Wishful Thinking on Hell. What a Review Really Reveals. A Response to David A. Jakubovic (Leyland, Lancashire / Northern England)

Click here to examine a biblical defense of Hell

“Reports of ‘Debunking’ Are Greatly Exaggerated” [Book Review of Annihilationism Debunked: An Introduction (Trinity Gospel Church, 2024) by Sonny Hernandez] was recently posted online by David Jakubovic. Hereafter, this reflection will refer to the author of the review as DJ and the book as AD. Also, I will refer to eternal conscious torment as ECT.

Fact check

In America, liberals hate the President of the United States (POTUS) so much that they will lie, cry foul, and emotionally discredit the POTUS at all costs. Most know this emotional and toxic attitude as 'Trump derangement syndrome.' Conversely, DJ may have 'ECT derangement syndrome' because many of his arguments were so clumsy, emotional, and desperate to discredit AD that he did a great job of exposing himself as an unprincipled newbie journalist at best and a liar at worst. Let the examples below speak for themselves.

DJ claimed, "Hernandez holds a PhD in pastoral theology." If anyone knows what degrees I have earned, it would be me. And, for the record, I have never claimed to hold a PhD in anything I have written or sermon I have preached. I have earned a doctorate, but there are many Christian doctorates. The one I earned was a Doctor of Ministry, not a Doctor of Philosophy. That is a significant difference in the academic world. DJ—who proudly displays his BA (Hons) credential in emails—should know better.

In his introduction, DJ was so desperate to find someone on the internet who disagreed with my stance on Hell that he appealed to a 2019 article from an internet nomad, David Bishop. Bishop's blog mentions nothing about him being a pastor, but this did not stop the brilliant journalistic mind of DJ because he not only bestows PhD's to men who never claimed to have earned them; he also bestows the title of "pastor" to bloggers who are not even pastors, as he referred to Bishop as a "US Baptist pastor." In the comments section of DJ's lengthy response to AD, Bishop responded, "Thank you for the kind words, David [Jakubovic]. In answer to your question, no I am not a pastor..." (emphasis added). Poor research concerning Jakubovic is thus an understatement.

The preface to AD highlighted several verses (Matthew 13:42; 25:41; 25:46; Mark 9:44; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 14:10; 20:15) and explained that "Many—though not all—of the texts mentioned above contain future tense indicative verbs, emphasizing the certainty of future events involving torment" (p. 10, emphases added). Notice how AD does not state, "all seven verses include the exact word torment." Yet, DJ claims, "of those 7, only one (Rev.14:10) even mentions 'torment' at all(!), but Hernandez seems unencumbered by minor details like precision or facts." Out of the seven verses mentioned above, "wailing and gnashing of teeth," "punishment," "punished," and "tormented" are synonymous with conscious suffering or torment. That is why AD states, "involving torment." Therefore, while DJ implies that AD tried to argue that all seven verses include the exact word "torment," the facts prove otherwise. Talk about “grasping at straws.”

Throughout DJ's article, he repeatedly whined that AD presented "straw-man" arguments and "misrepresented" CI. Yet, DJ is guilty of this very issue. For example, DJ asserted that AD makes the 'straw-man' claim that CI entails "a loss of consciousness in the afterlife." As a result, he noted, "CI is not just 'a loss of consciousness,' like getting a pre-surgery anesthetic!" AD never mentioned anything about a "pre-surgery anesthetic," nor does AD claim that a "loss of consciousness" is merely all that CI proponents affirm. The "pre-surgery anesthetic" claim comes from DJ, not AD.

Yes, AD does say that "CI entails "a loss of consciousness in the afterlife." If annihilationists teach soul extinction, cessation of being, or annihilation of existence in the afterlife, how is saying that annihilationism entails "a loss of consciousness in the afterlife" a misrepresentation? Unless DJ is willing to go on record and say that his view of Hell does teach that the wicked will consciously experience Hell forever, he should stop whining like a child and accept the fact that CI does entail "a loss of consciousness in the afterlife."   

Also, DJ cried that AD "...again aligns his distorted CI caricature with an atheistic view." Well, The Atlantic published a piece explaining what atheists think about death. One professing atheist claimed, "I think that when I die I'll cease to exist..." (emphasis added). Intellectually honest people can see that the professing atheist view of what takes place at death is the same heresy that annihilationist heretics like DJ affirm.

Additionally, DJ accused AD of "misreporting facts" because it states that CI plays down aiōnion in Matthew 25:46 so as not to mean "the unending duration of punishment," and DJ claimed, "no, this 'dodge' is almost always a universalist, not conditionalist, tactic..." (emphasis added). Yet, concerning Matthew 25:46, the "Rethinking Hell" website—which promotes CI—states, "Of course, some conditionalists argue that αἰώνιος is not properly translated 'eternal' in the first place," and "Likewise αἰώνιος punishment may refer to the punishment corresponding to the age to come, not one of unending duration" (emphasis added). So, it is clear who's "misreporting facts." It seems DJ struggles with 'ECT derangement syndrome' so severely that he can't seem to get his facts straight.

I could share many more examples, but this will suffice for now.

Heretics love heresy

One of the claims of AD is that a heretical view of God and the gospel results in a horrible stance on Hell. This point is evident when examining DJ's theological opinions.

DJ explained to me—via email—that his "family has roots in old-style Methodism, so we fellowship in that heritage (Wesleyan/Arminian, obviously)." That is evident because his blog against AD promoted Arminian soteriology. He favorably cited people who believed salvation depends on one's ability to accept the gospel. He also favorably cited people who promoted an Arminian view of Romans 9, the doctrine of universal atonement, the well-meant offer, etc.

After reading DJ's review, it's clear he loves to cite heretics and makes smug comments against conservative, Reformed theologians. DJ claimed, "Gerstner is hardly a colossus of theological reasoning on hell." Yet, he cited liberal psychologists, anti-Trinitarians, Open Theists, Molinists, promoters of Seventh-Day Adventism, progressive Catholics, anti-Calvinists, and liberal scholars who reject the immutability and impassibility of God. DJ did explain to me via email, "My cited sources are deliberately eclectic, which of course doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they teach theologically." Nonetheless, DJ cited many heretics favorably and appeared to agree with many of the heresies they promoted. As an example, DJ cited many heretics who reject divine impassibility, and affirm passibility. In an email exchange with DJ, he explained, "As you'll see from my quotes by Ryan Mullins etc. I cannot in all conscience go along with the idea of impassibilism, so hopefully that's answered question. I know for you that entails 'God's nature changing', whereas I see this far less radically, based on the biblical texts."

Biblically, impassibility means God is not a composite being, and creatures cannot cause the One True God to act emotively because the Creator is unchangeable and of Himself, not deriving anything from His creation. Denying this gospel truth and orthodox view of theology proper is equivalent to saying that sinful creatures can move or cause the Supreme Deity to act and undergo changes, thus denying immutability.

DJ is also a radical inclusivist who will cite anyone in an act of desperation to discredit some of the content found in AD. For example, DJ took issue with AD's claim that Christ's "teachings on Hell surpassed His testimony on Heaven." As a result, he turned to a few internet articles to dispute the claim. DJ stated, "Elliott has crunched all the numbers," and "This is further confirmed by D. Wilkinson." Well, Elliot, according to the Kenneth Hagin Ministries website, is listed as an affiliate of this Word of Faith heretical group. And D. Wilkinson is a promoter of the 'gay Christian’ movement who believes LBGT people can revitalize Christianity and is a supporter of Planned Parenthood. At this point, one might wonder if DJ will one day consult with tarot card readers or psychics to see if their stance on Hell differs from mine so he can find more citations for his supposed rebuttals of ECT. 

Ideologically driven

One may begin by asking a simple question. Who is it that is ideologically driven?

DJ draws on the quips of Carl Sagan to further malign AD, due to supposed lack of evidence. And all that because AD’s stance on Hell, per DJ, is nothing more than “a ‘given’ in his Calvinist theology ideology, via his outspokenly staunch Weltanschauung, like it or not.” 

Then in a sentence that might have ended this “review,” DJ, again, by the pen of a one that must needs be a pluralist of sorts, says categorically that “there is no infallibility in theology.” And what is more, this phrase is cited again about twelve or so lines later when Mr. Pluralist’s quote ends. DJ may as well rest his case.

The problem is that about every criticism found in these pages can be turned on DJ himself and his article or “review.” The glaring mistake by DJ is that he ignores the fact that God’s Word cannot be classified among the various views of theological speculation that are necessarily fallible, but it is God’s revelation, and as such, it is absolutely infallible and inerrant.

Natural fallen men, and that includes multitudes of professing Christians, are driven by emotional and sentimental views of God’s love that they cannot square with Hell in its traditional clarity. So, we can expect the world, and cultists to squeam at the Biblical portrayal of the Forever Fiery Fate of the reprobate, but we should raise an eyebrow when professing “Christians” are the front-runners in denying what the Bible so clearly teaches.

And thereby these squeamish people have produced ingenious and innovative interpretations to take the eternal sting out of Hell and replace it with a dream of non-existence. One wonders, what is really behind this movement? An ideology is driving it. Mr. DJ seems “hell-bent” on re-defining Hell. He appears to spend all of his energies on just such a pursuit. Call it an agenda or an axe to grind, or whatever one wishes. It is crystal clear to anyone that even takes a superficial look at the website hosting this article/review of AD.

What has escaped DJ is that with the aforementioned position that he avows, he must have an infallible perspective on the “fallible theology,” else how can he be so blatant. Moreover, if this outlook by the quoted authority on “fallible theology,” is susceptible to the same criteria, then why listen to him?

This is a paradoxical pickle from which DJ and his quoted ‘friends,’ let us say, are just as restricted by the supposed axiom. Wow! We all might as well be quiet.

But the command of Scripture remains “Disciple the Nations,” “Teach them everything that I [Jesus] have taught you.” We have no recourse but to proclaim that Scripture can only be interpreted correctly by Scripture and those “taught by God,” are urged to shout out to the Nations, “Our God Reigns.”

His coming judgment is sure. And as one theological spokesperson put it, “he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:11b-12).

Why is it that when AD cites supporting evidence, it is quoting untrustworthy folks but when DJ cites someone that it is considered the end of the matter? But ‘deaf ears’ can be found in any “camp” I suppose.

What should alert Christians at this point, is that DJ to bolster his weak position must resort to sources that do away with Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This itself is a major breach. Red Flag!!! Wow. This is quite stunning. Any staple of the faith is up for grabs and if one so desires, and we can scour the earth to find someone, somewhere, and somehow that will validate our cherished heresy.

Remember, Jesus warned that it would have been better that they had never been born than to face the coming wrath: “And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:23-24, emphasis added). This silliness about the continuation of the reprobate in an unending conscious torment is somehow still a “goodness” of existence is a sham. So, Jesus clearly refutes their hope of “Non-Existence.”

This review of AD is a clear example of the ideologically driven passion, which is simply heretical. Passion and sincerity are welcome, but they only truly count and contribute to a cause in the defense of the truth. When one eloquently exposits the details of a thought one merely hopes is true, doesn’t absolve that idea from ranking among the wishful thinking of a host of misled and misleading folks. So, it does not matter how many heretics are amassed to shout from the housetops, God’s Word stands true. Hell is as our Lord taught, eternal, conscious, torment of the reprobate, and this to the glory of the True, Living, Triune God. Anything less is simply wishful thinking.

Scriptures

Also, DJ suggests “grasping at straws, insufficient evidence, non-credible sources,” and other remarks are supposed to dispel any weight given to rebuttal of Annihilationism in the book, AD. Let us look at DJ’s handling of Scripture and the theological notions he utilizes to substantiate his revision of Hell.

1 John 4

In 1 John 4, the Apostle urges believers to “test the spirits” the passage reads: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Here is the original: “Ἀγαπητοί, μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον.”

From citing this text, DJ wants us to follow the advice of one Chrnalogar, who suggests that we have multiple voices to sound out wisdom that comes from other churches, etc. DJ says that this is praiseworthy. However, the passage says “test” to see “if they are from God.” There must be a standard that God stands by and that is accessible to the believer so that by that absolute standard one can “try the spirits,” to see if they are true to the standard. Of course, the standard is God’s Word that the Bereans were sure to use to “test” Paul’s preaching. The idea of amassing counselors as evidenced by DJ and his approach reads “test the spirits” as “count the spirits.” This mishandling of a passage shows up repeatedly in this work. DJ is “grasping at straws” here.

Matthew 25

In Matthew 25:41, the passage about eternal Hell, which reads: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” is cited by DJ, not to show the everlasting nature of Hell, but to suggest that if this were the case then Hell would be eternal like God. Furthermore, because Hell was prepared, says the passage, for the devil and his angels, DJ surmises that this would require the devil and his angels to be eternal like God. What foolishness is this? Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels [DJ says, “his hordes”] is in the original: “τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύμων· πορεύεσθε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ οἱ κατηραμένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.” The expression ‘devil and his angels’ can be the devil and his ‘messengers’ whether spirits or humans. Again, this is not advocating that if Hell is everlasting that it requires humans and angelic beings, indeed the devil himself, as being eternal like God. Only God is from everlasting to everlasting [Psalm 90]. So, the argument simply does not follow from the premise. However, ECT advocates have made the equal claim that just as eternal punishment is everlasting, so is eternal life. CI and annihilationist proponents agree that this is eternal, that is, it will not end. Why then, do they not also claim that the beneficiaries of eternal life cannot be unending as that would require that they be eternal like God? Straws, again. Of course, God had no beginning. No one is as God in that manner as everything else is finite, but what God creates may have the property of avei eternity or avieternity, an everlasting condition. Both Spirits and resurrected humans will thereby continue to exist forever. And that by God’s design.

John 3:16

On the familiar John 3:16, DJ cites N. T. Wright, known for his aberrant stand on the wrath of God, as an authority to question the Penal Substitutionary Atonement [PSA] as not even being in the Bible. Comically, DJ avers in the words of Wright, that John 3:16 does not say “He hated the World and Killed His Son.” As if this is what it amounts to if one holds to the penal atonement.

Doctrine

Atonement

Moreover, God has declared unequivocally to turning His Son to death as a punishment in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which says,

13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (emphasis added).

Here we have a clear picture of substitution, not merely representation. One may die on behalf of another and yet not be their substitute. Christ here is spoken of as the One who died in the stead and room of His elect. The passage is definitive: the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the penal nature of this transaction is clear. The following depicts the punishment meted out by God the Father. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Substitution and satisfaction in one depiction. Also notice at the end that the Suffering Servant, poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. That both the death and resurrection are crucial components of the ministry of Christ as High Priest. DJ, elsewhere de-values the resurrection of Jesus and puts the focus on the physical death of Christ. We need both. He intercedes for those he died for, that is the brethren, the sheep, the elect, the church, as Hebrews 7:25 reminds us: “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”

Propitiation

Also, the idea of God’s wrath being satisfied by the death of Christ is found in passages that speak of the death of Christ as ilasmos. Here are examples: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 , Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Romans 3:21-26); “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2); “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10, emphasis added to citations.)” The notion of propitiating is satisfying wrath. The extensive work done by Leon Morris is, without doubt, the classic statement on the subject. See, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3d. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965 [1955]). How can DJ quip, penal substitution is not in the Bible? It is the heart of redemption. So, Mr. DJ, it was not “John Calvin [that] modified the idea to suggest that a righteous God would have wrath toward sinful humanity and so Jesus satisfied God’s wrath. From this came many of our songs and teachings that emphasized the cross as satisfaction of God’s wrath. But the idea is not in the Bible . . .” (emphasis added). These attacks are simply cheap tricks utilizing quotes from questionable resources to confuse the unwary. Propitiation, that is, the satisfying of God’s wrath by Jesus’s death on the cross for the elect is the simple truth of the Gospel.

Christology and Anthropology

This leads to a subsequent Christological concern that derives from DJ’s understanding of the death of Jesus. The problem is accentuated as DJ is a physicalist. In other words, he does not believe in the human constitution as body [matter] and soul/spirit [non-matter]. Rather, DJ affirms that we are a “soul” and that our humanity is expressed in our physical existence alone. The problem here is first anthropological. Christ showed that men are compounded beings with body AND soul. No doubt the Hebrew word, nephesh, and the Greek term psyche, can sometimes depict the life of an individual. However, only context determines the meaning in each instance. In Matthew 10:28, Christ said: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” A clear distinction is evident here. The body is one thing, but the body and soul, is another. Christ is highlighting the difference between mere physical death, someone kills you and your body and soul separate. However, in a different kind of death, both body and soul can be punished in God’s wrath. God is the One that we should fear. This anthropology is demonstrated in several ways. When Jairus’s daughter was reanimated/resuscitated Luke tells us “And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. 56 And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done (Luke 8:55-56, emphasis added). When Jesus spoke of His body as a temple, He said: “But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). The temple “houses” something. What is it that the temple of His body contains, shall we ask? Paul spoke similarly of both the material and immaterial constitution of man. He says: “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:20). In a telling and interesting manner, Paul speaks cryptically about his own experience. He says, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. . . And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) . . . (2 Corinthians 12:2-3.) Again, in the second epistle to the Corinthians Paul adds: “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord . . . We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6, 8, emphasis added). Only man with a body and a soul that are separated at physical death can speak this way. The Person is absent from his body, and present with the Lord. What is this that is with the Lord? Surely not the body as it will sleep in the grave until the last day when all will be raised and their bodies will be re-united with their spirits and stand to be judged. But DJ laughs at the notion of the body sleeping. DJ ridicules it. However, we read in Matthew 27:52: “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,” Also, Jesus equated sleep with death in the matter of Lazarus. Yes, Mr. DJ, man is a dual being. The body sleeps at physical death, and the spirit or soul returns to God. The Preacher notes, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7,) if one is a believer. Otherwise, one’s soul goes to Hades and awaits the reconstitution of the person into his bodily existence at the resurrection of the dead.

Jesus’s Death

The second Christological question is in line with this issue. What happened to Jesus when He died? If the physical monist position is true, and Jesus does not have a spiritual component to His humanity that survives physical death, then Jesus must have been annihilated at death. If so, how is he brought back? If he was not annihilated, then death is not what CI claims. Of course, we have not yet introduced the difficulty in the constitution of Jesus as God incarnate. This also makes it difficult to explain what happens to ordinary men at death. Once they are dead and utterly vanish is that their annihilation? Is there no being with Christ after physical death for the believer? But back to Jesus. The reality of His physical death is assured by the New Testament Dr. Barbet many years ago undertook a historical examination of the depiction and concluded that Jesus truly physically died [see Dr. Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ As Described By A Surgeon, trans. The Earl of Warwick (Muriwai Books, 2017 [1953].)] When His body was in the tomb, he was not merely unconscious or swooned, or simply under torpor. This much we can affirm. However, Jesus also told the thief on the cross that he would be with Christ on that very day in paradise. Small comfort if that meant nothing more than that their corpses would be together, and of course, they were not. But as Jesus declared: “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:24). What else can it be than that even though Christ’s death was real, the death constituted a separation of soul from body, and that Jesus also in His separated soul would join with the thief’s departed soul in a blissful place? Furthermore, before Jesus died He plainly stated that none would compel Him to death, but that He was a volunteer and that He would be the Agent in his own resurrection. Jesus says, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17-18). What is stunning about DJ’s view of the death of Christ is that he thinks it results in a dissolution of the Triune Godhead. By his own admission, DJ says,

Hernandez next decries Fudge’s sub-head “Jesus’ Death Involved Total Destruction” (i.e. Christ, in full, died a totalizing death) to assert: “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.” (42-3) This is a vexed area of theology & Christology, not least as the paradox of ‘Jesus died, yet God cannot die (Hab.1:12; Ps.118:17; 1 Tim.6:16)’ raises intractable issues of who Jesus is & how we interpret ‘death’. On Christ’s continued existence during the so called triduum (Good Friday to Easter Sunday), a commitment to His Deity will echo Hernandez’s conclusion, due to creedal orthodoxy & fears of a so-called ‘Binity’, which is quite understandable (emphasis added).

No doubt, understandable! What are you suggesting by following Fudge? Are you depicting that for the duration of Christ’s physical death that Jesus is “nowhere?’ You quote the following words from Lewis and Charlton respectively:

“So Christ himself did not – despite centuries of popular theological and homiletical deceit – survive the grave! He succumbed to death and was swallowed by the grave – his Sabbath rest in the sepulcher a dramatized instance that his termination was realistic and complete, a proper subject of grief and valediction. This was departure – painful, ugly, uncurtailed; no docetic illusion, no serene transcendence of the spirit high-floating over purely physical distress, no momentary, insignificant hiccup in Christ’s unstoppable surge to glory. God’s victory over death, as the Christian gospel tells it, is not a matter of smooth, ensured survival but a new existence after nonsurvival.”

Not forgetting Charlton’s searching question about Christ’s death:

“One awkwardness is obvious. If the soul is naturally immortal, it cannot be said that Christ saves us from death; his saving work is limited to delivering us from sin and Hell. But even more disturbing, if souls cannot die, and the Crucifixion merely separated Christ’s immortal soul from his body, the doctrine of his death takes on a different complexion: can he really be said to have died at all?” (bold emphasis added)

These notions are wrongheaded because they adhere with precommitments to mere physicalism. Problems already noted above have shown how Jesus’s death is explained upon a sound anthropology. If dualism is the true understanding of humans, and death means a separation of the soul and the body, then all this false dichotomizing goes away. To be bold in saying that what Christ said to the thief on the cross is tantamount to “not having died at all,” is to misunderstand the central point of the redemptive work of Christ and to misplace the obvious ramification of what happens to reprobate men after the resurrection from the dead, when the soul is re-united with the body. By smuggling in a clever play on words that “Jesus experienced ‘non-life’ not necessarily ‘non-existence.’ Yet in the same comment, DJ ties himself in knots by alleging “Given that Jesus’ life was ‘extinguished’ for the best part of 3 days, then restored by the Father, this more than satisfies the biblical data without fathoming the subtleties of the Lord’s existential condition at that time. What is apparent is that He did not consciously ‘go’ anywhere . . . (bold in original).” Fathoming the Lord’s existential existence, and moreover, the subtleties of such an existential existence? What is DJ trying to do here? To avoid the obvious. The statement that “Christ never went anywhere” is a blatant disregard of Christ’s clear and reassuring word to the thief. All of this, smacks of a kenotic Christology and of an unstable Trinity. It appears that DJ celebrates such heresy.

Theology Proper

On the Godhead, DJ is driven by the belief in a mutable and passible God. That a misunderstanding of the nature of God’s revelation and a failure to distinguish narrative depiction from dogmatic assertion underlies these foolish statements from Peckham that DJ endorses. First, “‘divine impassibility’ is a classical theism concept that has little or no Scriptural [emphasis in the original] support, as Peckham remarks: “The situation relative to biblical support, then, is this: we have no passages that indicate divine impassibility and we have an abundance of passages that ‘speak of God as undergoing affective changes.’” Then again, Peckham’s words are offered: “While God is immutable or changeless in significant respects – for example, as utterly righteous his character does not change (Deut.32:4; 1 Jn.1:5), as omnipotent his power cannot grow (Jer.32:17; Rev.19:6), and his promises are unbreakable (Heb.6:18‑20)  –  no biblical text asserts the kind of strong immutability that would render God as necessarily impervious to being affected by creaturely actions. Indeed, most impassibilists concede that Scripture does portray God as possessing passible emotions” (emphasis added). The last statement can be dismissed. It does not matter what many, or most, folks concede. What matters is “what did God intend with His Holy Word.” Here the need for care is unmistakable. The use of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic language gives telling insight. As does the anthropopathic and zoopathic language of the Bible do the same. What is at issue here is the purpose of a given text. What genre, and particularly, what it teaches about God or God’s acts in conformity to the whole of Scripture’s portrayal of the Divine. There are didactic portions of Scripture that are found in varying contexts. These passages intend to teach something about the nature of God. For example, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?” (Numbers 23:19) and “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Samuel 15:29). Also, in regards to the promise about Christ: “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4); and once more: “For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it” (Jeremiah 4:28). Job’s declaration: “But he is in one mind, and who can turn him?” (Job 23:13). Malachi says, “But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. 4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years. 5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts. 6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 3:2-6). In the New Testament there is a revealing section from Luke in Acts about the way Paul responded to those that wished to honor him and Barnabas as gods. Luke records: “Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. 14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, 15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein . . .” (Acts 14:13-15, emphasis added). This is particularly important. He shows that he is a man with like passion and is therefore not a god. Next, Paul enjoins them to worship the True Living God that is the Creator. He is not of like-passions. James adds: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Paul put it another way by asking the rhetorical questions: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?” (Romans 11:33-35). God is in need of nothing. He is dependent on no-one. He is not moved to respond. His decree is everlasting. Indeed, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Romans 11:36). All of these passages are didactic portions that are to give us an understanding of what it is to be God. In Isaiah, we have another type of argument:

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity (Isaiah 40:12-17).

Clearly, the nations that are less than nothing are not His counselors, nor have they influenced Him, nor hath they directed His Spirit. Again, Isaiah says,

Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. 23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. 24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you. 25 I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name: and he shall come upon princes as upon morter, and as the potter treadeth clay. 26 Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words. 27 The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them: and I will give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings. 28 For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. 29 Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion (Isaiah 41-29).

And again,

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. 12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. 13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? (Isaiah 43:10-13).

And more,

Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Isaiah 46:8-10).

God plans and God executes. His will is being accomplished. He needs no-one to counsel Him. He is the Sole reason for His Will. He will do all His pleasure. This is not a mutable and passible God.

Many people ask why there are verses that show God relenting, redirecting, changing His actions, and various other examples. The main question we must face is this. Do we have a contradiction in Scripture? If so, then we may as well all pack up and go home. This will be a death blow to Christianity. But these texts must be examined in context and given an interpretation such as the one evident in AD. What we have is language that depicts God changing His actions, or that there were implicit conditions in His initial proclamation, as with Jonah, for example. What we cannot accept is that these instances of God’s depictions with human and animal characteristics overturn the didactic portions about God’s inherent immutability and impassibility, else we are back at a contradiction from which we cannot escape. Those advocating passibilism prove too much. For example, in Genesis we encounter God asking questions, walking in the garden, coming down to examine matters to see if they are so, etc. What must we conclude from these texts? That God is not omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent? Of course not. Unless the desire is to replace the God of the Bible with a process idea or an openness view of God. DJ apparently welcomes this.

Conclusion

Today, many Evangelicals do not want to engage in polemics. They want to be seen as “nice guys.” But as a historian once said, “the church needs more than nice guys.” While others want to welcome folks like DJ to the table, AD wants to overturn tables. While others want to discuss theology, AD wants to declare truth. Where many want to be politically relevant, AD wants to be prophetically realistic. And in standing for the truth of Scripture as presenting Hell as ECT, Christians may find that people like DJ will attempt to malign and misrepresent. They did so to our Lord, should we expect anything less?