1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith--Chapter 12 Of Adoption

_______ All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have his name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as by a Father, yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption, and inherit the promises as heirs of everlasting salvation.
( Ephesians 1:5; Galatians 4:4, 5; John 1:12; Romans 8:17; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 3:12; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; Psalms 103:13; Proverbs 14:26; 1 Peter 5:7;Hebrews 12:6; Isaiah 54:8, 9; Lamentations 3:31; Ephesians 4:30; Hebrews 1:14; Hebrews 6:12 )

In The News: The Ignorance of Bill Maher on the O'Reilly Factor

Bill Maher made some pretty strong anti-Christian comments on the O'Reilly factor of late, and that should not be surprising. He reduces most Americans who consider themselves Christians to fools for believing in the literal truth of the Bible, especially its supernatural narratives. O'Reilly does appear a bit Marcionite (ie God of wrath OT and God of love NT), and Maher did rightly make some sound points challenging Christians who do not take their faith seriously. He is right in that if you are going to take the faith seriously as it was intended that you either take all or none.

However, Maher's problem is that he fails to see the woven tapestry that is the Bible. He has a beef with the OT commands condemning the consequences for working on the Sabbath for example, but that was a theocracy that got set up for a specific place and time as foreshadow of the Kingdom of God fulfilled in Christ. Understanding why those things were in place helps one to understand their theocratic purpose that was fulfilled in Christ. When you take such commands out of their context, then exegetical disaster always results, and the tragedy is that many who have compromised God's Word cannot even give a reasoned response to such statements and questions.

The ironic thing is that Maher must steal from the Biblical worldview to make his worldview work. He must assume an ordered universe that God created whereby communication exists in reality, yet He obviously denies that to justify his own worldview. It is for this reason, that the Christian always has the upper hand, for all other worldviews (whether one admits it or not) must steal from the Biblical worldview to make even basic assumptions about logic, reason, etc. Apart from the Biblical worldview, even reason itself has no foundation. As Augustine said, "I believe in order to understand." What he meant is that we do not even have a foundation for knowledge, reason, etc. until we presuppose the truth of God's Holy Word.

Though I do cringe when I hear someone like Maher arrogantly denigrate Christians and God Himself, he too will die like everyone else then. Why then should he fight to advocate a worldview that will not even matter if we all just turn back to ash anyway? There is no point in that, and to create purpose within that worldview is futile and even self-deception. Maher has bought into self-deception so as to 'cope'. If he truly followed out his worldview he would end up insane (like the great philosopher Nietzsche) or commit suicide (like others). He rather lives an 'as-if' lifestyle whereby he worships an idol of his making in order to remove guilt (mostly by denying it when it comes to mind probably) and gain some kind of temporal satisfaction. The tragedy is that when the idol comes crashing down great is its fall. A man is then broken pieces, and he has no choice but follow his idol to insanity and destruction or erect another vain idol that will end up the same way, yet the angst becomes much worse after each fallen idol.

Let us therefore pray for the man. After all, I too once held many of his same worldview positions, yet, by God's grace, my eyes were opened to see the absurdity, stupidity, and utter foolishness of worshipping the various idols of this world.

To Him be the glory! Amen!

The Biblical Triune God Alone Meets The Preconditions For Human Intelligibility

What do we mean by 'preconditions for human intelligibility'?

Preconditions would be the conditions needed beforehand to make something work. For example, the preconditions for a tornado would be certain weather factors. Otherwise, the tornado would never form.

Human intelligiblity is the making sense of the human experience. For example, explaining why we observe what we do would be an element of that.

When the two above definitions are put together, it comes out to be something like the following question. What previously existing conditions are neccessary to make sense of the human experience? Furthermore, what worldview/philosophy does not reduce the human experience to nonsense or what we typically call abusrdity?

Believe it or not, this has been the age old question. How do we ground knowledge, being (that we really exist), and ethics ? There are two fundamental approaches to this. Man can either start from himself and rely on his best speculation, or he can turn to Divine Revelation.

The former always ends in absurdity because man must be omniscient to know that he really exists first and foremost. However, because he is not omniscient, he cannot break through the wall that separates himself from the world as it really is (noumenal) and what he thinks he observes (phenomenal). This is known as Kant's Wall after the philosopher Immanual Kant. It is not as though what he observes is inherently wrong, it is just that starting from himself, he cannot ultimately justify any piece of knowledge as reliable.

Man finds himself in a dilemma, and this is espeically evident in the realm of ethics and law. For example, one man believes that murder is evil, while another states that he gains pleasure from inflicting harm upon another human being. Starting from man, neither person is able to justify his own position nor refute the other person's ethical stance. Moral relativism is then the fruit of this philosophic worldview, and this creates immediate disaster. 'Do what is right in your own eyes according to your own reason' becomes a real problem when you are the victim of rape, murder, etc. Starting from himself to establish a foundation for being, knowledge, and ethics always results in a worldview that self-destructs.

The latter position from Divine Revelation gives man the needed basis for being, knowledge, and ethics because it comes from a Divine Omniscient Source that is the fountainhead for all of the above Who then tramits this information to man via an intelligible means of communication (ie it is not in some incomprehensible code). However, there are a number of texts that are reported as being Divine Revelation, and they tend to stand in contradistinction from one another. Which one is correct, if any?

The two central competitors tend to be The Bible (Old and New Testaments as understood in traditional orthodoxy--excluding cults) and the Koran. This is extremely important because if neither are correct, then man is hopeless without any ability to even know that he exists and that this is not all just one big illusion at best. Even moreso, man has no purpose, no basis for knowledge, and certainly no basis for law or hope of a conscious afterlife.

In order to evaluate any worldview, it is best to look at its presuppositions and see how it espouses not to make nonsense of human intelligibility (See Greg Bahnsen). Besides textual errancy issues with the Koran (like its misrepresenation of how Christians have framed the Trinity--see Dr. James White for further on this at alpha omega ministries), the Koran denies justice because it allows for sinful humanity to enter heaven without an infinite eternal substitionary atonement. When justice is denied in this arena, then God is no longer just and anarchy immediately erupts leading the worldview to absurdity. On the contrary, within the Biblical Worldiview, just is not denied and anarchy does not erupt because of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ Who is God the Son the Second Person of the Trinity.

The ultimate presupposition that sets Christianity apart from everything else is that one must presuppose a world where the Biblical Triune God exists to then argue against it. For example, in order to argue against the Biblical God, one must presuppose a universe that He has created in which human intelligibility exists. Otherwise, knowledge is only an illusion at best, and even that statment is but an illusion, ad infinitum. In that, Christianity is proven because one could not prove anything otherwise. This is called the Transcendental Arugument.

Therefore, apart from Divine Revelation as transmitted in the Bible, man would have no basis for being, knowledge, and ethics. However, God in Christ as revealed in the Bible not only gives us the preconditions for human intelligibility, but the Scripture also explains why we observe what we observe in the world around us. In our sin, we rebel against God as revealed in the Bible because in it we see that God requires repentance and submission. Our rejection of the Bible does not negate its truthfulness, inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency, but it does magnify our rebellion. Man would rather indulge in moral relativism or chase after a false representation of the One True God therby accepting all of the devastating consequences it produces than submit to Him who is Holy, Holy, Holy! Sin therefore is truly shown to be utterly sinful! Amen!

Taking Back The Rainbow: The Insult of Gay Marriage to the LORD God

If marriage is not defined as between one man and one woman for a lifetime, then it can mean anything. Gay marriage is only the tip of the ice-berg. Why not polygamy, or two men and three women, or four animals and a woman, or two boy and and five men, etc? It just becomes that insane. Believe me, there are plenty of people waiting to jump on that crazy roller coaster of sin.

My greatest beef with the homosexual community is how they have hi-jacked the rainbow. The rainbow is one of the most beautiful pheonomen when it appears in the sky, and it is the great sign of God's grace to humanity as displayed before Noah after the Flood. Now it is a symbol of rebellion and hatred towards the LORD God! It's so bad that if you put a rainbow on your car, people think you are gay! What blasphemous times we live in! Amen!

However, like dinosaurs and every other created thing, we are taking them back as Ken Ham would say. The godless have stolen the things of God and claimed it for themselves, but God will not let His Name be trashed forever. We shall reopen the old wells and led the glory of God shine forth! Amen!

Therefore, may ye who are opposed to the LORD God repent while His grace is exteneded to you. Ye need not face the wrath of God and continue in your mire of vanity. This world of sin cannot bring satsifaction; it only brings judgment and personal disaster. Repent and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Amen!

To Him be the glory! Amen!

Horror of Abortion! God Almighty Shall Have His Vengeance!

One day our God shall have His vengeance upon the murder of these little ones! Amen!

Watch this again and again, lest you forget.

Click here.

A Culture of Dependence

Due to the push of evolutionary marxism and its adopoted variations, most of the world has ushered in an era of dependence upon the state in an effort to create a utopia. One of the chief goals of this utopia is to end poverty. However, the track record is dismal and its outlook is bleak. The Soviet Union is one of the greatest failures within this worldview as it bankrupted itself. Why does world poverty continue to rise in spite of a century's effort to end poverty through the means of the state?

The answer is a simple theological one: The Doctrine of Original Sin. Man is born into sin, so he is naturally lazy and prone to idleness if given the opportunity and the means. For this reason, if someone is taken care of by someone else with minimal input themselves, they are inclined to take advantage of this more and more with each passing day until one party works while the other party does nothing. Eventually, the working party becomes exhasted in his labor and opts to do the same thing as he depends on someone else. Now one has two parties in idleness with a third party supporting both. Multiply this many times over, and one has a socialist state run amock very quickly where very few have any desire to produce anything of value, for all incentive and advocacy to work has ceased.

A popular straw man against personal responsibility is always regarding the aid of the orphan, widow, elderly, physically disabled, mentally ill, etc. This is where private charity steps in, of which the Church is commanded to be the chief. In a nation like America, if one honestly seeks help from a private organization like the Church, very few are turned down. That may mean that one lives in conditions that are sufficient but not luxurious, yet we ought not be envious when some are more blessed financially than others, for many of those same persons give much in support those in need. God gives to whom He wills and takes as He wills, even among those who work hard and are diligent in the labor. Job is case in point, yet God did not forsake Job as he rests in the arms of God for all eternity by His grace.

Sadly, personal responsibility has been on the decline in the world, even in areas that were once somewhat Biblical in their thinking. Nonetheless, as Christians, we must continue to take responsibility for our fiscal actions, for even high taxation does not give us the right to become lazy in our work and irresponsible in our spending. We testify to Someone greater than ourselves, Christ our Lord

Therefore, trust in the Lord and do as He commands with your finances, yet when one opposes
where Caeser spends his money, we must still submit and render to Caesar what is Caesar's, for our witness is to Him Who is greater than ourselves.

Glory to Him who anoints even a Caesar for a season to conduct His will in His time for His good pleasure to make His point to His glory! Amen!

Is Having Many Children Irresponsible?

The mantra today is that to have more than one child is destructive to the earth itself. Therefore, if one has more than one child, much less many children, then one has sinned against extremist environmental postmodern liberal theology/philosophy. It is no suprise that such persons hate the Bible because, from the beginning, all of creation is blessed to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Even more so, God follows up on this commanded after the Genesis Flood. What then shall we make of this as Christians?

The Bible clearly sees children as a blessing from the Lord, and blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them! Amen! The reality is that restricting procreation not only mocks the Living God who has decreed this blessing, but it also creates a social and economic meltdown. For example, the native European population is dying off as the aged increase while the youth decrease. As time goes on, there are not enough workers to support the economy itself, and, as the need for geriatric care exceeds population growth, the elderly are simply discarded and euthanized. Ironically, many of the same liberals that espouse such theology/philosophy are the same ones that are now being euthanized. This liberaly theology literally self-destructs and implodes in on itself.

Regarding starvation and such, the reality is that there is more than enough provision to feed the hungry. It's the oppressive regimes that prevent the food stuffs from reaching the people. At the same time, those under false religious systems will not eat what is available. Watching people starve to death while cows roam the streets is mind-boggling, yet anti-Biblical worldviews always lead to disaster.

In China, where infantificide and abortion is the rule of the land, they are already reaping the fruit of the godless murder of femal babies especially, for there are far more men that women. This creates obvious problems with social structure and future procreation.

Ultimately, if God decrees more children, as He has blessed in Scripture, then, as we look to Him, He will always provide for us as we have need in accordance with His will.

Therefore, let us celebrate the gift of children, and, by all means: Be Fruit and Multiply and Fill the Earth! Amen!

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is always a glorious time of year when understood in a Biblical context. The Lord is always generous and gracious in His abundant giving. Truly, thankfulness is the antidote for bitterness and envy. It is impossible to be bitter and envious while being thankful at the same time. When bitter envy wanes towards a neighbor, a thankful heart glorifies the Living God. Therefore, let us bow before Him, and rejoice in what He has given us, namely His Son! Amen!

Book Review Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word

ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD

BY: ATHANASIUS

____________________

A Paper Presented to Dr. Tom Nettles

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for 25100

by Jeramy W. Anderson

Aug 31, 2005

Athanasius. On the Incarnation of the Word. Edited by Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Athanasius-Select Writings and Letters. 2^nd ser, vol 4 p31-67, 1953.

Before I read this work by Athanasius, I only had limited exposure to the early writings of the Church Fathers. I have been completely blown away by not only the academic ability that Athanasius had, but I am also humbled by his spiritual insight. Not only are his sentences concise, but they accurately reflect the views of orthodoxy in the face of heresy from various early cults. This dynamic work is profitable not only for personal growth and exposition of Scripture, but it is instrumental in the refutation of modern day cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Latter Day Saints. Of the multitude of heresies that Athanasius discussed in this piece, there are several critical doctrinal issues that he touches upon: Christ as Creator, Reason for the Incarnation, Why the Cross, and the Boldness of the Martyrs.

The Church today often speaks of Christ as Redeemer, yet we have neglected the importance of declaring Him as Creator. Christ must be the Creator because God alone can satiate upon Himself His own infinite wrath. Athanasius begins by exposing the Platonic lie that all things have always been in existence and that a Creator only organized them. This is a problem, for it would not only weaken the power of God by making Him a mere mechanic, but it by default denies the law of cause and effect which demands the need for an eternal initial cause (an illogical assumption held by modern day evolutionists). He explained:

“And how could He in that case not be called Maker and Artificer, if He owes His ability to make to some other source—namely to that material? So that if this be so, God will be on the their theory a Mechanic only, and not a Creator out of nothing; if, that is, He works at existing material, but is not Himself the cause of the material. For He could not in any sense be called Creator unless He is Creator of the material of which the things have in their turn been made.”1

After asserting God as Creator in Gen 1:1, he then affirmed that Christ is God the Creator:

“Or if in the words of John, who says, making no exception, ‘All things were made by Him, and ‘without Him was not anything made…’ ”2

This surely affirms two things: Scripture clearly speaks of Christ as Creator and Redeemer, and it confirms that early orthodox fathers strictly held this interpretation.

Upon reflection of the essentiality of Christ as Creator, one must then answer for what cause was the Word made flesh. Quoting from Heb 2:10, Athanasius exposited:

“…the reason why it was necessary for none other than God the Word Himself to become incarnate… ‘For it became Him for Whom are all things, and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering;’ by which words He means, that it belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the beginning.”3

He thus has not only defended the doctrine of original sin, but he also explained that the Word Who created them shall surely be the One to redeem them. Athanasius expounded further:

“For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life…”4

Though it was man who brought death into the world, the Word added a body to Himself and fulfilled the Law conquering the death. By Adam came sin but by Christ came life as He hung upon the cross and rose three days later. What grace we have surely been given!

In the face of so much ridicule and chastisement, the early orthodox fathers constantly faced a barrage of questions about the crucifixion and its necessity. The fact that God would take the form of a man and bring Himself to such a lowly state was a stumbling block to Jews and sheer foolishness to the Gentiles. Death by crucifixion made it all the more demeaning and humiliating. Athanasius speaks at length on the crucifixion and why the cross was needed; his insight gives us a better understanding of not only why it was needed but also how the cross displayed complete humility and victory. He profoundly articulated:

“…so also the Life of all, our Lord and Savior, even Christ, did not devise a death for His own body, so as not to appear to be fearing some other death; but He accepted on the Cross, and endured, a death inflicted by others, and above all by His enemies, which they thought dreadful and ignominious and not to be faced; so that this also being destroyed, both He Himself might be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be brought utterly to nought. So something surprising and startling has happened; for the death, which they thought to inflict as a disgrace, was actually a monument of victory against death itself.”5

Has not God surely shamed the wisdom of the wise, and has He not made His power known! We often look at the course of events and wonder why they proceed accordingly. The Divine Wisdom of God Almighty has providentially set each event to occur in the most perfect way. This is to achieve His greatest glory and for the greatest good of those who love Him.

In light of everything that he writes on the Incarnation, the most powerful witness to the Historical Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ our Lord is the evidence of changed lives and the boldness of saints who often become martyrs and mock death itself. Athanasius wrote:

“For they verily know that when they die they are not destroyed, but actually [begin to] live, and become incorruptible through the Resurrection. And that devil that once maliciously exulted in death, now that its pains were loosed, remained the only one truly dead. And a proof of this is, that before men believe Christ, they see in death an object of terror, and play the coward before him. But when they are gone over to Christ’s faith and teaching, their contempt for death is so great that they even eagerly rush upon it, and become witnesses for the Resurrection the Savior has accomplished against it.”6

The ancient pagans saw death as a finality, yet the bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus gave the saints a hope that was beyond all they could comprehend. Oh how glorious that truly is! O death where is thy sting? It has been swallowed up in victory! For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain! May we stand in awe of Christ our Lord, and may we rejoice in what He accomplished upon the cross! Amen!

---

[1] Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word 2.4.

[2] Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word 2.6.

[3] Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word 10.3.

[4] Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word 10.5.

[5] Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word 24.3-4.

[6] Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word 27.2-3.

Everlasting Hell

DEFENSE OF EVERLASTING HELL

Issue

Though there have been a number of erring positions on the Doctrine of Everlasting Hell throughout Church history, the dominant position, which is called the traditional position, exegetes Hell as the place of everlasting fiery torment to those who have rejected the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, in the last several hundred years, two compromising positions have arisen with greater strength and veracity; they are universalism and annihilationism. They have been developed in an effort to turn the human heart away from the thought of anyone enduring everlasting punishment. However, such positions do injustice to the text and present serious theological problems on the nature of God’s justice, holiness, and love. A general overview of the predominant positions will be presented here while adamantly defending the traditional view as properly exegeted from Scripture. Hell is the dwelling place where the wicked impenitent will reside forever because of their rebellion against God and rejection of the gospel; they will have no relief and no opportunity for escape.

Positions

In the early church, one of the only voices rejecting everlasting Hell was Origen. He promoted a type of universalism stating that all will be saved in the end but that many will have to endure Hell for some period of time until they have been purged. Kelley writes on Origen:

…all such punishment, even the pains of hell, must have an end. Origen appreciates the deterrent value of the Scriptural description of the penalties of sin as eternal. He is satisfied, however, that in fact they must one day come to an end, when all things are restored to their primeval order… Even the Devil, it appears, will participate in the final restoration.1

However, the rest of the early Church Fathers clearly articulated Hell as everlasting torment, though some were doubters influenced by Origen and others.2 A thousand years later, during the Reformation, confessions like the Second London Baptist Confession, which took much from the Westminster Confession, still held to Hell as everlasting torment for the rebellious.3

During the Reformation, universalism and annihilationism started to creep onto the scene and became alluring because it appealed to the strings of the heart. The elevation of reason crept into theology and many began to rethink the nature of Hell. How could a loving God send people to Hell for all eternity due to finite sins? John declares that God is love (1 John 4:8), which must mean that the Church has been misinterpreting the text, according to some. They then attempted to re-interpret the text so as to remain orthodox in some way yet solve this enigma of God’s love and Hell.

Universalism, during the Reformation and even more so today, is best defined as the theory that all will be saved without ever enduring some kind of torment, and, if in Hell for a time (as some would still hold to), it will only be a separation from God without physical punishment. The most popular text used is Romans 5:18, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” Without taking into account other texts, ‘all men’ appear to be a parallel, thus establishing universalism. Roman Catholicism has embraced this at points, and Al Mohler writes on how even the late Pope John Paul II rejected a spatial Hell:

…[Pope John Paul II] denied heaven and hell were physical places and seemed to reverse nearly 2,000 years of Christian teaching…The same issue arises in his rejection of the spatial dimension of hell. "More than a physical place," the pope declared, "hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God."… The temptation to "air-condition hell," as one Roman Catholic magazine put it, is constant in a secular world that rejects hell as outdated and promises some kind of vague harmonic convergence in the afterlife.4

There is an incessant desire to reach some type of “vague harmonic convergence in the afterlife” today, and modern universalism provides this, yet it allows peoples to use the Scriptures to describe ‘hellish-like’ realities on earth and call for an end to them.

Modern universalism is a very radical view of Hell, so many otherwise orthodox evangelicals turn to annihilationism. In an effort to satisfy the justice of God and exalt His love, annihilationism judges the impenitent by ceasing their existence. This appeals to evangelicals because justice still exists. John Stott has rejected the traditional Hell; Mohler explains why:

Stott responded to the challenge [on the nature of hell as posed by liberal Anglican David Edwards saying that hell makes God an ‘Eternal Torturer’] by affirming that the traditional doctrine has been held throughout the history of the church, right down to the Reformers and their heirs. “Do I hold it however? Well emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain.”5

To defend this view exegetically, Stott has attempted to use texts highlighting ‘destruction’, ‘destroyed’, etc. to not only deny Hell as everlasting but to insist that annihilation is a greater judgment, for it threatens a loss of all conscious reality.

Support For Everlasting Hell

Hell is a very grueling subject to speak of because each human being has a friend or a dear relative who has rejected the gospel, and the thought of that person in everlasting Hell can become torturing to the mind and heart. Nevertheless, Charles Spurgeon reminds the church:

I could preach with great delight to myself from the first part [of heaven]; but here is a dreary task to my soul, because there are gloomy words here. But, as I have told you, what is written in the Bible must be preached, whether it be gloomy or cheerful.6

Hell is in the Bible and is clearly articulated in the New Testament as the mystery of the gospel and the plan of future judgment became revealed and more understood, and it was Jesus who spoke on Hell the most. Al Mohler writes:

We should note that Jesus had more to say about hell than about heaven, and he spoke of hell as a place of punishment where the wicked are "cast," and where the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:44, 47)…Evidently, hell is indeed a punishment imposed by God, and the dire warnings in Scripture to respond to Christ in faith -- while there is time -- make sense only if hell is a very real place of very real torment.7

If Jesus did not stray away from declaring Hell, then ministers surely should not, and it is Christ Himself who will administer this judgment. Piper adds, “If hearing about God's judgment makes it harder for us to love God, then probably the God we love is a figment of our imagination and not the real and true God … There is something wrong with our faith if we cannot sing praises to God not only as our loving Father but also as the righteous Judge of all the earth.”8

Before describing the nature of Hell it is critical to outline the purpose of Hell's existence and why it is so necessary, even though we, as fallen sinful people, may not always agree with the reality of future judgment. One must first understand that Hell is not meant as a place for eternal torture by a God who is out of control and throws temper-tantrums against His works of creation when they refuse to cooperate. Hell is rather a place of judgment created by a holy righteous God who hates sin, injustice, and unrighteousness; His full wrath and fury will be poured out in Hell upon the godless impenitent. J.I. Packer comments on the nature of the wrath of God:

God’s wrath in the Bible is never the capricious, self-indulgent, irritable, morally ignoble thing that human anger so often is. It is, instead, a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil. God is only angry where anger is called for.9

God is always patient and in complete control and will inflict His due wrath on those who love what He hates, and Hell is where He has decided to do that.

If one assumes that Hell is for eternity, why is that necessary? If a man commits only one sin, how does that possibly justify God sending that man to everlasting torment where the 'worm dieth not'? Though a certain sin may only take a moment to commit, Hell will last for eternity because sin itself is infinitely opposed to God’s holy nature. His holiness is infinite, and He cannot allow Himself to be in the presence of sin. It is for this reason that God the Son had to die a sacrificial death and become a substitutionary atonement to first appease His own wrath in the process of reconciling sinners to Himself. Man will either take the infinite wrath of God by himself in Hell for eternity or through the blood of Christ at Golgotha. “When all is said and done, those who are utterly lacking in holiness will be sent away from God’s presence into everlasting destruction (cf. Matt. 25:41).”10

As one reflects upon the very nature of everlasting Hell according to the Scriptures, one cannot help but be completely horrified and terrified. John Piper writes:

Hell is the most appalling reality we can imagine. No horror of suffering in history can be compared to what John calls the "lake of fire" and where Jesus said "their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48). To go through life distrusting and disobeying the infinite God, is an infinite sin and will be punished with eternal torment.11

John Calvin uses penetrating language to describe this eternal place prepared for the reprobate for all eternity, and the fact that it lasts forever only magnifies the torment:

Moreover, as language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, unextinquishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Math. viii. 12; xxii. 13; Mark ix. 43; Isa. lxvi. 24)… Hence unhappy consciences find no rest, but are vexed and driven about by a dire whirlwind, feeling as if torn by an angry God, pierced through with deadly darts, terrified by his thunderbolt, and crushed by the weight of his hand; so that it were easier to plunge into abysses and whirlpools than endure these terrors for a moment. How fearful, then must it be to be thus beset throughout eternity!12

In reflecting upon the anger of God and his hatred of sin, such a place as Hell magnifies the glory of His justice and His resolve to never turn a blind eye towards it. A vivid personal account is described by Jesus Himself concerning the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man surely wanted to warn his brothers who were not yet in Hell, but warnings do not come from the grave; they come from the prophets and saints who have been brutally murdered throughout human history. Oh how the rich man must still be in agony to this day over his rebellion against God! Chrysostom rightly declared, "Let us think often of hell, lest we soon fall into it."13

The great theologian Jonathan Edwards has probably developed the most excruciating picture of Hell within a Biblical framework. One cannot help but shudder when it is read and contemplated upon; He peers into the psyche of one in Hell with ‘two infinites to amaze’:

You may by considering make yourselves more sensible than you ordinarily are; but it is a little you can conceive of what it is to have no hope in such torments. How sinking would it be to you, to endure such pain as you have felt in this world, without any hopes, and to know that you never should be delivered from it, nor have one minute’s rest! … The more the damned in hell think of the eternity of their torments, the more amazing will it appear to them; and alas! they will not be able to keep it out of their minds. Their tortures will not divert them from it, but will fix their attention to it. O how dreadful will eternity appear to them after they shall have been thinking on it for ages together, and shall have so long an experience of their torments! The damned in hell will have two infinites perpetually to amaze them, and swallow them up: one is an infinite God, whose wrath they will bear, and in whom they will behold their perfect and irreconcilable enemy. The other is infinite duration of their torment.14

To fixate one’s mind upon the wrath of God while in Hell for all eternity and the infinite duration of it would lead to complete despair and infinite misery!

Objections Answered

Universalism continues to contend that Romans 5 validates their position, but such passages of Scripture have been completely taken out of context. John MacArthur responds:

As with the many in verse 15, Paul apparently uses all in verse 18 for the sake of parallelism, although the two occurrences of the term carry different meanings. Just as “the many died” in verse 15 refers inclusively to all men, so life to all men here refers exclusively to those who trust in Christ. This verse does not teach universalism, as some have contended throughout the centuries. It is abundantly clear from other parts of this epistle, including the first two verses of this chapter, that salvation comes only to those who have faith in Jesus Christ (see also 1:16-17; 3:22, 28; 4:5, 13).15

One has to completely reject other Scriptures to accept universalism; there is absolutely no point in picking up one’s cross daily if everyone is going to be saved in the end, no matter one’s status of repentance. In an attempt to elevate the love of God, such a view turns love into nothing more than a cheap version of Santa Claus by embracing the wicked and refusing to vindicate the righteous.

On the other hand, annihilationists object to the traditional view of what ‘eternity’ means and would contend that Hell is in reference to ‘unending in conscious experience’; Yarbrough refutes that:

Moses Stuart, who already in 1830 carefully examined the biblical data in the ancient languages and arrived at this conclusion: [“] The result seems to be plain, and philologically and exegetically certain. It is this; either the declarations of the Scriptures do not establish the facts, that God and his glory and praise and happiness are endless; nor that the happiness of the righteous in a future world, is endless; or else they establish the fact, that the punishment of the wicked is endless. The whole stand or fall together. There can, in the very nature of antithesis, be no room for rational doubt here, in what manner we should interpret the declarations of the sacred writers. WE MUST EITHER ADMIT THE ENDLESS MISERY OF HELL, OR GIVE UP THE ENDLESS HAPPINESS OF HEAVEN.”16

Lest one think those before Stuart were not aware of this exegetical refutation, Jonathan Edwards dogmatically rejected this annihilationist underpinning by appealing to the original languages.17 On top of that, Peterson summarizes three fundamental errors in annihilationism (otherwise called conditionalism) that break down into three fundamental problems—exegesis, doctrinal ripples, and the pains of hell:

First, despite good intentions, the conditionalist exegesis of the key texts falls short. Second, conditionalism frequently leads to systemic error, adversely affecting other doctrines. Third, I fear that conditionalism might have a negative effect on evangelism and missions. If traditionalism is correct, then conditionalism seriously underestimates the pains of hell.18

Even if one concedes the grammatical and exegetical defense of everlasting torment against the annihilationist’s position, Edwards can refute it theologically and philosophically:

Scripture everywhere represents the punishment of the wicked, as implying very extreme pains and sufferings; but a state of annihilation is no state of suffering at all. Persons annihilated have no sense or feeling of pain or pleasure, and much less do they feel that punishment which carries in it an extreme pain or suffering. They no more suffer to eternity than they did from eternity.19

Would not someone like Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin delight in such a reality? After all, Stalin was an atheist and rejected the very notion of Hell to begin with. To defend such a view does nothing but encourage the wicked, for there is no suffering in annihilation, and to propose that annihilation is actually a worse judgment is completely absurd. Above all, the blood of the martyrs is polluted and the wicked dance on their graves.

Conclusion

Everlasting Hell is a difficult topic to accept for believers and non-believers alike, but the minister of the gospel does the reprobate no favors by air-conditioning Hell. To those who by grace have been chosen for everlasting life, we cherish the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ knowing all the more what we have been saved from. Piper eloquently writes:

Probably the most important thing I would say, and the most firmly rooted in Romans 1:18, is that knowing the true condition of your heart and the nature of sin and the magnitude and justice of the wrath of God will cause you to understand the mighty gospel, and love it, and cherish it, and feast on it, and share it as never before.20

We cannot cherish the love of Christ without first accepting the consequences of His justice, a justice due to everyone but only inflicted on the impenitent. Oh, how the righteous shall sing His praises unto all eternity, for those from all tribes, nations, and tongues will declare that He who sits on the Throne forever is Holy, Holy, Holy! Amen!

_________________________________________

Endnotes

1 Kelley, JND. Early Christian Doctrines. (New York, New York: HarperSanFrancisco 1978), 473-474.

2 Kelly’s summary is compelling: “As regards the fate of the wicked … the general view was that their punishment would be eternal, without any possibility of remission. As Basil put it, in hell the sinful soul is completely cut off from the Holy Spirit, and is therefore incapable of repentance; while Chrysostom pointed out that neither the bodies of the damned, which will become immortal, nor their souls will know any end of their sufferings … Yet Basil has to confess that most ordinary Christians have been beguiled by the Devil into believing, against the manifest evidence of Scripture, that there will be a time-limit. Among these must be included Gregory of Nazianzus, who on occasion seems to wonder whether eternal punishment is altogether worthy of God, and Gregory of Nyssa, who sometimes indeed mentions eternal pains, but whose real teaching envisages the eventual purification of the wicked, the conquest and disappearance of evil, and the final restoration of all things, the Devil himself included. The influence of Origen is clearly visible here, but by the fifth century the stern doctrine that sinners will have no second chance after this life and that the fire which will devour them will never be extinguished was everywhere paramount.”

JND Kelly, 483-484.

3 “The end of Gods appointing this Day, is for the manifestation of the glory of his Mercy, in the Eternal Salvation of the Elect; and of his Justice in the Eternal damnation of the Reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient; for then shall the Righteous go into Everlasting Life, and receive that fullness of Joy, and Glory, with everlasting reward, in the presence of the Lord: but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into Eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”

Lumpkin, William L. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Chapter XXXII.2 Second London Confession, 1677, (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 294-295.

4 Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. Should we lose the fear of Hell? The Pope redefines the doctrine. Dr. Mohler's Fidelitas Comment on News and Issues by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel022

5 Morgan, Christopher, W. and Robert A. Peterson, General Editors. Hell Under Fire (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004). 30.

6 Spurgeon, Charles. Heaven and Hell Delivered on Tuesday Evening, September 4, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon In a field, King Edward's Road, Hackney. The New Park Street Pulpit. The Spurgeon Archive, #39-40 p301-310 Vol 1, 1855. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0039.htm

7 Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. Should we lose the fear of Hell? The Pope redefines the doctrine. Dr. Mohler's Fidelitas Comment on News and Issues by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel022

8 Piper, John. Final Judgment Eternal Life Vs Wrath and Fury. August 31, 1980. Desiring God Ministries. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/80/083180.html

9 Packer, J. I. Knowing God. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 151.

10 MarArthur, John F, Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids, Michigan Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 254.

11 Piper, John. Final Judgment Eternal Life Vs Wrath and Fury. August 31, 1980. Desiring God Ministries. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/80/083180.html

12 Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Ch XXV, Sec 12, 1559. Trans by Henry Beveridge, WM. B. (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company), 1989.

13 Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. Should we lose the fear of Hell? The Pope redefines the doctrine. Dr. Mohler's Fidelitas Comment on News and Issues by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel022

14 Edwards, Jonathan. III. Fifteen Sermons On Various Subjects: Sermon XI The Eternity of Hell Torments. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 1754. Vol 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 3^rd Printing, Jan 2003), 88.

15 MarArthur, John F., Jr. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 1-8. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 307.

16 Christopher, W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson. 75-76.

17 Edwards writes: “Eternal punishment is not eternal annihilation. Surely they will not be raised to life at the last day only to be annihilated. ‘The words used to signify the duration of the punishment of the wicked, do, in their etymology, truly signify a proper eternity; and if they are sometimes used in a less strict sense, when the nature of the thing requires it, yet they can never pass as any reason why they are not to be understood absolutely, when the subject is capable of it. They are terms the most expressive of an endless duration, of any that can be used or imagined. And they always signify so far positively endless, as to be express against any other period or conclusion, than what arises from the nature of the thing. They are never used in Scripture in any other limited sense, than to exclude all positive abolition, annihilation, or conclusion, other than what the natural intent or constitution of the subject spoken of must necessarily admit. The word aiwnio", which is the word generally used by the sacred writers, is, we know, derived from the adverb aei, which signifies forever, and cannot without force be used in any lower sense. And, particularly, this is the word by which the eternal and immutable attributes of Deity are several times expressed.’ Dodwell’s Sermon in answer to Whiston, p 15, 16.”

Edwards, Jonathan. X. Remarks On Important Theological Controversies: Chap II. Concerning The Endless Punishment Of Those Who Die Impenitent. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 1754. Vol 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 3^rd Printing, Jan 2003), 515-525.

18 Peterson, Robert A. Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire What is hell—eternal torment or annihilation? A look at the Evangelical Alliance's The Nature of Hell. Christianity Today, October 23, 2000. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/012/1.30.html

19 Edwards, Jonathan. Fifteen Sermons On Various Subjects: Sermon XI The Eternity of Hell Torments. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 1754. Vol 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 3^rd Printing, Jan 2003), 84.

20 Piper, John. The Wrath of God Against Ungodliness and Unrighteousness. August 30, 1998. Desiring God Ministries. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/98/083098.html

_________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Ch XXV, Sec 12, 1559. Trans by Henry Beveridge, WM. B. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, revised ed., 1978.

Lumpkin, William L. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Chapter XXXII.2 Second London Confession, 1677, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969.

MarArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

MarArthur, John F., Jr. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 1-8. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Morgan, Christopher, W. and Robert A. Peterson, General Editors. Hell Under Fire Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004.

Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Sermons/Articles

Edwards, Jonathan. III. Fifteen Sermons On Various Subjects: Sermon XI The Eternity of Hell Torments. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 1754. Vol 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 3^rd Printing, Jan 2003), 83-89.

Edwards, Jonathan. X. Remarks On Important Theological Controversies: Chap II. Concerning The Endless Punishment Of Those Who Die Impenitent. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 1754. Vol 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 3^rd Printing, Jan 2003), 515-525.

Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. Should we lose the fear of Hell? The Pope redefines the doctrine. Dr. Mohler's Fidelitas Comment on News and Issues by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel022

Peterson, Robert A. Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire What is hell—eternal torment or annihilation? A look at the Evangelical Alliance's The Nature of Hell. Christianity Today, October 23, 2000. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/012/1.30.html

Piper, John. Final Judgment Eternal Life Vs Wrath and Fury. August 31, 1980. Desiring God Ministries. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/80/083180.html

Piper, John. The Wrath of God Against Ungodliness and Unrighteousness. August 30, 1998. Desiring God Ministries. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/98/083098.html

Spurgeon, Charles. Heaven and Hell Delivered on Tuesday Evening, September 4, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon In a field, King Edward's Road, Hackney. The New Park Street Pulpit. The Spurgeon Archive, #39-40 p301-310 Vol 1, 1855. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0039.htm

---