseity is essential to understanding the nature of Hell. God's decision to send the wicked to Hell was not conditional upon the decision of goats to reject the gospel. God does not need anything from His creation. God unconditionally predestined the non-elect to Hell before the world's creation because He is God and thus does as He pleases (Psalm 115:3), per His eternal and immutable decree, and for His glory.

            Self-righteous men think God only chose to send men to Hell because they decided to reject God. This view suggests that God depends on sinners to act rather than sinners being the recipients of what God decreed, as He is the sole ultimate cause of all that transpires. People who think God is reactionary and thus sends sinners to Hell because they moved Him to act are guilty of elevating men's egregious decisions above the Master's eternal decree—all denials of divine simplicity, aseity, impassibility, immutability, and sovereignty.

            Third, God's impassibility is defined as follows: "God does not experience emotional changes either from within or effected by his relationship to creation."[11] Put simply, there is no material body, composition of parts, or passions in God's essence. Examine the significant points below to understand these truths.

            God's divine nature is without a body because God is a "Spirit" (John 4:24). The anarthrous "Spirit" is qualitative and thus stresses the nature of God in John 4:24.[12] Some think John 10:29 undermines this point because of the reference to the "... Father's hand." Christians should interpret it as an expression of God's action of preserving the saints or an anthropomorphic illustration. But treating the "... Father's hand" literally, not anthropomorphically, is heresy because the Father does not have a hand.

            God is not made up of parts because He derives His being from no one. Bottom line: A god who derives his being from another is no god at all. The true God of Scripture is of Himself, as revealed in Exodus 3:14, where God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM..." (LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). The author's use of egō eimi ("I AM") + the participial construction o ōn ("WHO I AM") in the Old Testament (OT), specifically Exodus 3:14, stresses God's perfect character. Exegetically, egō eimi highlights God's self-existence, sovereignty, eternality, and immutability,[13] while the articular verb o ōn linguistically indicates God's timeless existence and continuous being.[14]  

            Being without passions highlights an essential aspect of the impassibility of God. For example, Christians can fall in love, but no one can move God to fall in love because He is without passions (impassibility). Love reflects who God is, as He is love (1 John 4:8). Likewise, no one can make God angry; instead, "His anger is in his nature, not by anthropopathy, but properly; being his corrective Justice, or vindicative Justice..."[15]

            Some would protest, arguing that sinners can cause God to become angry, and claim several texts support this view. As an example, Genesis 6:6 notes, "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (emphasis mine). Rather than treat this text literally, Christians should interpret it as an anthropopathic text, where Scripture uses emotional language to describe an action of God, not the essence of God.[16] So, while humans give emotive responses and can change, God does not because "of who and what God is, namely God, he cannot undergo the experiences that humans do."[17] God's nature is immutable and, thus, does not "repent" (Numbers 23:19).

            Therefore, per the doctrine of simplicity, aseity, and impassibility, Hell does not exist outside God but reflects His essence (divine simplicity). God did not choose to send the wicked to Hell because they sinned against Him, as God is not dependent upon His creation (aseity). Going to Hell is not conditional upon sinners, but per God's decree and for His glory (immutable decree). And, God did not predestine the wicked to Hell because they caused Him to become angry. The divine nature is without passions (divine impassibility).

b. Annihilationism Heresy

            Standing firmly on the doctrine of God leads to a sound understanding of Hell, and rejecting Hell or ECT results from having an inept understanding of theology proper. As an example, Clark Pinnock had terrible theology about God, as he was an open theist who thought creatures could move God or cause Him to change. And, not surprisingly, he rejected the biblical doctrine of Hell, viz. ECT. Rather than treating the doctrine of God with exegesis, he appealed to emotionalism, using caricatures to describe his view of Hell and God:

Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that?[18]

            Emotional pleas win adherents, not arguments, as Pinnock's view above—along with all the anti-Hell views, i.e., annihilationism, soul sleep, and CI—impugn the sovereignty and justice of God. According to these views, the non-elect, before death, can enjoy life under normal circumstances and will experience conscious pain on earth while they blaspheme God and reject His gospel. But in the afterlife, per annihilationism, the non-elect will never again have to worry about experiencing any conscious punishment because God will send them to Hell, a place of unconsciousness.

            Annihilationism, soul sleep, and CI attack the character of God and are thus damnable heresies.[19] Examine the following bullet points to see why affirming the anti-Hell heresies above do great injustice to God's nature and have devastating implications:

• According to annihilationism, what takes place before death is actually worse than Hell itself because the former [pre-death] requires consciousness, while the latter [post-death] involves unconsciousness. Excluding the noun Hell, professing atheists would agree.

• If denouncing the gospel and cursing the Lord [pre-death] results in unconsciousness [afterlife], per annihilationists, then all God haters can rest in this life [pre-death], knowing they will never be intuitively aware of God's wrath in Hell because they will be asleep or unconscious.
  

• Annihilationists think the wicked will curse the eternal, immortal, and all-knowing "consuming fire" in this life, but God's final judgment results in merely sending the non-elect to an unconscious Hell, where they will never consciously witness God's holiness or hatred of sin (ECT).

• Per annihilationists, sending the non-elect to Hell [afterlife], after living on earth, cursing who and what God is, implies God ultimately rewards blasphemers with sleep or unconsciousness.

• Thus, it's clear annihilationism distorts God's justice and holiness because this view provides a future place of hope, where all God haters will consciously enjoy life and consciously suffer pain merely in life [pre-death] but will never consciously feel torment or God's wrath in Hell [post-death].

• Biblically, the non-elect will suffer ECT not because of the nature of their sins; they will bear the wrath of ECT because of the nature of the one they sinned against. Condemnation is occasioned by sin and is the proximate cause of judgment, but not the ultimate cause; God unconditionally reprobated the non-elect in eternity per His eternal and immutable decree and to the praise of His glorious grace and justice.

            As shown above, the annihilationist perspective on Hell does injustice to God's eternal nature—revealing that their view of punishment does not fit the crime of sinning against an eternal God. In contrast, standing opposed to the eternal and immortal "consuming fire" inevitably results in eternal, conscious torment. Per this belief (ECT), derived from Scripture, the eternal punishment fits the nature of the eternal Punisher.

c. Exegesis Supporting ECT

            Understanding why ECT reflects the substance, nature, or essence of the one true God requires gospel believers to examine the three words that define the biblical doctrine of Hell: (1.) eternal, (2.) conscious, (3.) and torment or wrath. Where do these words come from? They derive from God, reflecting His eternal and unchanging essence.

            Hell is eternal, conscious, and wrathful because God is eternal (Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 90:2), always conscious (Romans 11:33-36), and a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). Hell, therefore, exists because God exists. Hell must exist because God is just. Hell cannot change because God cannot change. Put another way, Hell is a manifestation of God’s eternal justice. Because God is eternal, conscious, and wrathful, the objects of His wrath will eternally and consciously encounter the eschatological wrath of God. As an example, see Matthew 25:46:

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

            After examining the text above, the antecedent of the substantive or demonstrative pronoun, outoi ("these"), refers to the articular participle, the "cursed" ones (Matthew 25:41), as they agree in number and gender. In Matthew 25, "cursed" (v. 41) is a passive voice, perfect-tense verb. While the passive proves the cursed ones are the recipients of God's eternal judgment, the perfect also points to what God completed in eternity or the decree of reprobation.[20]

            Next, from a lexical perspective, aiōnion ("eternal"), which derives from the root aiōn, does not have one universal definition; it has several different meanings in the Bible, depending on the context. Having sound exegesis and proper hermeneutic is critical; thus, context determines how Christians interpret words.

            The root aiōnios can indicate "a long period of time, long ago"[21] or aiōnion can refer to the "duration of the thing which it refers (as in 21:19)."[22] But this is not the only way the Bible uses aiōnion. A person who attempts to confine the definition of aiōnion to the preceding examples would, admittedly or not, be guilty of denigrating the character of God.[23] Romans 16:26 uses the root aiōnios to describe God ("everlasting God," aiōnios Theos).

            When the context refers to the eschatological wrath or judgment in the end times, aiōnion has a significant meaning. Matthew 25 highlights this word, once in v. 41 ("...ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," emphasis mine) and twice in v. 46 ("...everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal," emphasis mine). It indicates "a period of unending duration, without end."[24]

            Also, in Matthew 25, the author included the adversative de, translated as "but" in the King James Version (KJV). This conjunction, along with the two uses of aiōnion (v. 46), reveals a vital parallel, indicating that the punishment for the cursed ones is "everlasting," and the duration of life for the righteous is unending or "eternal."

            Many annihilationists will claim aiōnion does not refer to the unending duration of punishment, but most have no problem admitting that aiōnion refers to endless life for the righteous. This double standard or special pleading presents a terrible hermeneutic and violates the plain meaning of a parallel. 

            "Punishment" or kolasin in Matthew 25:46 refers to "torture,"[25] with the "implication of resulting severe suffering."[26] Translating this verse to mean that the cursed ones will one day sleep or remain unconscious in the afterlife is not punishment; on the contrary, it's what every professing atheist and God hater thinks will take place at death.

            If punishment means what every annihilationist thinks it means (loss of consciousness), then logically, one must conclude that annihilationists believe Jesus' mention of "greater damnation" (Matthew 23:14) means the hypocrites or Pharisees would have "greater" sleep or unconsciousness in the afterlife than all the other God haters. "Greater" denotes degrees of punishment, so the annihilationist view implies that the wicked will undergo degrees of unconsciousness or sleep in Hell. Therefore, if punishment or damnation ultimately refers to unconsciousness, "greater" makes no sense.

            In summary, if punishment, per annihilationists, entails unconsciousness, it's not retribution or suffering; it's sleep and a reward. Because the Word describes God as immortal and eternal, the objects of God's love will consciously experience life forever with Christ. And the objects of God's hatred will consciously endure everlasting punishment. Cultists will disagree. Examine the following responses to a few objections against the biblical doctrine of Hell (ECT). 

d. Answering Objections 

            Cultist objection: "The Bible teaches that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8), but it doesn't say that 'God is wrath.' Therefore, Hell does not reflect God's nature; it's just the outpouring of His anger against sin."

            Response: Yes, God's Word says, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). But God's Word also states: "For our God is a consuming fire" (kai gar o Theos emon pur katanaliskōn) in Hebrews 12:29.[27] The combined expression of kai + gar suggests the "final motivation to serve God"[28] and indicates "that it is God's essential character that provides for the fear and awe that are appropriate to his worship."[29] As the "consuming fire," God displays His character and judgment upon apostates and those guilty of will worship.[30]  

            A person who does not believe Hell reflects God's character is one who disavows divine simplicity and sovereignty. If wrath does not reflect God's nature, according to heretics, then wrath exists outside of God that He has to measure up to, leading to the heresy of dualism. God measures up to no one and has no equals or competitors. Also, referring to wrath as just the outpouring of His anger ignores how wrath is a divine attribute. All of God's attributes are interchangeable with His essence.

            Cultist objection: "Hell cannot reflect God's character because the Bible states that those who deny the gospel 'shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power'" (2 Thessalonians 1:9, emphasis mine).

            Response: People who think the prepositional phrase "...from the presence of the Lord" does not mean Hell reflects God's character because God is nowhere near the ones whom He predestined for Hell are denying God's omnipresence. God's omnipresence means "He is everywhere, because no creature, either body or spirit, can exclude the presence of his essence...,"[31] and "...he hath neither bounds nor limitation."[32]

            Per many scholars, "...from the presence of the Lord," doesn't mean God is not omnipresent but refers to the "hellish banishment from the true and only source of goodness and blessing,"[33] as distance "from eternal blessedness is the most potent in describing eternal punishment."[34] Yet, many theological bastions fail to realize that the non-elect will consciously bear the presence of God's positive torment forever.[35]

            Cultist Objection: "God did not ordain or determine for anyone to go to Hell; instead, sinners go to Hell because they rejected God or moved Him to anger, resulting in a sentence to Hell."

            Response: Many cultists think God only sends sinners to Hell because they rejected Him, but this view accentuates men's decisions above the Master's decree. God actively and unconditionally predestined the elect for Heaven and the non-elect for Hell in eternity, long before they were born or did anything good or bad (Romans 9:11-13).

            Asserting that a sentence to Hell is conditional on one's willful rejection of God's gospel is a denial of the aseity of God because God is not dependent upon His creatures to act, as all of history, throughout eternity, was decreed by God (Isaiah 46:10).

            Contending that God only sends men to Hell because they moved Him to anger is a rejection of divine immutability and impassibility. Sinners cannot move or cause God to act emotively because God is immutable (Malachi 3:6) and without passions (Acts 14:11, 15).

            Cultist objection: "I don't care if someone rejects ECT or what a person's view is of Hell; I only care about the good news or essentials of the gospel."

            Response: Homosexuals in mainline Protestant denominations, like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), will say similar things. They will argue that God is love, but they act as if love is the only attribute of God. They love to talk about God's mercy but will ignore God's vengeance and hatred.

            Liberals who pretend to be Christians would have no problem if they never heard about God's hatred or the doctrine of Hell, viz. ECT. Similarly, so-called professing Christians—who do not care if someone rejects ECT or what a person's view of Hell is—will do the same.

            It's unbiblical for any professing Christian to focus on what they prefer about God but ignore what they don't care about. God is not composed of parts, whereby people can accept what they like and overlook what they don't care about. God is what He is, a pure and simple being, and no alternatives exist.

            God's simplicity means all the divine perfections and attributes—including wrath, vengeance, and hatred—are analogous to His essence. So, the doctrine of God is essential to the gospel. People who love to talk about attributes they like but ignore what they don't care about are gospel-ignorant and don't know God.

            Lastly, Christians who value and take seriously the doctrine of God have a significant problem with anyone who rejects ECT. That's because rejecting ECT is identical to denying the character of God, perverting the doctrine of predestination, depreciating the value of Christ's completed and saving death on behalf of the elect, and grossly twisting Scripture, just as Satan did. 

II. Annihilationism Distorts the Doctrine of Predestination

            Annihilationism is also a damnable ideology because it attacks God's doctrine of election. Before explaining why, it's essential to know more about the doctrine of election. Double predestination is a gospel truth. God decreed the salvation of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect, all for His glory. A person who claims to be a Christian apart from God's decree of predestination or thinks God did not decree the reprobation of the wicked in eternity doesn't know God or the gospel and is thus guilty of robbing God of glory.

a. Logical Order

            It's impossible to highlight the doctrine of election without first addressing the debate between supralapsarianism versus infralapsarianism, also known as the logical order of God's sovereign decrees, emphasizing the doctrine of predestination, creation, and the fall of man.

            People who believe in the infra (after) + lapsarian (the fall) view think God predestinated the salvation of the elect after He ordained the creation and the fall. Contending that God decreed the salvation of the elect because of the fall means men's decisions are superior to the Master's decree. Romans 9 refutes this heresy because it emphasizes the "purpose of God" and "him that calleth," "not of works" (v. 11).

            If God decreed the salvation of the elect because of the fall, per infralapsarians, then logically, Christ would be last in the order [(1.) creation + (2) fall + (3.) Christ came into the world for the sheep]. The infralapsarian's placement of Christ in the logical order ignores the exegesis of Colossians 1:16 below:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him (emphasis mine).

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται (emphasis mine)·

            Grammatically, the preposition en ("by") + dative auto "him" mean Christ is the originator or the blueprint for all of creation, and the preposition di ("by") + genitive autou ("him") refers to ultimate agency. Paul's use of the preposition eis ("for") + auton ("him") stresses the goal or that Christ created all things, not for men, but for His glory.[36]

            All three prepositional phrases above linguistically prove Christ is first in the logical order of God's sovereign decree, thus stressing the supralapsarian doctrine. Supra (before) + lapsarianism (the fall) teaches that God decreed the death of Christ (Acts 2:23) and then decreed the salvation of the elect before He ordained creation and the fall.

            Since Christ conceived and created all things for His glory, it's impossible to argue that God decreed the salvation of the elect because of the fall. Infralapsarianism removes the offense of election because it accentuates men's decisions above the Master's decree and thus places Christ last in the logical order. But, supralapsarianism places the Savior first and highlights Christ's glory in the salvation of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect before the creation and the fall.

b. Singular Decree

            Next, election and reprobation do not refer to two distinct decrees of God. In Romans 9, Paul's use of the singular "purpose" of God (v. 11) points to God's love for Jacob and hatred for Esau (v. 13), and the singular "same lump" (v. 21) refers to both the "vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour."[37]

            As an illustration, a singular coin has a head and a tail, both opposite sides of the same coin.[38] Similarly, election and reprobation are parts of the singular decree of predestination. Election and reprobation are also equally ultimate in the singular decree of God. Denying reprobation is also a rejection of election because both are parts of the same decree of predestination.[39]

c. Predestination/Heaven and Hell

            The doctrine of predestination [pro: before + orizō: determined] means God actively and unconditionally predestined the elect for salvation because of Christ alone, and God actively and unconditionally predestined the non-elect for perdition.[40]

            Predestination also refers to the final destination of the sheep and the goats. God's sheep for whom Christ died will enjoy eternal conscious joy with Christ in glory (Heaven), whereas the non-elect whom God predestinated for wrath will suffer ECT.

            Predestination is, therefore, inextricably linked to Heaven and Hell, revealing why it's impossible to divorce Heaven and Hell from the doctrine of double predestination. So, a person who doesn't have a biblical view of Heaven and Hell does not have a biblical view of sovereign election. It's why the biblical view of Hell is significant, and annihilationism is cultish and a gross perversion, and is not a Christian or gospel perspective.

d. Perfect Symmetry

            Since the doctrine of reprobation is offensive, compromising Calvinists and Arminians will say they affirm reprobation. Nonetheless, they will claim God actively and unconditionally chose the elect. But, they will also argue that God only allowed or permitted the reprobates to go to Hell. Some also think God chose the elect from a fallen mass (election) and then passed by the rest (preterition).[41] This asymmetrical opinion is contrary to the Word of God.

            God could not have decreed the reprobation of the non-elect because they rejected Him. After all, Paul wrote about God's love for Jacob and hatred of Esau long before they were born or did any good or bad (Romans 9:11). Paul also noted the "purpose of God" and "him that calleth," "not of works" (Ibid.).

            God did not passively allow the wicked to become reprobates; on the contrary, He actively and unconditionally reprobated the wicked for Hell. As proof, in Romans 9, God is the subject of the verbs "have I raised" and "might be declared" (v. 17). These verbs demonstrate that God hardened and reprobated Pharaoh for His glory. God is also the subject of the present active indicative "hardeneth" (v. 18); thus, God is the one who does the hardening, ruling out passive language (permitting or allowing).

            Moreover, many Calvinists and Arminians think God only allowed the reprobation of the wicked, yet Romans 9:21 doesn't teach that God allowed one vessel unto dishonor. Instead, "make" is active voice, and God is the subject of this verb. And, the "same lump" is singular, which includes the "vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor." So, God did not passively allow; He actively and unconditionally decreed the "vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor."

            If God allowed or permitted the reprobation of the wicked, Romans 9:22 would state, "the vessels of wrath that fitted themselves to destruction." But the Bible states no such thing. Instead, this text states, "...the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

            The perfect tense "fitted" or the root katartizō is passive voice. As a perfect tense participle, God ordained the vessels of wrath unto dishonor in eternity, and this act is as good as done. And, as a passive voice verb, katartizō proves the non-elect are the recipients of God's decree of reprobation, ruling out any idea that the wicked fit themselves for dishonor.[42]

            After examining the theological arguments above, it's clear there is perfect symmetry in the doctrine of double predestination, meaning God actively and unconditionally chose the elect for eternal, conscious joy with Christ in glory (Heaven), and He actively and unconditionally reprobated the non-elect for ECT.

            While many Calvinists and Arminians affirm an asymmetrical view because they are ashamed of the election, annihilationists, similarly, will also embrace an asymmetrical view of Heaven and Hell. These heretics believe Heaven is eternal, conscious joy with Christ, but think the afterlife refers to an unconscious Hell.

            Biblically, there is perfect symmetry in the doctrine of double predestination because election and reprobation refer to the same decree of predestination and are thus equally ultimate in the single decree of the one true God who exists in a Trinity of persons.

            Because there is perfect symmetry in the decree of predestination, there is also perfect symmetry in the doctrine of Heaven and Hell in the afterlife. This perfect symmetry highlights the perfect God of the Bible, "...that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:23, emphasis mine).

            God actively and unconditionally predestined the elect for Heaven and actively and unconditionally predestined the non-elect for ECT before the world's creation. The afterlife highlights eternal conscious enjoyment for the elect (Heaven) and ECT for the non-elect (Hell), as God loves His sheep and hates the goats.[43]

III. Annihilationism Depreciates the Eternal Value of Christ's Saving Work

            What Christ, God the Logos, consciously endured during His incarnate ministry on earth presents several gospel truths and is central to the Christian faith. Concerning the Son's torment, He consciously bore the wrath of God in place of the elect. When did this take place? The following paragraphs will explain.

            During His incarnate ministry on earth, Christ consciously felt the agony of God's wrath in both His body and soul.[44] The person of Christ, concerning His humanity, felt the "agony" of God's wrath in His body as "great drops of blood" came from His "sweat" (Luke 22:44). Since Christ addressed the "Father" (vocative), asking Him to remove the "cup" (Luke 22:42), it's clear He experienced "agony" because of the "cup," signifying God's wrath (cf. John 18:11).

            Christ also consciously felt the torment of God's wrath in His soul during His earthly pilgrimage. He spoke in the first person, concerning His humanity, and stated, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death..." (Matthew 26:38, emphasis mine). The root psychē or "soul" denotes "the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions."[45] Psychē in Matthew 10:28 also refers to "the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death."[46]

            So in Matthew 26, the author's use of "exceeding sorrowful" (v. 38), along with the subsequent example of Christ falling on His face and asking the Father to "let this cup pass" (v. 39), suggests that Christ consciously suffered the torment of God's wrath in His soul.

            At the cross, Christ consciously underwent the grievous torment of God's wrath as He cried out to the Father in Matthew 27:46, "...My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Christ's doleful cry to the Father stresses the meaning behind Deuteronomy 21:23: "...he that is hanged is accursed of God" (cf. Galatians 3:13).[47]

            Christ's death was saving, complete, and effectual (John 19:30). He accomplished justification (2 Corinthians 5:21), redemption (Galatians 3:13), reconciliation (Romans 5:10), and propitiation in place of God's particular people (1 John 4:10). Christ consciously accomplished all of these gospel truths in His sufferings and ultimately in His resurrection.

            Even though Christ died concerning His humanity, and His body remained in the tomb, His soul never lost consciousness, nor did He cease to exist as a person. Despite physical death in His humanity, His soul remains personally alive to God. Therefore, not only is He fully human, He is in every way God.

            Christ consciously suffered the wrath of God and appeased the Father's anger in place of the elect, so the elect for whom Christ died will consciously enjoy Christ in glory for eternity. In contrast, the non-elect will consciously and eternally suffer God's wrath in the afterlife because God decreed their reprobation and Christ never exhausted the Father's wrath in their place.

            Annihilationists would disagree with most of the content above. Christ consciously bore the wrath of God, but annihilationist cultists think the wicked will endure unconsciousness in Hell as the punishment of God's wrath. It's absurd to think the afterlife or Hell entails unconsciousness or soul sleep for many (non-elect), yet Christ consciously endured the torments of God's wrath in the place of some (elect).

            Asserting that Christ only saved some from soul sleep, redeemed some from unconsciousness in Hell, or delivered some from being annihilated (cessation of being) is equivalent to diminishing the eternal value of Christ's death. It also diminishes the power of God in the gospel because the annihilationist view of Hell presents what every professing atheist thinks will happen in the afterlife (unconsciousness or non-existence).

            If cultists and false teachers think the afterlife entails a loss of existence or unconsciousness, then logically, professing atheists would prefer their definition of death instead of facing the biblical judgment of Christ (ECT). Interestingly, in Scripture, the wicked would rather die or forever cease than face the wrath of God (cf. Revelation 6:16; 9:5-6).[48]

            Christ's conscious sufferings of God's wrath highlight the everlasting value of His work because it guarantees the elect for whom He died that they would never experience the same. Delivering the elect from eternal, conscious torment highlights the power of God in the gospel because Christ consciously bore the wrath of God (The Father showed the Son no mercy), and He propitiated the Father's wrath in place of God's particular people.

            Hell, therefore, cannot entail unconsciousness or soul sleep as the punishment of God's wrath because of the eternal value of the Lord Jesus's saving death, as He consciously suffered the wrath of God for the sheep so they would never have to endure conscious torment for an eternity.

            Annihilationism is heresy because some purveyors of this cultish doctrine will attack the biblical doctrine of Christ. For example, Edward Fudge, who denied ECT, wrote, "Jesus' Death Involved Total Destruction."[49] Many others—who deny ECT—also think it's not a problem to believe that "Christ died in His whole person" and there's no "surviving remnant."[50]

            Concerning His humanity, the person of Christ died (Philippians 2:8). After His death, His body—not soul—went to the tomb (Matthew 27:60). Biblically, that’s why the body is said to sleep, not the soul, as the body and soul are distinct. There was no annihilation of Christ's true body because Acts 2:27 states, "...neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." And Christ rose in the same body in which He suffered (John 20:25, 27).

            The hypostatic union refers to the two distinct, unmingled, and inseparable natures of Christ in one person: the divine and the human. It's unbiblical to think Christ's death involved total annihilation or that no surviving remnant exists because Christ’s death was a genuine human death where His soul continued after His body went to the ground. Since His soul never slept or underwent unconsciousness at anytime, His body placed in the tomb is what the Bible metaphorically refers to as the believing dead as sleeping.

            Christians must, therefore, defend the doctrine of the person and work of the Son against the annihilationists or anti-Hell heretics because Christ exercised and possessed all of the divine perfections or attributes before, during, and after the incarnation.[51]

IV. Annihilationism Entails Endless Bible Twisting

            No person can affirm annihilationism and deny ECT without twisting various biblical passages. These practices are a gospel issue, especially since they deny Sola Scriptura. God's Word is the only sufficient, inerrant, and infallible rule of faith and practice, binding the conscience of every gospel believer. So when Jehovah's Witnesses disavow ECT and declare annihilationism, they are engaging in the same practice as Satan. Matthew 4:5-6 states:

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

            Matthew 4:5-6 explains how Satan cited Psalm 91:11-12, giving the impression he knew Scripture. Yet, he twisted this passage and took it out of context because he wanted to tempt God. Similarly, annihilationists will cite a myriad of biblical texts and will lead people to think they are Bible believers. Nevertheless, they will twist the Scripture they cite, the same way Satan did.

            From an apologetics perspective, Christians need to know what texts the cultists will pervert so they can learn how to refute their arguments. The list of Scriptures often twisted by Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists is extensive, covering both the OT and NT.

·      Genesis 2:17; 3:19, 22-24.

·      Psalm 1; 6:5; 11:5-6; 37; 92:6-9; 112:10.

·      Proverbs 10:25-31; 12:28; 24:19-20.

·      Ecclesiastes 9:5.

·      Isaiah 33:11-14; 53:8-9.

·      Ezekiel 18:4.

·      Daniel 12:2.

·      Malachi 4:1-3.

·      Matthew 3:11-12; 7:13-14; 10:28; 13:40-42; 18:8-9; 25:46.

·      Mark 9:48.

·      Luke 3:17; 16:19-31; 17:27, 29; 20:35-36.

·      John 3:16; 3:36; 5:28-29; 6:49-51; 8:51; 10:28; 11:16, 25-26.

·      Acts 3:23.

·      Romans 2:6-8, 12; 5:17; 6:23.

·      1 Corinthians 3:17; 15:17-18, 26, 50, 53-54.

·      Galatians 6:8.

·      Philippians 3:19.

·      2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; 2:8.

·      1 Timothy 6:9, 15-16.

·      2 Timothy 1:10.

·      Hebrews 10:26-27.

·      James 5:20.

·      2 Peter 2:6, 12; 3:6-7.

·      1 John 2:17; 5:11-12.

·      Jude 7, 10.

·      Revelation 11:18; 14:9-11; 20:6, 13-14; 21:8; 22:1-2.

            Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists think many of the texts above prove annihilationism is the truth and ECT is false. These annihilationists often quote several keywords in these passages. Understanding these root words and how cultists misinterpret them will help believers defend the faith.

·      Matthew 3:12 - katakaiō ("he will burn up")

·      Matthew 25:46 - kolasis ("punishment")

·      John 3:16 - apollymi ("should perish")

·      John 11:16 - apothnēskō ("may die")

·      1 Corinthians 3:17 - phtheirō ("defile")

·      Galatians 6:8 - phthora ("corruption")

·      Philippians 3:19 - apōleia ("destruction")  

·      2 Thessalonians 1:9 - olethros ("destruction")

·      2 Thessalonians 1:9 - dikē ("punished")

·      Revelation 14:11 - basanismos ("torment")

·      Revelation 20:14 - thanatos ("death")

            No passage or word above indicates the heresies of annihilationism, soul sleep, or CI. Every time annihilationists cite one of the passages or words above to promote their heresy, Christians should respond to these heretics the same way Paul did in Titus 3:10-11: "10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

            Every heretic has a theological playbook, meaning all false teachers, depending on the heresy they affirm, will appeal to standard arguments in hopes of advancing their egregious doctrines. Read the following examples as they relate to Jehovah's Witnesses and other annihilationist-affirming cultists:

• Many annihilationists or false teachers will conflate the biblical use of the "body" with the "soul" to promote the doctrine of soul sleep or will say "person" and "soul" are interchangeable words because they think the soul will one day cease to exist.

  
  

• Many annihilationists will twist the meaning of aphtharsian ("immortality") in 2 Timothy 1:10 to promote the false doctrine of CI because they think immortality is conditional and don't believe the non-elect will suffer ECT.

  
  

• Many annihilationists will refer to lexicons to explain Greek keywords. However, they will take the definition of a particular Greek word from a biblical text and apply this explanation to a different text, where this same Greek word has a different meaning per the lexicon, thus ignoring how the lexicons provide detailed descriptions for words in context.  
  

• Many annihilationists rely on emotionalism[52] rather than exegesis because they can't fathom how God would punish a child with ECT the same way He would punish a person like a serial killer or Nazi soldier who did crimes far worse than a little one.[53]

  
  

• Many annihilationists will create a false dichotomy related to the interpretation of John's apocalyptic literature, as they believe one can only interpret Revelation literally or symbolically rather than rightfully dividing John's writing according to the specific context.

  
  

            After reading all of the pertinent information above, gospel believers must study the inerrant Word of God; define, defend, and declare the biblical doctrine of Hell (ECT); and refute all heresies associated with annihilationism, soul sleep, or CI.

V. Closing

            This chapter has defended the biblical doctrine of Hell or ECT and explained why annihilationism impugns the nature of God, distorts the doctrine of predestination, devalues the eternal value of Christ's completed work, and entails endless Bible twisting.

            Therefore, denying the biblical doctrine of Hell is a gospel issue. Pinnock, a known heretic who affirmed Open Theism and annihilationism, disagreed. He called for unity when he wrote, "I hope that the traditionalists will not make this issue into on which will divide evangelicals from one another as seems quite possible."[54] True Christians will not take the advice of false teachers because they are devoted to the teachings of Christ.

            Christ's teachings on the biblical doctrine of Hell surpassed His preaching on Heaven because He was not ashamed of God's divine perfections—precisely His hatred, vengeance, and wrath—nor was the author of Hebrews embarrassed to write, "For our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29).

            Men who deny the doctrine of ECT are guilty of robbing God of His glory because one of the "ends which God has in the punishment of the wicked is to glorify Himself and His mighty power."[55] Gerstner also noted, "...God has many good ends in the endlessness of punishment, such as the glorification of his majesty, his justice, and his grace. And lastly the sight of hell torments will make the happiness of saints greater."[56]

---

            [1] I researched many sources and cited many scholars in this book, many of whom I do not fully agree with on every theological topic. Why did I do this? I agreed with some theological points related to the doctrine of Hell, so I needed to give attribution to where I learned these arguments. I also cited many sources to interact with assertions I did not support. As a result, the works I cited do not constitute an endorsement.

            [2] As a gnostic cult, the Jehovah's Witnesses reject ECT and, therefore, believe there "is no hell or eternal punishment, just the annihilation of the wicked." Mark Hager, "Jehovah's Witnesses," in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, eds. Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 293.

            [3] Seventh-Day Adventists list as their "Fundamental Beliefs" the concepts "that the condition of man in death is one of unconsciousness [and that] all men, good and evil alike, remain in their grave from death to the resurrection." Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 1182. Also, see Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington: Review and Herald, 1957), 13. People should use caution when Adventists mention "soul sleep" because it is deceptive. Per the Adventist view, "...one does not fall asleep at death, but actually becomes completely nonexistent, nothing surviving," so it's no surprise one Christian scholar, Anthony Hoekema, maintained that "Adventists actually affirm 'soul extinction,' or use 'soul' as a synonym for 'person.'" Erickson, Christian Theology, 1182, see fn 13.

            [4] As a disclaimer, there is no unanimous agreement among anti-Hell heretics on the definition of CI. Some maintain that faith or belief in Christ is the condition, while others think it is the righteousness of God. Nonetheless, CI is defined as a "doctrine that immortality was not a natural endowment of man at creation but is a gift from God to the redeemed who believe in Christ. Those who do not receive Christ ultimately lose all consciousness or existence. It is related to annihilationism, which teaches that all men were created immortal but that those who do not repent and believe in Christ will, by a positive act of God, be deprived of immortality and reduced to non-existence at death." A. F. Johnson and W. A. Elwell, "Conditional Immortality," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 282.

            [5] Even though annihilationism, soul sleep, and CI are not the same, they are closely related because these doctrines have one thing in common: they promote unconsciousness in Hell. Most professing atheists who do not affirm God, the afterlife, or Hell think death results in unconsciousness or a cessation of being. Therefore, the annihilationism, soul sleep, and CI view of Hell provide validation to what professing atheists already affirm: unconsciousness at death instead of consciously suffering under the wrath of God forever.

            [6] Believing Hell is a reflection of God's nature is not a new argument. John Gerstner wrote, "Neither the love nor the wrath of God are different from his essence." John H. Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998 [1980]), iii. Gerstner also believed the eternality of Hell is based on the essence of God when he wrote, "Ultimately, the eternality of hell is based on the nature of God. If God is the inflictor of hell's tortures and his word, nature, justice, and wrath are eternal and immutable, hell must be eternal." Ibid., 77. Concerning Jonathan Edwards' view of Hell, Gerstner also noted, "The all-important feature of heaven and of hell is God himself" and "he is hell and he is heaven. Eternity for sinner and saint will be spent 'in the immediate presence and sight of God...'" Ibid., 57.

            [7] Too many scholars rely on patristic sources to condemn the doctrine of annihilationism, such as the Synod of Constantinople (543), the Second Council of Constantinople (553), and the Fifth Lateran Council (1513). However, patristics is not a valid hermeneutic. In every instance, Christians should anathematize all teachings related to annihilationism because it's contrary to the inerrant and infallible Word of God.

            [8] Dr. James Dolezal explained divine simplicity's basic claims and implications in the following work: James Dolezal, All That Is in God Is God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Christian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 40-44.

            [9] John Owen, Vindicae Evangelicae, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William Goold (1850-1853; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust), 12:72, emphasis mine.

            [10] Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor Imprint by Christian Focus Publications, 2008), 83-84.

            [11] Samuel Renihan, God Without Passions: A Primer (Palmdale, CA: RBAP, 2015), 19.

            [12] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [GGBB]: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 270. 

            [13] The New Testament (NT), specifically John 8:58, also emphasized egō eimi, as Christ contrasted Abraham's beginning [Gk: γενέσθαι; lit., had a beginning] with His eternality, impeccability, and consubstantiality (egō eimi).

            [14] John 1:18 also accentuates the present participle o ōn, when describing the connection between the Father and the Son before His earthly pilgrimage or incarnation. Examine the following exegetical resource to see the importance of o ōn in John 1:18: Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 303.

            [15] Thomas Adams, God's Anger and Man's Comfort (London: Tho. Maxey, 1653), 6, emphasis mine.

            [16] According to Renihan, "Scripture uses the physical features and emotional experiences of mankind in order to teach us about God. But we must not equate the human language used to describe God with God himself." Renihan, God Without Passions, 27, emphasis mine.

            [17] Ibid., 26. 

            [18] Clark H. Pinnock, "The Conditional View," in Four Views on Hell, ed. William V. Crockett (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1992), 149.

            [19] Many people love to discuss God's love yet feel uncomfortable about discussing God's hate, vengeance, wrath, and justice. The same goes for Heaven and Hell. Most relish in the teachings of Heaven but dislike sermons on Hell. However, God loves His elect (John 3:16) and hates the non-elect (Psalm 5:5). And Christ's teachings on Hell surpassed His messages on Heaven during His incarnate ministry. Christ did this because Heaven and Hell reflect God's character, specifically love and wrath. People think they can pick their favorite things about God and discard what they don't like about Him. These people do not know God. Christians should never pit one attribute of God over another but embrace everything the Bible says about God. God is love (1 John 4:10) but also hates (Psalm 11:5). Heaven and Hell reflect God's character. So, when the elect go to Heaven and the non-elect to Hell, God is glorified.

            [20] The Greek perfect is significant because it "refers to a state resulting from a completed action." See David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek, Exp. Ed. (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishers, 1994), 69.

            [21] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 33.

            [22] D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, eds. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Vol. 8, Matthew, Mark, Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 522.

            [23] Cultists who deny the Trinity, like Oneness Pentecostals, are historically known for abusing lexicons. They will appeal to lexical sources to define keywords. Yet, they will ignore all of the context provided by the lexicons. For example, they will appeal to āḏôn (Lord) in Judges 19:26-27 and argue that it refers to men, which is true. But they err when they restrict the meaning of āḏôn to only creatures because the Creator God is also called āḏôn in Exodus 34:23. Similarly, annihilationist cultists will also abuse lexicons. For example, annihilationists will twist several Greek root words, such as katakaiō (Matthew 3:12), kolasis (Matthew 25:46), apollymi (John 3:16), apothnēskō (John 11:16), phtheirō (1 Corinthians 3:17), phthora (Galatians 6:8), apōleia (Philippians 3:19), olethros (2 Thessalonians 1:9), dikē (2 Thessalonians 1:9), basanismos (Revelation 14:11), and thanatos (Revelation 20:14). 

            [24] BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 33. All future references to the BDAG will be in the 4th edition.

            [25] Charles L. Quarles, Matthew: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, eds. Andreas J. Kostenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2017), 307.

            [26] Cleon L. Rogers Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 58. 

            [27] For context, "Hebrews 12:29 recalls the fires of Mount Sinai, citing a statement made by Moses in Deuteronomy 4:24. Moses was warning the tribes about apostasy and idolatry, a betrayal of the true God for the false gods of this world." Richard D. Phillips, Hebrews: Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 583. Also, concerning Hebrews 12:29, one must never forget, "He who descended on Mount Sinai in fire and spoke to his people from the midst of the fire still consumes in the white heat of his purity everything that is unworthy of himself." F. F. Bruce, "The Epistle to the Hebrews," in The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 365.

            [28] Dana M. Harris, Hebrews: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, eds. Andreas J. Kostenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), 398.

            [29] David L. Allen, "Hebrews," in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 35. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), 598.

            [30] The author's repeated arguments in Hebrews about apostasy and the "fearful" warning (10:31) prove that "consuming fire" refers to God's judgment and disposition against the apostates.  

            [31] Stephen Charnock, "Of God's Omnipresence," in The Existence and Attributes of God. Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 367.

            [32] Ibid. 

            [33] D. Michael Martin, "2 Thessalonians," in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 33. 1, 2 Thessalonians (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 1995), 214.

            [34] Robert L. Thomas, "2 Thessalonians," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, eds. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Vol. 11, Ephesians—Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 314, see fn 9.

            [35] According to Jonathan Edwards, "God's infliction of His wrath upon the wicked is a positive torment which He chooses to mete out to those who have grievously offended His majesty, dishonored His holiness, cast contempt upon His laws, and lived their entire lives in rebellion against His authority." Jonathan Edwards, The Torments of Hell: Jonathan Edwards on Eternal Damnation, ed. William C. Nichols (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 2006), 224, emphasis mine.

            [36] See Gordon Clark's explanation of Colossians 1:16: Gordon H. Clark, Colossians. 2nd Ed. (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 38-42.

            [37] Some think the "same lump" means God chose from a fallen mass and then passed by the non-elect. This view is grossly unbiblical.

            [38] Many years ago, Professor David Engelsma shared this illustration with me, and have seen many similar examples from examining Herman Hoeksema’s works.

            [39] A person who claims to preach on election but never teaches the biblical view of reprobation (active and unconditional) is a liar because election and reprobation cannot be divorced as they point to the same decree of predestination. For more information on the doctrine of reprobation, see Sonny Hernandez, Biblical Reprobation: A Primer on the Most Hated and Neglected Doctrine (Lexington, KY: Self-Published, 2022).

            [40] Some will claim the root verb proorizō only refers to the elect (Romans 8:29) and never the goats to remove the offense of election. Acts 4:27-28 refutes this line of reasoning. The ones who persecuted Christ—namely Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel—did what God had "determined (proorizō) before to be done" (emphasis mine).  

            [41] Preterition presents a compromising view of God's decree and grossly distorts the doctrine of predestination. For example, read the following excerpt: "It is true that the Bible also teaches the principle of preterition, by way of implication, as a corollary of certain other fundamental doctrines. No more is necessary than to combine the two single truths, that all saving grace, inclusive of faith, is the supernatural gift of God, and that not all men are made recipients of this gift, to perceive immediately that the ultimate reason why some are saved and other passed by can lie in God alone." He also noted, "In other words, if the Bible thinks it necessary to teach us not merely that Christians are predestined by free grace into eternal salvation, but also thinks it necessary persistently to reminds us how this appointment of some into life took place from among a number of others who were sovereignly passed by, then this can only mean that in the view of God the principle of preterition is essential to the expression of the most important aspect of the decree of salvation." Vos' view does not represent the biblical doctrine of double predestination. Instead, he attempted to soften reprobation by arguing that it merely means to "pass by"; thus, preterition is a fancy way of removing the positive aspect of reprobation. Reprobation does not mean passing over; it means God actively and unconditionally reprobated the wicked per His eternal and immutable will and for His glory. See Geerhardus Vos, "The Biblical Importance of the Doctrine of Preterition," The Presbyterian, 70, 36 (September 5, 1900): pp. 9-10, emphasis mine. 

            [42] See Wallace, GGBB, 417-418.

            [43] Moderate Calvinists and Arminians believe God does not hate the non-elect and think hate means to love less. They will also maintain that God only hates the wicked because they rejected Him. These arguments are easy to refute. Referring to hate to mean love less is a terrible euphemism because Romans 9:13 doesn't teach, "Esau have I loved less," but states, "...but Esau have I hated." God does not hate the wicked because they rejected Him. God's hatred of Esau took place in eternity, long before He was born or did any good or bad (Romans 9:11). Paul also emphasized "not of works" (Ibid.).  

            [44] According to Robert Shaw, "As Socinians deny the penal nature of our Lord's sufferings, so they limit them to what he endured through the agency of creatures; but unless we admit that he suffered in his soul from the immediate hand of God, as an offended judge, exacting of him satisfaction for the sins of those whose cause he had undertaken, we cannot account for the dreadful agony in the garden of Gethsemane, and for his bitter lamentation on the cross" Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster of Faith (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2008 [1845]), 149.

            [45] Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019 [1896]), 677.

            [46] Ibid.

            [47] As the "man of sorrows," Christ was betrayed, forsaken, denied, falsely accused of crimes, and tortured by His persecutors. He voluntarily laid down His life for the sheep, not the goats. Christ's humility, suffering, and death on the cross in the place of His sheep are central to the Christian faith (Isaiah 53:4-11; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 12:2). For more information on these truths, see Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, ed. G. I. Williamson (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 109-113. Also, review Shaw, The Reformed Faith, 146-150.

            [48] In Gerstner's work, he noted the following: "First, the Bible teaches eternal punishment. It is eternal, for the very word used for eternal life is used for eternal death. This punishment implies pain, which annihilation is not. Annihilation is the relief which the wicked begging for will never receive. As the sermon on Revelation 6:15–16 poignantly described, 'Wicked men will hear after earnestly wishing to be turned to nothing and forever cease to be that they may escape the wrath of God.'" Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell, 75.

            [49] Edward William Fudge, The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Final Punishment (Houston, TX: Providential Press, 1982), 228.

            [50] For example, see timestamp 123:20-2:16:00 in "Rethinking Hell Live 062: Hell Debate Review–Corbett/Date vs. Poore/Sherlin–with Glenn Peoples." YouTube. Rethinking Hell, March 29, 2021. Accessed October 29, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYGUzd0O6g.

            [51] In his doctoral dissertation, Dr. Theodore Zachariades contended against all kenotic views and defended the doctrine of Christ, who used all the divine attributes during His earthly ministry. See Theodore Zachariades, The Omnipresence of Christ: A Neglected Aspect of Evangelical Christology (UK: Paternoster, 2015). 

            [52] For example, see John Stott's emotional arguments in the following book: David L. Edwards and John R. W. Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988).

            [53] Christians should consider reading some of Pinnocks's works on Hell, not to be enlightened or to learn from him but to know how to refute his emotive responses to the biblical doctrine of Hell (ECT). For similar arguments, see Clark Pinnock, The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent (Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 2, Spring 1990), 243-259.

            [54] Ibid. 

            [55] Edwards, The Torments of Hell, 227.

            [56] Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell, 74.