challenging the theologians

8/7/2019 Challenging the Theologians

1/22

Intro:

Earlier in January I engaged the pastor of the church I attend in an email exchange

regarding statements he made during some recent sermons. I challenged him on some

basic traditional doctrines such as the Trinity and eternal torment in Hell. In his

response he sent some links to articles, (excellent resources he called them) that wereintended to straighten out my theology. I read most of his linked material and two

articles in particular prompted a response. The first was a defense of the Trinity by

theologian J.I. Packer. The article was an excerpt from Packers Concise Theology

and can be found at this link:http://www.monergism.com/Trinity.html

The second was from a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; James

Hamilton, Jr., called How Does Hell Glorify God? and can be found here:

http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/how-does-hell-glorify-god

Below is my rebuttal to these theologians and the orthodox traditions of Christendom:

January 30, 2011

Dear Todd,

Ive had a chance to read through most of the material you sent links for. Nothing I read was very

convincing, some was nonsensical and one article in particular was downright blasphemous. To

adequately refute this material would take quite a bit of writing which I dont have the time for andyoud probably not read anyway. Therefore, Ill comment on few points from two articles in particular

and try to keep it relatively short. Chances are, since I dont have the letters M.Div. or Th.D after my

name, even if you do read this, youll give no consideration to the validity of anything I say. It seems to

me that if youre not in the club of professional theologians and pastors youre regarded as incapable

of understanding the deeper truths of Gods word. I dont have a problem with such an attitude if the

professionals are correct. But when the professionals say things that clearly contradict scripture

then they ought to take a moment to ask themselves what is more important; adherence to doctrines

or faithfulness to the word of God? And they ought to be willing to listen to another point of view

without immediately dismissing it because its not conventional.

Maybe sometimes the professionals should throw out all their theological, hermeneutical, exegetical,

contextual gobbledygook and just read the scriptures for what they say. I truly believe after reading

these articles that doctrine is more an idol of the heart than a reflection of the truths of scripture

because in some cases I just cant figure out how anyone carefully reading, studying and rightly

dividing the scriptures can honestly come up any such ideas. If I cant prove my points from scripture,

then you can label me a heretic if you choose. But if I can find evidence that these beloved doctrines

contradict scripture then what I say should be considered just as valid as any you would read from some

formally trained expert. The only source that really matters is the word of God. But, since Im by no


2/22

means the first person to point these things out I have no doubt that nothing I say, or anything I point

out in the scriptures, will mean a thing. Idols are hard to overcome. It should be noted that Jesus did not

choose His apostles from the religious elites but, rather, revealed Himself to the common man. I think I

understand why He did it that way.

Part 1 - Trinity

First, far be it from me to claim any expertise on the level of J.I. Packer. I certainly am aware of the fact

that he is considered one of the great minds of Evangelical Christian theology. So I understand going in

that trying to refute Packer is a daunting task for a nonprofessional. But some of what Packer says in

this article Trinity, an excerpt from Concise Theologyis frankly, with all due respect, absurd.

He begins this article with these words: The Old Testament constantly insists that there is only one

God

Now, if thats the case (and I agree), then it seems to me we should begin our understanding of God

from that perspective; ONE God. Its exactly what Paul tells us in 1st

Corinthians 8:6 and 1st

Timothy 2:5.

Its exactly what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:17/Mark 10:18/Luke 18:19 and Mark 12:29. Its exactly

what every Jew in the first century would have believed. But rather than stopping there and believing

this very basic truth, that he admits scripture constantly insistsis the truth, he is determined to

disprove this truth. I find that astounding.

Packer sees very clearly that the Old Testament insists there is ONE God, but does he not see the many

times the Old Testament refers to the Spirit of God? You dont have to read very far into the Bible to

find this as its mentioned in the SECOND verse of Genesis! Genesis 1:2 -And the Spirit of Godmoved

upon the face of the waters. Was this the Holy Spirit, a different PERSON than God (Elohim) Himself,

or simply the spirit of the ONE true God, the Father? Well, lets not guess. What does scripture say?

The spirit OFElohim Heres what Elohim means from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives

no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of

Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the

higher spiritual beings" (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or

of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h).

The Ethiopic plural amlakhas become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an

analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (Ueber einige phon. Inschr., 1889, p. 17sqq.), and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilanireplaces the

singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892,

pp. cxcvi-cxcix).

And from Wikipedia:

In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular.

Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our

image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians


3/22

traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to

the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we")

So we have evidence that Elohim means the one, singular God, not three. Packer even says its this ONE

God, Elohim, who is the self-revealed creator. So how can Dr. Packer say that the Old Testament

INSISTS on ONE God, the creator, and that its not until the New Testament where we find scripture

speaking ofthree personal agents, Father, Son and Holy Spiritwhen right there in verse TWO of the

Bible we have evidence that the spirit of the ONE God, the creator, (who IS spirit and who is most

certainly holy) moved across the face of the waters? Furthermore, we have numerous statements of

Old Testament scripture testifying to various individuals having the spirit of God upon them. Yet

somehow this spirit of God which is doing all kinds of things in the Old Testament, an Old Testament

that insists there is only ONE God, which doesnt talk about three agents is to be regarded as a

different spirit of God than the one spoken of in the New Testament? (Which also does not speak of

three agents.) Or the other way around, the spirit of God in the New Testament is a different spirit of

God than the one in the Old Testament? Am I missing something? I know you would insist that this

spirit is the PERSON of the Holy Spirit wherever it shows up, but no Jew believed that...ever; andtherefore the writer of these verses would not have meant that. And no scripture in the Old Testament

would support the notion that the spirit of Elohimis aperson different than the ONE Elohim.

Furthermore, Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that it was through CHRIST, the Son of God (1:3), (not the

coequal God) that ALL was created. It was not through the person of the Holy Spirit. So to Christians, the

spiritof Elohim is in unity with Christ.

For by Him [Christ] allthings were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible,

whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--allthings have been created through Him and

for Him.

Theres absolutely no logical or legitimate reason to apply a third personhood to the spirit of Elohim.

Then Packer concludes his opening paragraph with this gem:

The historic formulation of the Trinity (derived from the Latin word trinitas, meaning threeness) seeks

to circumscribe and safeguard this mystery (not explain it; that is beyond us), and it confronts us with

perhaps the most difficult thought that the human mind has ever been asked to handle. It is not easy; but

it is true.

Wait a minute. Let me translate for those of us who didnt go to theological seminary: The forming, or

inventing, of the Trinity so many centuries ago was to l imit and protect this mystery, (note: not truth,but mystery) but not explain it because theres no way to explain it. In fact, were not able to explain it

at all. And furthermore, even if we could explain it, the whole idea is so difficult (that its perhaps the

most difficult thought that the human mind as ever been asked to handle) you couldnt understand it

even if we couldexplain it. YET, though its a mystery and we cannot explain it or understand it, and,

(as he points out later) even the technical language of historic trinitarianism is not found there

[referring to the New Testament] even though all these obstacles stand in our waywe still know it is

true.


4/22

How can we KNOWit is true if admittedly its a mystery, we cant explain it, we cant understand it

and we cant find any technical language in support of it in the New Testament? And the Old

Testament constantly insists there is only one God????

The only way we KNOW that it is true is if we stubbornly insist is HAS to be true in order to

circumscribe and safeguardthe historical doctrine. In other words, its mans fifth century doctrinesthat matter, not scripture. Paul explained it very simply. ONE God, ONE Lord, yet thats not good

enough. We need to protect a mystery. (And after 1,600 years we also need to protect our integrity.)

In paragraph two he talks about Jesus promise to send another Paraclete. But theres no need to insist

this paraclete is anything other than the spirit of God; not a person, but the same spirit of God

talked about in the Old Testament. In fact, these very verses recording the words of Jesus seem to

contradict the notion of a separate person. In John 14:16 Jesus says He will ask the Father and He will

send you another parakltos or comforter (KJV) or helper (NASB) or consoler (Concordant Literal

Translation) or advocate(Emphasized Bible and Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech). And

who IS our advocate (parakltos), by the way? Why its Jesus Himself. (1 John 2:1) The same Greek word

both places.

Furthermore, John 15 describes this different helper as the spirit of truth, proceeding from the

FATHER, not an agent or Spirit God who is a person. In fact, though most translations refer to this

spirit of truth as a He, theres nothing in the Greek that would require assigning masculine personality

to this spirit. It would be just as correct to say it, as some translations do.

If thats not enough, we only have to read the previous chapter to find that the deep, dark,

unexplainable mysteryis clearly explained for all who have eyes to see!!

that is the Spirit of truth, whom the wor

ld cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know

Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and willbe in you. (John 14:17)

First, take out the Trinity inspired capital S and all the He and Him because theyre not scripture.

Rather lets render it the way the Concordant Literal Translation renders it:

the spirit of truth, which the world cannot get, for it is not beholding it, neither is knowing it. Yet you

know it, for it is remaining with you and willbe in you."

Why does Jesus say it is remaining with you and will be IN you? Simple; because we now KNOW IT.

How do we know it? Because by Jesus breaking the veil of separation caused by sin, and because if we

believe, love and have obedient trust in Jesus, He and the Father through the spirit can make theirabode IN US. (John 14:23) In the Old Testament God poured out His spirit upon who He chose to make

possible the fulfillment of His purposes. Now God gives His spirit through Christ to those who KNOW

HIM and itabides in us always to make possible our unity with Christ and our spiritual conversion to the

image of Christ.

So who or what is this spirit abiding in us?


5/22

"I willnotleave you as orphans; I willcome to you. After a little while the world willno longer see Me,

but you willsee Me; because Ilive, you willlive also. In that day you willknow that I am in MyFather,

and you in Me, and I in you.(John 14:18-20)

Who is the Spirit ofTruth?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life(John 14:6)

There it is! So simple a child could understand if you just read the words that are written. Yet a

theologian like J.I. Packer says its maybe the most difficult thing for the human mind to comprehend

ever. Wow. Really? The scriptures say very clearly, the spirit OF God is the spirit OF Christ Himself who

is in the Father and who now abides IN us! On Earth Jesus was WITH us. Now His spirit, the spirit of the

living God, is IN us. If you want a perfect trinity, there it is: God, Christ, Mankind! The family of God.

(Heb. 2:11) Mystery solved!

Moving on to paragraph three Im stuck by statements that simply make no sense. Packer claims So

Christ prescribed baptism in the name (singular: one God, one name) of the Father and of the Son andof the Holy Spiritthe three persons who are the one God to whom Christians commit themselves

(Matt. 28:19). So we meet the three persons in the account of Jesus own baptism: the Father

acknowledged the Son, and the Spirit showed his presence in the Sons life and ministry

Oh really? This says nothing about three PERSONS! And furthermore, how does he choose this verse to

prove that God is a three-in-one trinity? I DONT KNOW! It certainly doesnt say that these three form

ONE GOD. Or that these three are coequal with one another. They are just all three mentioned in one

verse, thats all. The mention of the "holy spirit" in these verses no more proves that the holy spirit is

the third God part of a trinity than the mention of "the Comforter" in John 15:26 proves that it is the

fourth God part of a quartet, or the mention of "the spirit of Truth" in this same verse in the fifth Godpart of a quintet!

But theres even more to say about Packers assertion that Jesus prescribing baptism in the name of the

Father, Son and Holy Spirit proves a Trinity - This verse (Matthew 28:19) is not scripture and the

apostles never followed this instruction! Here are some comments from various authoritative sources

that Dr. Packer must be unfamiliar with:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son,

and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

-The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263

"Matthew 28:19...its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary

criticism and historical criticism...this triune formula is a later addition."

-The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics

"It is often affirmed that the words 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Ghost' are not the exact words of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

-The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275


6/22

"...in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

-Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295

"...the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..."

-The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge page 435.

"It may be that this formula, (Matthew 28:19) ...is a reflection of the (Man-made)

liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered

that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus"(only)..."

-The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work

"Matthew 28:19...is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is

foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

-The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism"

"Matthew 28:19 - Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it

represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of

the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

-New Revised Standard Version

May I now ask you a question? Is Dr. Packer unfamiliar with this information or is he purposefully being

deceitful by hoping the average church-going Christian doesnt know anything about this? And

furthermore, what are we supposed to do with this information? Ignore it? How many at COS know

that one of the essential doctrines of their faith was INVENTED by the Catholic Church and inserted

into their Bibles? How many know that every time theres a baptism using the words In the name ofthe Father, Son and Holy Ghost we are mimicking medieval Roman Catholicism rather than the

apostles? Id say probably none because weve been deceived and blinded by the likes of J.I. Packer and

1,600 years of tradition. I also doubt youll share this information with the congregation anytime soon.

Im actually quite surprised at the inaccuracy of J.I. Packer when you examine his piece closely. But

theres even more. I will briefly point out three other blatant falsehoods of Packers excerpt.

He says, So we read the Trinitarian blessing of 2 Corinthians 13:14, and the prayer for grace and peace

from the Father, the Spirit, and Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:4-5 (would John have put the Spirit between

the Father and the Son if he had not regarded the Spirit as divine in the same sense as they are?).

What Trinitarian blessing is he imagining? In 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul simply relates how we interact

with God! We have the GRACE of the Lord Jesus upon us, also the assurance of the LOVE of God the

Father and we commune with our God THROUGH HIS SPIRIT LIVING IN US! The Spirit of God through

Christ is how we unite with God, it just that simple. Is there another way to be united with God? Paul

doesnt say theres a Spirit PERSON, he says our COMMUNION [i.e. relationship, unity] with God and

Christ is through the SPIRITUAL, the SPIRIT. Exactly what Jesus told the apostles; is it not? No one

comes to the Father but through me.Right?


7/22

Next, where does Packer imagine that Revelation 1:4-5 is a prayer for grace and peace from the Father,

the Spirit, and Jesus Christ? Can he not read the verse?

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was

and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne

The SEVEN Spirits? So are we to conclude that the Holy Spirit is actually SEVEN persons?!!!! What??

Hes now making stuff up! Is there a theologian anywhere who would say the seven spirits are the

ONE Holy Spirit person? Well, yes, I guess there is; the highly esteemed J.I. Packer.

Heres more stuff hes making up: The three personal subsistences (as they are called) are coequal

and coeternal

The three personal SUBSISTENCES as they are CALLED? Where are they called subsistences and

where are they called three of anything? And where are they calledcoequal? Where? Nowhere,

thats where. Well.correction; only in seminaries where theologians decide to call them that. But

thats the only place. No one reading the Bible for the first time would come up with that. But of course,anyone who denies all of Packers nonexistent truth would be guilty of twisting scripture.

Finally, the most outrageous statement of all is his final sentence. Its almost inconceivable that one

would say such thing, but he does.

All non-Trinitarian formulations of the Christian message are by biblical standards inadequate and

indeed fundamentally false, and will naturally tend to pull Christian lives out of shape.

Nonsense. First of all, its Packers Trinitarian formulationsthat are by biblical standards inadequate

and indeed fundamentally false. Only a fool believes one + one + one = one. (Or in Packers case, SEVEN

equals one) Only someone devoted more to the formulations than the scriptures cant see that.Secondly, what truly pulls Christian lives out of shape more than anything is these kinds of false

doctrines of the church and these kinds of ludicrous teachings coming from theologians (supposedly one

of the best even) that cause people to believe things that are not true while convincing them that their

God is a mystery too hard for anyone to understand. Jesus said continuing is His word will teach you

the truth and that the truth sets you free. He also said the true worshiper worships in spirit and intruth.

If were not familiar with the truth of scripture, or we deny the truth of scripture, then these wrong or

misguided conceptions of God, His ways and His purposes will have us wandering in the dark and

separated from His spirit because we dont truly KNOW Him. When we dont know the truth and, as a

result, we dont worship in truth, then were not true worshipers and thats how our lives get pulled out

of shape.

To convince me that the Trinity is both true and essential to Christian faith youll have to do better than

J.I. Packer.

Now, to finish this, let me ask you some questions and see if you have any answers that make sense and

can be supported with scripture.


8/22

1) I already asked you, and got no response so Ill try again. How can we call Jesus the Son of the

Father (2 John 1:3) if He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, a separate person? Why does scripture not

refer to Jesus anywhere as the Son of the Holy Spirit? Can you answer that?

2) Likewise, I mentioned this and you have not answered. Why doesn't the Apostle Paul invoke the Holy

Spirit in the introduction to his epistles as he does the Father and the Son? This would seem ratheroffensive to the Holy Spirit if Paul understood he were a co-equal person. Its certainly a clear indication

Paul did not consider the Holy Spirit to be a person worth mentioning, isnt it?

3) Why is the Holy Spirit never depicted as sitting on or standing near the throne as are the Father and

the Son? (Acts 7:55,56; Col.3:1; and Rev.5:1-9; 7:10). We do not even see reference to an empty throne

for him.

4) 1 Cor.11:3 gives a hierarchy in which women, men, and Christ each have a head with God (Yahweh

the Father) being the uppermost in authority. Where is the Holy Spirit?

5) Eph.5:5 tells us the "kingdom" that believers shall inherit is "of Christ" and "of God." Why is theKingdom not of the Holy Spirit as well?

6) The Father and the Son converse with each other, but why don't they converse with the Holy Spirit?

After 1600+ years of this Trinitarian baloney youd think some theologian would be able to answer these

simple questions. If it was true, it would be simple. While in seminary do you all just put your hands

over your eyes and pretend such scriptures dont exist? Anyway, J.I. was unconvincing, so heres your

shot at providing an answer; Im listening.

Part 2 - Hell

Among the other links you sent was this article by James M. Hamilton, Jr. called How Does Hell Glorify

God? To be honest with you even the title of this article is offensive so I was not surprised to find that

this piece is nothing short of blasphemy, full of errors and downright lies. Another perfect example of

so-called theologians who apparently dont read their Bibles or, if they do, they despise most what

they read. I really get the feeling that the vast majority of pastors and theologians pay little attention to

allthe words of scripture because if they did pay attention to all the words, theyd not be able to make

the statements they make. That is, if they wish to be honest. Once again, I dont have to read very far

into it to find just such an example.

Hamilton begins his work with an introduction describing the Bible as Gods big story; a story with a

beginning, middle and end. No problem there. But the first words he writes under the heading

Beginning are proof that what hell say throughout the rest of his article is a lie. He says:

God creates a perfect place and puts an innocent man and woman in it. God sets the terms and clearly

states the consequence of transgressing his terms.


9/22

Yes, this is true. And being that its true, how does this guy then conclude that those who reject Gods

terms will be sent to Hell for all eternity? Right from the beginning God did indeed state the

consequences. And the consequence God stated is not eternity in Hell! Lets read the verses to discover

exactly what the consequence God stated is.

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; butfrom the tree of the knowledge of good and evilyou shallnot eat, for in the day that you eat from it

you willsurely die. (Gen 2:16-17)

The consequence is you will surely DIE. Where is any warning that you shall surely go to hell for all

eternity?

Interestingly, (and maybe you know this) the phrase you will surely dieis more properly rendered in

the indefinite tense. Several translations get this right. For example:

for in the day you eat from it, to dieshallyou be dying. (Concordant Literal Translation)

for in the day that thou eatest thereofin dying, thou shalt surely die.(ExeGeses Ready Research

Bible)

for in the day that you eat of it,dyingyou shalldie.(Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)

for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die. (Youngs Literal Translation)

Throughout the scriptures the penalty for disobeying Gods terms is DEATH. Not eternity in Hell. Paul

makes this abundantly clear in Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all

men, for that allhave sinned

And again in Romans 6:23:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternallife through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The reason I bring this up, besides the point that Hamilton is going to try to tell us that the wages of sin

is eternal torture in Hell, is because you and Church of the Saviour and nearly all of Christendom agrees

with this guy who is trying to tell the world that the consequences of sin is NOT death, but LIFE. That

some will have a great life in Heaven after they die but most others will experience a life of being burned

alive forever and ever. But in either case, nobody REALLYdies at all! NO, the church believes Satans lie

that you shall NOT surely die.Let me ask you; is there a scripture anywhere that says we live on past

death? Is there a scripture that says we are immortal? No there is not. Then why do you believe it? I

hate to say it but heres why vanity, pride and love for tradition more than love for the truth of Gods

word.

There are several scriptures that clearly state we DO NOT live on past death (Ps. 115:17; Ecc. 3:20; 1

Thes. 4:13-18 and on and on) and that we DONT have immortality. (Only Christ has immortality; 1 Tim.

6:16) Eternal life is a GIFT. We must be GIVEN it. We dont own it. We must PUT ON immortality. (1

Cor. 15:53, 54) When? At the RESURRECTION of THE DEAD. But Hamilton and the Christian church


10/22

despise those scriptures. They despise them and would rather believe Satans lie and pagan myths.

Hamilton is off track, ignoring the clear words in the text and inserting theology not there. And hes only

just started.

I could go on and write a book about how sick and evil and blasphemous this article is pointing out every

shameful and unscriptural statement, but since theres an abundance of such nonsense I will skip to hisconcluding summary points and comment on each of those.

Here are the reasons Hamilton says hell glorifies God:

I. It shows that he keeps his word

Is there a promise of God anywhere in scripture that states He will send people to hell for all eternity?

No. There is not. Theres no promise or threat of sending anyone to hell in the Old Testament other than

Psalm 9s statement of the wicked and nations that forget God returning to Sheol. In other words,

returning to the unseen. While there may be a few verses in our English translated New Testaments

that APPEAR to threaten the Christian hell, careful study and accurate translation will show they dontsay that at all. Certainly theres no PROMISE to send anyone to hell. This guy is supposed to be educated

in the scriptures so He should know that the books of the Bible were not written in English and that the

words we read in English are translations of words originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. He

should know none of the words translated hell carry the definition of the modern Christian hell. He

also ought to know that there is no word in both the Old and New Testaments that is defined by endless

time. Not one. Scholars tell us no such word existed in any language on earth at the time the scriptures

were written. Ill include a few quotes to confirm this, but I have dozens of sources that testify to this

truth:

Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament(Vol. I, p. 542, art. Christ and the Gospels): Eternity.

There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of

eternity. (Vol. III, p. 369): Eternal, everlastingnonetheless "eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as

it has come in the English to connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be practically a

synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an adequate rendering ofaionios which varies in

meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. (p. 370)

The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, (Vol. 4, p. 641), "The O.T. and the N.T. are not

acquainted with the concept of eternity as timelessness." Page 655: "The O.T. has not developed

a special term for eternity." Page 645: "The use of the word aion in the N.T. is determined verymuch by the O.T. and the LXX.Aion means long, distant, uninterrupted time. The intensifying

plural occurs frequently in the N.T. but it adds no new meaning."

ProfessorKnappe of Halle wrote, "The Hebrew was destitute of any single word to express

endless duration. The pure idea of eternity is NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THE ANCIENT

LANGUAGES." (Emphasis mine)


11/22

Hamilton is either shamefully ignorant of these facts or he is deliberately misleading the reader. But

more to the point, what are some of the promises God makes that Hamilton ignores, and why will God

not keep His word with regard to these?

"For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be ANNULLING the acts of theAdversary"(I Jn. 3:8).

... yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the REPUDIATION of sin through His

sacrifice, is He manifest"(Heb. 9:26).

"The last enemy is being abolished: DEATH"(I Cor. 15:27).

" ... that in the name ofJesus every knee should be bowing, celestial, and terrestrialand

subterranian, and every tongue should be acclaiming thatJesus Christ is Lord, for the g lory of

God, the Father"(Phil. 2:9-11).

"Now, whenever allmay be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shallbe subjected to

Him Who subjects allto Him, that God may be ALL IN ALL"(I Cor. 15:28).

These verses are not difficult to understand. The problem is that men don't want to believe them. All

these verses are Gods promises of what He will accomplish through Christ, for alland not just for

believers, and yet Hamilton either doesnt see it, or despises these clear declarations of Gods

intentions. If Hamilton is correct that God will keep His word, then what does he make of all these other

promises contained in Gods word? If one soul goes to "eternal torment" the following promises orwords would be broken:

1. He would break His promises to the fathers, Abraham and Isaac: "In your seed allthe nations of

the earth shallbe blessed."(Gen. 22:18; also see Gen. 26:4, ) There are thousands of nations

who either never heard the gospel or if they heard one, it was not Paul's gospel. Will all nations

be blessed or won't they? How?

2. He would break His Word to the families of the earth: "Allthe ends of the world shall

remember and turn to the Lord, and allthe families of the nations shallworship before you."

(Psalm 22:27) All families in worship?

3. He would break His Word to all flesh: "O, You Who hear prayer, to you allflesh willcome.

Iniquities prevailagainst me; as for our transgressions, you willprovide atonement for them."

(Psalm 65:2-4) All flesh?

4. He would break His Word to His enemies: "How awesome are your works!Through the

greatness of your power your enemies shallsubmit themselves to you. Allthe earth shall

worship you and sing praises to you."(Psalm 66:3,4) Will they sing praises and worship in

"hell?" All enemies will submit?


12/22

5. His mercy would have to end for some: "This I recallto my mind, therefore I have hope.

Through the Lord's mercies we are not consumed, because His compassions failnot. They are

new every morning."(Lam. 3:21-24)

6. This scripture would make Him a liar: "For the Lord willnot cast off forever. Though He causes

grief, yet He willshow compassion according to the multitude of His mercies."(Lam. 3:31,32)

Hell is forever, according to Hamilton, YOU and to orthodox theology.

7. Adam's fall would be greater than Jesus' resurrection: "Just as the result of one trespass was

condemnation for allmen, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that

brings life for allmen."(Rom. 5:17-19)

8. His desire or will would not come to pass: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God

our Savior, who desires (NKJV) or wills (KJV) allmen to be saved and come to the knowledge of

the truth."(1 Tim. 2:3,4)

9. "Hell" means His love failed to reach someone: His "Love never fails."(1 Cor. 13:8)

10.Some things are impossible for God even though Jesus said: With men this is impossible; butwith God allthings are possible.(Matt. 19:26)

11.Both Isaiah, Luke would be liars for they said, all flesh shall see the salvation of God. (Luke3:1; Isaiah 52:10)

Should I keep going? Theres much, much more! Gods PROMISES to redeem and RETORE are found all

throughout scripture.

God will indeed keep His word and fulfill all of the above in HIS DUE TIME. And He will also judge the

world; and His judgments will cause the inhabitants of the world to learn righteousness. I know you and

he must despise that scripture in Isaiah. Why you do is what puzzles me.

Otherwise, what word is Hamilton speaking of? I guarantee if it contradicts any of the above he

doesnt have a clue what hes talking about. And since he does contradict all of the above then its quite

clear he hasnt a clue. Yeah.the Associate Professor of Biblical Theology hasnt a clue what true

Biblical theology is. There, I said it.

II. it shows his infinite worth, lasting forever

Are you kidding me? It would show His infinite love FAILED forever! It would show His mercy does not

endure forever. And it would show Jesus FAILED in His commission to be the Savior of the World. Listen

carefully; you cant BE the Savior of the world if you FAIL to save the world. You cant BE the Lamb of

God who takes away the sins of the worldif you fail to take away the sins of the world. You cant BEthe propitiation for not just OUR sins but for the sins of the whole worldif you fail to cover the sins of

the whole world! You cant have mercy that endures forever if your mercy ends. If hell were true it

would be an eternal monument to the failure of Christ, the victory of Satan and the perpetuity of sin and

punishment. Is hell the only way God can prove His worth? I think not. This statement is idiotic.

III. It demonstrates his power to subdue all who rebel against him


13/22

Oh brother. So what? Why would God need to demonstrate his power to subdue all who rebel against

him.? Does anyone doubt that He could do this? He could do this at any time. People dont rebel

against God because they dont think He has the power to subdue them, they rebel because they dont

believe He exists. Or, if they do believe He exists, they dont think He cares about them. But what

exactly does he mean by rebel? Refusing to believe God exists? Refusing to believe in Jesus? Or is it

wickedness or sin? Are we not all influenced by our environment, circumstances, culture, experiences,

time, location and others around us? Does anyone truly rebel against God, or do they, based on their

own personal experience, simply not believe? And if they sin, is it not just the nature of man at work;

lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life that motives such rebellion? If even HAVING faith

is GIFT OF GOD would it not be true that those who reject God have just not been given the measure of

faith needed to believe? You said salvation is ALL OF GODone hundred percent. Now would you

say, as this kook does, you can, by your rebellion, thwart Gods purposes? Why do we put such limits on

Gods ability? Ill tell you exactly why; because we think of God as if Hes a man. And why do we do

that? Because most pastors and theologians despise the word of God in favor of beloved creeds,

traditions, self preservation and PRIDE!

In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride(Prov. 14:3)

Subduing people by throwing them in Hell would be easy. We throw people into prison every day to

subdue them. It would be no great accomplishment if God just locked people up and threw away the

key. But God can and will do much more. He will achieve a much greater glory. Hes going to

demonstrate His ability to TRANSFORM humanity and destroy the fleshly nature of the Adamic man into

the spiritual nature of Jesus Christ. Hes going to demonstrate that He can subdue ALL ENEMIES

including rebellion and even death itself! But I suppose you deny that promise of God as well. You

only have to look to the example of Pauls conversion to know that God can do this anytime He wants.

Although God is now conciliated to mankind because of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, why oh why does

the church which claims to love and worship the Savior, Jesus Christ, think that mankind wont ever be

conciliated to God, thus bringing about a full reconciliation? Paul didnt teach such blasphemy. Why

would you?

"For He is ourPeace, Who makes both one [Jews and Gentiles-that's all the people there are in the

whole world], and razes the centralwallof the barrier (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of

precepts in decrees, that He should be creating the two [both Jews and Gentiles], in Himself, into one

new humanity, making peace; and should be reconciling both in one body to God, through the cross,

killing the enmity in it"(Eph. 2:14-16)

And this: Christ

"Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is allcreated, that in the

heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, orlordships, or

sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and allhas it

cohesion in Him. And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among

the dead, that in allHe may be becoming first, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, and


14/22

through Him to reconcile allto Him (making peace through the blood of His cross, through Him,

whether those on the earth or those in the heavens."(Col. 1:15-20)

Read it again! "makes both one," "creating the two," "killing the enmity," "everycreature," "allcreated,"

"in the heaven," "on the earth," "the visible," "the invisible," "allis created," "before all," "all," "in all,"

"the entire," "to reconcile all," "on the earth," "in the heavens."

Who are the billions of rebellious people that Hamilton thinks are left out of these Scriptures who are

going to burn in Hell Fire for all eternity? Christ created all and will reconcile all-not only on earth, but

also the whole heavenly host!

IV. It shows how unspeakably merciful he is to those who trust him.

Here Hamilton again is apparently profoundly ignorant of the scriptures he supposedly is trained to

teach. Certainly God extends mercy to those who trust Him; but that in no way means that God will

NEVER be merciful to those who DIDNT trust him in this life. Scripture says Gods mercy endures

forever, right? So if thats true, when exactly does it run out? Why does death close the door on Gods

ability to be merciful? It doesnt.

We have examples of Gods mercy to those not trusting Him. The Lord showed mercy to Saul/Paul when

Saul was not obeying or trusting the Lord, did He not? Jesus showed mercy to those executing Him

when they were not trusting Him by saying, Father, forgive them, did He not? Stephen likewise.

For God has locked up ALL in the prison of unbelief, that upon ALL alike He may have mercy.

(Romans 11:32 WNT)

Id like to see Hamiltons Bible because he must have torn this page out of it. Or, he despises it. Likewise

he must have torn these pages out too.

Who is a Godlike You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His

possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love. He will

again have compassion on us; He willtread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You willcast alltheir sins

Into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19)

Will God not do the same for all who repenteven if its through judgment at the resurrection?

"F

or this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who wi

llhave ALL men to be saved,

and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is One God, and one mediator* between God

and men, the man ChristJesus. Who gave Himself a ransom for ALL to be testified in due time"(I Tim.

2:3-4)

Right now not all have this knowledge of the truth. But eventually, in His due time, ALL WILL come to the

knowledge of the truth and will call upon the Lord and will trust Him. Thats how He will have mercy on

all. Theologians cant see this but instead imagine that God will send people to a pagan conceived


15/22

underworld torture chamber where there is no mercyever. And they claim to know God and even

write books about Knowing God. Amazing.

Let me ask, since this guy seems to have no knowledge of the history of this evil doctrine, Im wondering

if you do? Have you ever read a book on the history of hell? Im just wondering. If you ever decide to,

and I could recommend one, you might be surprised to find where this nonsense originated. It wasntwith the ancient Hebrews and that alone should tell you something quite significant and troubling.

Nowhere in all the Law of Moses does God order torture as punishment, nor warn of postmortem

punishment in hell. If it was real, dont you think it would have been real right from the start?

V. It upholds the reality of love by visiting justice against those who reject God, who is love

Oh my goodness. First of all justice itself does not denote eternity in Hell. Justice can be merciful

and RESTORATIVE. God tells us in Micah 6:8 that justice and mercy go hand in hand.

And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with

your God?(NASB)

Were to do justice, yes, but were also to LOVE mercy! I like the way the Contemporary English Version

renders it:

The LORD God has told us what is right and what he demands: "See that justice is done, [BUT]let

mercy be your first concern, and humbly obey your God."

When youve had to punish your children are you motivated by REVENGE or rather by a desire to

RESTORE their obedience, your relationship with them, and their respect for you and your authority?

Have there ever been times when you decided NOT to punish because you could sense the remorse in

your childs attitude and you knew they had learned their lesson without punishment? Most loving

parents could cite many examples of such. Why does this happen? Because a loving parent LOVES to

show mercy to their children! If someone tells me they punish their children out of sheer revenge Im

calling Child Protective Services. Theyre ill. Furthermore, Paul tells us we canovercome evilwith

good.(Romans 12:21) Does Godnot believe that?

If God is Love, is it an imperfect love? I hope you say no. Lets see if Paul says anything about LOVE that

fits with Hamiltons statement, which put another way is God is going to get even (revenge) with those

who reject Him.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5 Paul says one of the attributes of love is that it is not provoked, does not take

into account a wrong suffered,(NASB) The Contemporary English Version puts it this way: It [love]

doesn't keep a record of wrongs that others do. The Analytical Literal Translations saysit does not

keep a record of evil.

So according to Hamilton the reality of Love is demonstrated by visiting one of the cruelest, harshest

and most irrational penalties one can imagine upon the majority of humankindfor no purpose andfor

all eternity. Hamilton says love is equal to revenge that never, ever ends. Yet Paul says to love means


16/22

not keeping a record of the wrong others do and the way to overcome evil is with goodness. Who are

you going to believe? I know who I believe.

In his book, Eternal Life: Life After Death as a Medical, Philosophical, and Theological Problem, Hans

Kng quotes Catholic theologians Thomas and Gertrude Sartory who say in their book, There is No Fire

Burning in Hellsomething that ought to make James Hamilton blush with shame for it applies to himperfectly:

No Religion in the world (not a single one in the history of humanity) has on its conscience so many

millions of people who thought differently, believed differently. Christianity is the most murderous

religion there has ever been. Christians today have to live with this, they have to overcome this sort of

past. And the real cause of this perversion of the Christian spirit is belief in hell. (Emphasis mine)

Rather than overcome this perversion, Hamilton embraces it as Gods goodness acting in love.

Kng concludes,

If someone is convinced that God condemns a person to hell for all eternity for no other reason than

because he is a heathen, a Jew, or a heretic, he cannot for his own part fail to regard all heathens, Jews

and heretics as good for nothing, as unfit to exist and unworthy of life.(p. 132)

Thats James Hamilton. Ironic, isnt it that Catholic Theologians are beginning to understand these

things but Evangelical Protestants, who claim a reformed theology, are still clinging to ancient

Egyptian myths?

VI. It vindicates all who suffered to hear or proclaim the truth of Gods word

Now the true heart of Hamilton reveals itself. Not only does he think God is going to get revenge, HE

wants revenge too! He wants God to torture those unbelieving heathen for rejecting his religion

because his heart is filled with contempt for the world. Believe and God loves you. Dont believe and

God hates you. Thats the message of this theologian and in fact, nearly all of Christendom. But thats

not at all true of God. It IS true of James M. Hamilton, Jr.; a sinner saved ONLY by the GRACE OF GOD.

Yet he wants revenge and blasphemes the Almighty God in Heaven with arrogance and such contempt

for Gods creation. You know, Jesus had some interesting parables about just such an attitude. Let me

know if you cant figure out which ones Im speaking about here. Paul plainly tells us that those who

follow Christ can expectpersecution and therefore anyone who is so lead by the Holy Spirit to live godly

in Christ should know that such suffering is inevitable.

"Yea, and ALL that willlive godly in ChristJesus shallsufferPERSECUTION"(II Tim. 3:12)

If any Christian is looking for revenge then they shouldnt respond to or proclaim the message of Christ.

They should save themselves a lot of unwanted grief and keep their mouths shut.

Has Hamilton also cut the Sermon on the Mount out of his bible? Sounds like it. Is he not happy or

content with what Jesus promises to those who suffer for righteousness sake? I must have missed that


17/22

verse that says, Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the confidence

that their enemies will someday experience excruciating pain as they burn in hell for all eternity.

Word from THE James: Consider it alljoy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing

that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

Word from THIS James: Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing

that those who cause you such pain will get what they deserve in hell.

Or are these words from Peter more in keeping with what God had in mind?

If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests

on you.(1Peter 4:14)

Instead of realizing God ordains such persecution to produce faith with endurance and that persecution

is to be both expected and regarded as a blessing, this guy displays a hard, hateful, unconverted heart

focused on the anticipation of retribution. With such a statement and attitude it is HE that God will

judge most harshly, for he deceives many. Judgment BEGINS at thehouse of Godsays the Apostle Peter.

I hope it begins at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. God has a lot of work to do at that place.

And finally this

VII. and it shows the enormity of what Jesus accomplished when he died to save all who would trust

him from the hell they deserve. If there were no hell, there would be no need for the cross.

This statement has got to be one of the most ridiculous Ive ever heard coming from someone who

claims to be educated in the scriptures. I hardly know where to begin with this utter, unscriptural

nonsense. This guy should be embarrassed to put his name to such a statement and, frankly, YOU should

be embarrassed for sending me this article thinking I would be swayed by such drivel.

First of all, hell in no way shows the enormity of what Jesus accomplished. If true, it would actually show

the overwhelming failure of Jesus to achieve what He was sent to accomplish.

Instead of relying on such spurious opinion, lets see what Gods word has to say about the matter.

What DID Jesus come to achieve and what did He accomplish when He died?

The Son of Man has come to save that which is lost. (Matt. 18:11) Are we not ALL at some point

lost? If we ALL are or were, LOST, then the Son of Man came to save us. I would think that meanseverybody. Do you know anybody who was never lost and in need of the Savior? No. You dont. If He

came to save THAT which is lost, i.e. everybody, then saving only five (or at most ten) percent of that

everybody would not be considered an enormity. It would be considered a dismal failure.

It is not the willof yourFatherthat one of these little ones should perish.(Matt. 18:14) Same

word as lost by the way. Perish doesnt mean hell, it means LOST, RUINED, DESTROYED. But I know,

the whole Christian world sees perish and that means fiery torture for a gazillion eons. And by the

way, werent we all at some point little ones? Why yes, we were. But I digress. Back to the pointif its


18/22

not the will of the Father that even ONE of these little ones perishes, then did Jesus fail to save them

against the will of the Father? Apparently so because you would say billions are already burning in hell,

lost or perishing forever.

God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him

might be saved. (John 3:17)

So God sent His Son to save the whole world but the enormity of that task was too much, is that right?

So God has to settle for less than the whole world; according to Hamilton and the churchs beloved

Roman Catholic tradition. Give me a break.

And just a note here before you go off on might be. Check the Greek. Theres no might be there. Its

actually the world through Him-SAVED. Might be is no more correct than will be or shall be.

Some translations demonstrate this quite clearly:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through

him. (NIV)

God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. (NLT)

God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world.(GWT)

"For God did not send His Son into the world so that He should judge the world, but so that the world

shallbe saved through Him.(ALT)

So which is it? Well, if you think God sits in heaven HOPING things MIGHT go His way I guess it could be

might be. My God does not sit around wishing for some good luck. When He intends something, it

happens. Hamilton ought to meet my God. Hes far more awesome than the god Hamilton imagines.

We KNOW that this is INDEED the.SAVIOR OFTHEWORLD(John 4:42)

Too bad more Christians dont indeed know this.

Hecomes down from Heaven and gives LIFEto the world.(John 6:33)

Too bad more Christians dont know this as well.

Iwilldraw [drag] allpeoples to myself(John 12:32)

No you wont Jesus. You will fail at this because James M. Hamilton, Jr., Associate Professor of Biblical

Theology says this is not possible. You intend to get even and give sinners the hell they deserve. Is that

what is says?

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

(1 John 4:14) & I have FINISHED the work which You have given Me to do.(John 17:4)

I put the above two verses together to show the enormity of what Jesus accomplished on the cross and

the FACT that He did accomplish iteven if the church, and blind theologians, insist that He didnt.

Now that we are familiar with the enormity of the COMISSION God gave to His Son, and the fact that

Christ fulfilled His commission, lets see exactly what scripture says the cross accomplished, shall we?


19/22

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to allmen, even so through one

act of righteousness there resulted justification oflife to allmen. For as through the one man's

disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many[same

many who are sinners] willbe made righteous. (Romans 5:18 & 19)

Theres the ENORMITY of what the Cross accomplished and notice not one mention of hell, not onemention of only some, no mention of revenge. What it does say is the many, i.e. ALL people were

made sinners, BUT through Christ they will all be MADE righteous. Just like Isaiah says in 26:9 For when

the earth experiences Your judgments the inhabitants of the worldlearn righteousness.

Why does Hamilton diminish the work of the cross to only a relative few? Why? Ill tell you why.

Because he despises the word of God and in vanity loves his traditions of men.

Then Hamilton states that he died to save all who would trust him from the hell they deserve.

This is taught nowhere in the scriptures. The scriptures teach that Christs purpose is to call people out

of spiritual bondage to serve God faithfully. This is the conclusion of Peters Pentecostal sermon (Acts3:26) but is also found throughout the New Testament. (Romans 6:4-6; Titus 2:14; Hebrew 9:14; 1 Peter

2:24 and 1 John 3:3-5) And Christs blood allows Gentiles to enjoy the gift of the Holy Spirit through faith

(Gal. 3:14), removing the wall of patrician and hostility between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14) so that

the ordinances of Mosaic law no longer deterred people from being in Gods Kingdom (Col. 2:14). His

death reconciles us to God so that through the Holy Spirit (OF God) we are empowered to do what God

desires and are no longer slaves to sin. (Rom. 6:6) Through Adam we experience spiritual death, through

Christs act on the cross we can be healed (saved) and made new creations unto good works. (Eph. 2:10)

And certainly, as mentioned earlier, theres no verse that says we deserve hell. Hamilton may like the

idea that people he has contempt for deserve hell, but scripture teaches no such thing. Not that thatmatters to a theologian.

Here are a few MORE proofs of the reasons that Jesus Christ died:

"While we were yet sinners, Christ DIED FOR US"(Rom. 5:8 & I Thes. 5:10).

"For the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if One died for ALL, then were all

dead: and that He DIED FOR ALL, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but

unto Him WHICH DIED FOR THEM, and rose again"(II Thes. 5:14-15).

"Christ DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures"(I Cor. 15:3).

"For to this end Christ BOTH DIED, AND ROSE, AND REVIVED [lived again], that He might be Lord both

of the DEAD AND LIVING"(Rom. 14:9).

"For in that He died, HEDIED UNTO SIN"(Rom. 6:10).

"Christ DIED FOR THEUNGODLY"(Rom. 5:6). [Yes, He really did!]


20/22

"But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were YETSINNERS, Christ DIED FOR

US"(Rom. 5:8).

You will look in vain for a scripture that says Jesus died to keep us out of hell--there is no such Scripture.

And shamefully, you seem to be unaware of that truth as much as James Hamilton since I assume youread this article before recommending it.

And finally, the most idiotic statement of this whole thing: If there were no hell, there would be no

need for the cross.

Since no scripture teaches that the cross saves us from hell, his remark is a moot point. But if this so-

called theologian had any clue what the cross accomplished he wouldnt make such an idiotic

statement. If the cross was necessary to save anyone, then it was necessary for everyone. As we can see

from the SCRIPTURES, the purpose of the cross had nothing to do with hell. NOTHING. Yet this moron,

(and yes, I MEAN moron) doesnt understand these simple and clear truths. Amazing, simply amazing.

Heres what the cross accomplished according to scripture; scripture Hamilton apparently has never

read. Notice theres not one word about hell having anything to do with it:

But now in ChristJesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the

dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in

ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the

enmity. and he came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who werenear; for through Him we both [Jew and Gentile] have our access in one Spirit to the Father.(Eph 2:13-

18)

and through Him to reconcile allthings to Himself, having made peace through the b lood of His

cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. (Col. 1:20)

What the cross accomplished was necessary, hell or no hell. Hamilton simply has no understanding of

the gospel. None.

The more I read articles and books trying to prove these blasphemous, pagan inspired, unscriptural

doctrines of orthodox Christianity, the more convinced I am by the truth of Gods word that thesedoctrines are not only false, but absurd, EVIL deceptions of Satan. And Hell and the Trinity arent the

only two. (Though the Trinity is a far less serious blasphemy than the doctrine of hell.)

What amazes me most is that intelligent people who claim to love God cant see these plain truths that

are all throughout scripture. They cling to forced explanations of verses that dont plainly say what they

interpret them to mean and ignore verses that plainly and clearly contradict their views. But its nothing

new, so I shouldnt be surprised.

What truly will be the glory of God is found clearly stated in Revelation:


21/22

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and

allthings in them, I heard saying, To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb*, be blessing and

honor and glory and dominion forever and ever. (Rev. 5:13)

After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,

"Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God (Rev. 19:1)

THATis how God and Christ will be truly glorified; whenALL things are praising Him for His salvation,

glory and power. It will happen. God says so. You only need faith to believe God and His word and the

courage to reject the deceptions and foolishness of men.

So what have I attempted to demonstrate with this long review of your links?

First, that there are far more scriptures (many more than mentioned here) that leave no room for any

notion of a third person God of some trinity then there are verses that hint at such a concept; and

secondly, to show how theologians deceive, often with absurd statements no one bothers to question.

Also, that the doctrine of eternal torment in Hell is not only false, but in no way does it bring glory to

God. Relatively few people actually fear hell, and many make a mockery of it. Worse yet it makes a

mockery of God. Rational people understand that a God who is love, should not be a God who torments

people for all eternity for absolutely no purpose other than retribution and simply because, in most

cases, they either never heard the gospel or they simply chose not to believe it. It is sheer nonsense and

more and more people are waking up to this fact and discovering what scripture truly teaches. The God

we serve as revealed in the Holy Scriptures is a God of justiceandlove, mercy and REDEMPTION. He is

not a God of justice and eternal condemnation. I will continue to believe with all my heart that God CAN

and WILL accomplish all of His desires. He is not a God who cant or wont.

Ive only scratched the surface of these issues as there is so much more that could be said. But since its

doubtful you even made it this far, Ill wrap it up with a few final thoughts.

First, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning God. If the scriptures taught that God is

a trinity of three persons and that an eternal hell was the destiny of the unrepentant I would certainly

believe those things to be true. He is the creator and ruler of this universe and He has the absolute right

to set the rules as He sees fit. No, I am certainly not questioning God. I am questioning those who are

so devoted to tradition and manmade creeds that they will inconsistently, erroneously and carelessly

translate and/or interpret Gods word in ways that hide Gods true gospel from the church and the

world.

I found your blog, 1517, which I assume is named in tribute to Martin Luther. I thought of something

Luther said in 1521 when he was called before the Diet of the town of Worms to answer for and retract

his heretical views. His response pretty much reflects my own feelings. You no doubt have read this

quote:


22/22

Unless I am convinced by scripture or by clear reasonfor I do not trust the Pope or Church councils,

since everyone knows they can make mistakes and contradict themselvesI am bound by the scriptures I

have quoted. My conscience is held captive by the Word of God. I cannot and will not take back anything,

because it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me.

Amen. Amen, indeed.

And finally, I wish to say that none of this should be taken to mean I have any ill will toward you

personally or toward Church of the Saviour. Certainly not! I believe sincerely that you love God and wish

to serve Him and His church faithfully. I do not intend to ever judge ones devotion to our Lord. Such is

for God alone to know. But I will never hold back from declaring the truths of scripture. If you find that

something I said contradicts any scripture, please let me know as I will be more than willing to consider

your thoughts and, if warranted, explain my take on it.

May God be with you,

Dave Zug

(* By the way, no mention of the Holy Spirit here. Why not?

challenging the theologians

Documents