You don't understand Hell because you don't know God. A reply to Giovanni Camacho (Attorney, Resnick & Louis, P.C.) - Part 1

For a short response, see the following YouTube video

A response to the article: “Debunking Sonny Hernandez, Part 1: Why God’s Nature Cannot Be Evidence For Hell,” located at The Neon GasLamp.

Introduction

The piece above is a lengthy hatchet job on the book Annihilationism Debunked (AD). Interestingly, the person who wrote this article has no problem writing public blogs against other men concerning theology. That's great. However, he boldly refers to others by name in his articles but conceals his identity. While this timid person may prefer to remain anonymous, it's time to unmask this blogger as Giovanni Camacho – at least according to his recent response via his work email (Resnick & Louis, P.C.). So, I will refer to him as G.

In his futile attempt to disprove AD, G proved one of this book's main points: An unbiblical view of God leads to an unbiblical view of Hell. In his blog, it's evident that G does not believe in the One True God; instead, he affirms an emotional god who can change.

From an overall impression of reading this supposed review of a book, it is evident that G does not like the idea of Hell as a place of eternal conscious torment (ECT). However, what he proposes instead is a temporary conscious torment in Hell as a means of rendering the reprobate extinct. So, in reality, this conditional immortality position or the annihilation view close to G’s heart is really a matter of a difference in degree, not in kind.  

Again, from an overarching view there are suspect statements about too many matters. One wonders what to deal with first.

What of Theology proper, where G seems to drift into the Openness of God view, if not to a Whiteheadian metaphysic of a changing and unstable god that exhibits random emotions and variations of temperament?

What of G’s Christology, which let’s face it, is suspect because G’s anthropology is askew? Blurring the issue by constantly referring to eternal death as life, which forms his imagined basis that “Sonny” listens to Satan rather than to God.

What of the myriad examples of missing the point of a passage or bestowing specific degrees on people? G wrote, “Sonny has a PhD (doctorate of philosophy).”[1]  G may take one himself in the discipline of successfully mastering the art of misappropriation, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation, in a successive bout of missing the opponent’s and the Bible’s point.

What of caricature and impunity? G wrote, "A paper tiger, Sonny only dealt with..." and "Are we in Oz?" These petty ad hominems may comfort G or help him feel like he won an argument, but it doesn't prove anything.

It's time to examine a few of the problems in G’s article.

Scholarship

G has a disdain for the use of supporting evidence. He is brisk in his dismissal of cited authors with a rather candid, “who cares what they have to say?” Well, let’s play the goose and gander game. Who cares what G has to say? Who cares about all of G's repeated use of the Strong's concordance? G’s superficiality and clear disdain are clearly a marker of suspicion. However, if we cite Strong’s we exhibit a grand finale, a clinched argument, a certain victory, with no doubt or question in view. G, the true scholar, emerges as victor, clutching his Strong’s concordance.

Also, G is candid enough to tell us that he utilized Google AI in his research. Maybe we should rescind his Doctorate! His own theory or perspective is all that matters. In a slip or two, G betrays his real authority, that is, himself.

Specifics

The charge of “naked” assertions appears to be a favorite phraseology for G. I gave up counting after five or six. In the first part of his piece, G deals with the introduction and decries the lack of biblical citation. Then he admits that the preface already utilized Scripture. G wrote, “In the book, ECT operates as a presupposition that Sonny (and others) bring to the text, instead of being something that arises from the text itself. This is a key feature of ECT argumentation. This is why Sonny repeatedly asserts that his position is “biblical” throughout the book without offering biblical citations – he operates from the naked assumption that ECT is what is meant at every turn.” One must wonder about this as it takes other advocates of ECT into consideration and clearly in his sights. First, I am not sure what the referent is to “every turn.” Second, this is a bold claim given that throughout two thousand years of church history the teaching on Hell as ECT was the standard view, and it has been defended by many Christian minds because the Word of God teaches ECT.

Authority

Here is the authority coming to the surface as G says, “In fairness, the preface, a separate section before the introduction, does contain some verse citations where Sonny comments that the “future tense of the indicative verbs” is evidence for “the certainty of future events involving torment” (something I agree with).” Added emphasis. This is the measure of all things. The Acid test becomes whether G is in agreement or not. Also, in context he says, “This is not what I understand the term “biblical” to mean. Rather, I understand and use the term to mean “arising from the author’s intended communication in that passage of scripture.” Conversely, using scripture to support philosophical arguments will not produce “biblical” answers since the Bible is being used a prop to support presupposed premises drawn from outside the text.” Emphasis added. Elsewhere, G says, “Moreover, I don’t agree with whatever Sonny means by God’s “wrath, vengeance, and hatred.”” There is a tone of arrogance throughout this article.

God or god?

G has an obvious dislike of the classical understanding of God. He prefers a mutable and passionate deity rather than the One AD depicts. Of course, dismissing the doctrines found in AD as presenting foreign concepts and reading into the Bible can be shown to be G’s own method. Annihilation is not a biblical term, but it appears okay for G and his cohorts. Aseity, Simplicity, Immutability arise from various passages. Here is another example of missing the point and disparaging a theologian in one fell swoop. G challenges Bavinck (in AD, Bavinck is never mentioned). G has resorted to an English dictionary to find the counterpart to the theological concept of compounded. To that notion Bavinck rightly avers “simplicity.” G thus corrects the learned scholar and says it should be “simple.” Here is an exercise in missing the point. He does not appear to grasp the theological significance of Divine Simplicity. Here too, in the discussion on Simplicity, he disregards Dolezal, Edwards, and Owen. Why should we care what anyone says? His mantra reemerges.

In rejecting the understanding of Exodus and John on the use of specific terms that God takes as His name as I am that I am as an exercise in importing a foreign notion, again misses the point. I must forego addressing the niceties of the original Hebrew. The essence of God’s declaration, to paraphrase, is that He is the “is-sing One” His absolute self-existence is depicted from both the Hebrew and the Greek counterpart in the Septuagint. This is, again, simple exegesis, as noted in AD. G should be ready to learn from the good examples from some scholars, not that he is a scholar. That much is clear.

Immutability is another favorite target for the likes of G. This is disdained as a supposed imposition from elsewhere. That AD deals with the theological doctrine and explains that the Bible has anthropopathic language should not be seen as a misstep. This is clear throughout Scripture, both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic language is utilized by God to portray God. Just because God protects us with His feathers and His wings doesn’t make God to be a great big chicken. Neither should expressions that have him acting like a man reender him as nothing more than a mere human. Indeed, context is king. However, the distinction between descriptive texts and didactic texts evades G. Maybe this is another exercise in, you got it, missing the point.

Moreover, in Acts 14:14-15, Paul uses the principle of impassibility to clearly depict that he and Barnabas are not gods. If God is a mutable and passible being, Paul’s argument makes no sense. From everlasting to everlasting, God is God and is always the same. His decree is eternal. His counsel is steadfast. He remains the immutable one. G’s “god” is akin to the Process version of Charles Hartshorne and Alfred North Whiteside at worst, and of the Open theists at best. At the end of the day, the Biblical God is not Aristotle’s or Plato’s notion of a “god,” but the Great I am, the dependable and steadfast rock that He was, is, and always will be: God unchangeable and unchanging.

Also, this quoting of Plato is a bit much. Just because Plato says a few things that Christians throughout the ages have seen to be also taught in Scripture does not impugn AD. In AD, there is no misuse of the Bible to teach philosophy with a presupposed agenda. Of course, when seeing the exegesis of Bible passages in AD, G must resort to rhetorical flourishes about the Bible being accessible to the average layman. Again, here is an example of G’s missing the point because he does not know the Word of God and does not have the slightest clue as to what exegesis means.

Verb tenses help one grasp an insight. To disparage syntax and grammar wholesale is foolish indeed. First, the original Scriptures in Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek, needed to be translated into receptor languages. Second, Mr. G, you are not seriously suggesting that the translators were simply to pray and ask the Holy Spirit what the original was saying so they could render it into another tongue, were you? What of reading in the receptor language? Is syntax and grammar irrelevant here also as it apparently is for the Greek? The most telling thing about this matter is that our Lord Jesus based an entire argument about the resurrection against the Sadducees on the tense of a verb (see Matthew 22:23-33). Similarly, G doesn’t appear to “know the Scriptures nor the power of God.” You have tangled yourself in to knots that the best boatman cannot untie. Again, the article as a whole gives off the whiff of pseudo scholarship, except, of course, when citing Strong’s! Oh yes, and online definitions!!

Harping On

There is a refrain of suggesting that AD claims that God will reward reprobate sinners with “everlasting life.” This is a verbal sleight of hand if there ever was one. The following will demonstrate this with bold emphasis drawing one’s attention to these devious misnomers and dastardly misrepresentations.

G maintains, “However, even if God’s attributes are co-equal with His being or nature (something I’m not directly dealing with here), that wouldn’t demonstrate that ECT is true. You’d still need to point to the source of the doctrine that the non-elect will receive eternal life to be tormented instead of being killed as required by the law.”

Again G claims, “The word transliterated “orgé,” translated as “wrath” means “properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:—anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath” according to Strong’s. God’s violent anger towards sin is not itself indication that God will keep sinners alive in violation of the law to endure their sinning forever.”

Again G declares, “Moreover, if God keeps sinners alive in a place called “Hell” forever, then sin will continue to exist in the new creation, but that is not what Revelation teaches, since death will be tossed into the lake of fire and destroyed, meaning that there can be no more sin in the kingdom prepared for God’s people. Accordingly, God’s wrath against sinners is not [sic] basis to conclude that he will keep them alive forever, and therefore God’s wrath does not support ECT.”

Yet, again, “The word transliterated “nāqam,” translated as “vengeance,” means “to avenge, take vengeance, revenge, avenge oneself, be avenged, be punished.” The word itself carries no description of the punishment of the non-elect and therefore carries no implication that sinners will be kept alive to merely experience pain instead of grievous death.”

There are more references.

Here is another. According to G, “Even with Sonny’s argument that God is hate/God is eternal and must therefore hate the non-elect forever, that demands no conclusion that God will disregard the demands of His law to keep sinners alive to torment them forever. The condemnation to which they are subject is a lasting condemnation, condemnation meaning curse of the law. Even after their death, the legal sentence of “death for sin” remains imposed upon the non-elect, preventing them from being raised to lasting life. God’s hatred of the non-elect could continue beyond their destruction in the lake of fire without concluding that God must give them lasting life to keep hating them.”

Here is another case in point: “The description of God hating evildoers and “abhorring” evil men is tied to the statement “you are not a God who delights in wickedness.” In other words, God’s hatred of sinners is a function of God’s nature/character which does not delight in wickedness. Nevertheless, it would be a completely different logical leap to say that because God hates sinners, that must mean He will disregard the law to give them lasting life to torment them forever. There’s nothing here leading to the conclusion that God would set aside the demands of His law in order to give condemned sinners lasting life to torment them, even where His character does not delight in wickedness.” 

This time, G resorts to the use of capital letters: “Paul says “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 ESV. Paul is providing a contrast, not a spectrum. Death is the opposite of eternal life. God’s “simplicity” does not even begin to explain how one could conclude that God is going to give the free gift of eternal life to the non-elect SO THAT He can torment them.”

This is repeated over and over and over and over again. Then, G has the audacity to say, “Sonny’s argument harps on . . .” Kettles and pots, Mr. G., Kettles and pots.

Anthropology

Throughout this mess of a discussion on the perceived judgment of eternal perdition as life, G brings in a passage from Numbers. He is set to use the lex talionis of life for a life to depict the rightful justice of the law. So far, so good. So, the one who takes a life shall be put to death. Yes, indeed. The penalty for taking another’s physical life was the forfeiture of one’s own physical life. If the result of death is extinction and if mankind does not have a spirit and a body, what survives death (its return to dust) that will be reanimated or resuscitated?

This discussion is utterly confusing because G’s anthropology is dead wrong. He categorically claims that the Bible does not portray a man with a body and a spirit or soul, but that a man is a soul. So, the equation of body plus breath equals a soul. But in James, the illustration of a departed spirit from the body renders it a corpse. Furthermore, our Lord spoke of the body and soul being cast into the lake of fire. The Bible uses the terms nephesh and psyche in various ways. G has committed the errors of illegitimate sensibility transfer and illegitimate totality transfer. That is to render every use of a term a uniform sense, or to assume a complete context shift and thus import a foreign concept onto a new setting where a term may have a different meaning. At the end of the day, this essay is an exercise in telling folks what G likes and dislikes.

Life, or Something Like It?

The idea that G fosters on AD about condemnation after the resurrection is “eternal life” is really comical. Jesus made the distinction clearly in John’s Gospel. Our Lord said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:24-29, added emphasis). Jesus contrasts life and condemnation, also he distinguishes death and life. In the resurrection there are two outcomes: Resurrection to life (for the saved) and resurrection of damnation (for the unsaved). It is a gross misunderstanding to equate what Jesus says as death, condemnation, and damnation with the epithets: “eternal life,” “lasting life,” etc. This is simply the case that annihilationists like G twist Scripture, misrepresent their opponents, and insinuate that resurrection to punishment is equal to life. When the Bible calls it the Second Death!

Conclusion

There are so many matters that could be addressed. These must suffice for now. In the end, G will score no points with those challenging the notion of God as torturer or as an inflictor of pain as something unbecoming for God. So, advocating annihilation of the reprobate after they have been temporarily tortured, which, next to eternity could be millions of years and still remain a ‘temporary’ period, doesn’t make God any softer, warmer, or gentler. Those that decry that a God of love could not do such things, will still rail at annihilation. He allows for the (traditional) sting of Hell because he alludes to its fearful depiction. Yet, it appears that he must do this in a sort of begrudging manner. Or, he has not realized the implications of his own position. That Hell will last forever, seems to be the problem. But, in G’s view, it could potentially be an unspecified term of conscious torment. Hence, the real problem is that Hell is not a place of permanent dwelling for G and his ilk but rather a mechanism for meeting out the payment of death to uphold the law. They have unwittingly changed Hell into an execution chamber, whose duration is unspecified.

The traditional view that the Bible plainly teaches ECT has not been jettisoned by G’s rhetoric. In fact, all this posturing will not change God nor the eternal destiny of the reprobate. To talk endlessly about Hell will not change one iota of its endless existence.

[1] I'm unsure where G came to this conclusion because I have never claimed to hold a PhD. Since 2014, I have held a doctorate and have made this publicly known in my books and on my Amazon author page. While there are many Christian doctorates (ThD, PhD, DPhil, DMin, EdD, etc.), the one I earned is a DMin, not a PhD.