The Reality of Eternal, Conscious Hell - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

We have examined the writings of this unnamed "Publisher" before, and have found them invariably superficial and base. He is not a competent Bible teacher.

Even when we agree with him. We agree with "Publisher" about the nature of hell. But he so poorly explains his reasoning that we decided we must once again analyze his presentation. We will discover that in typical fashion he is unable to articulate the biblical case for his doctrine.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------------------

There’s a growing fad in Evangelical circles—one as old as rebellion itself—where otherwise church-going folks suddenly decide that Hell isn’t real anymore. Not literal. Not eternal. Not conscious torment. Just a metaphor, a symbol, a poetic flourish Jesus used when He… didn’t mean what He said. (That's actually the matter to be demonstrated. What exactly did Jesus mean? We hope "Publisher" will explain.)

And you can always spot the trend by the opening move: they don’t start with Scripture—they start with sentiment. ("Publisher" doesn't start with Scripture, it actually takes him seven paragraphs to quote even just a snippet of Scripture.)

Then they go hunting through the Bible for anything that sounds soft enough to justify their discomfort. Preston Sprinkle, who is better known for his build-a-bridge campaign between homosexuals and Evangelicalism, ("Publisher" Selects this man as representative of the opposing position. Is this really the best representative of this train of thought? How about Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and later, John Stott, John Wenham, Basil Atkinson, or FF Bruce? Wouldn't some actual theologians be a better choice?

More to the point, what exactly does Sprinkle have to say about annihilationism? Well, "Publisher" will never say. He just drops the name and moves on, never to mention him again.

And by the way, though Sprinkle might have some bad ideas, he's hardly a heretic.) 

and the rest of the annihilationist crowd do this with whole lists of verses, stacking them like cardboard boxes and pretending that sheer volume is the same thing as truth.

They won’t say it that plainly, of course. They wrap it in soft language, the kind meant to soothe the conscience rather than confront it. And I get it—few things torment the mind like imagining a loved one under God’s wrath. Even born-again Christians flinch at the thought. We are weak. We doubt. We grasp for emotional escape hatches when Scripture presses too hard. The human heart will always try to reinterpret what it cannot bear. (Speculation. "Publisher" is just making things up about how people feel.)

But let’s not pretend. Doubting God’s Word is sin, and demands repentance. (Doubting God's word is perhaps a sin. Doubting the author's doctrine is a separate matter.)

And Scripture does not stutter on the reality of an eternal, conscious Hell. (Again, that's the matter to be demonstrated.)

Jesus—the same Jesus who healed lepers, welcomed children, and wept over Jerusalem—describes Hell with a precision that leaves no wiggle room. He speaks of eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46), of fire that never goes out (Mark 9:43), of a place where the sorrow is so deep the gnashing of teeth becomes the soundtrack (Matthew 8:12), of a worm that never dies (Mark 9:48). He doesn’t whisper these things. He declares them. (These unquoted Scriptures are the only biblical evidence the author offers.)

And this is where annihilationists always pivot to the “big blue list” (??) 

—a hodgepodge of judgment texts from the Old Testament, ripped from poetry and prophecy, slapped together as if metaphors about destruction cancel out Jesus’ actual words about duration. (Notice how "Publisher" persistently characterizes his opposition? They are represented as lightweights, sinners, lacking conviction, and unable to bear up under the truth.

These are the tactics of political leftists. They are certainly beneath a Christian.)

They love to parade Isaiah 66:24, for example, as if “the wicked will be corpses” clinches the case. But the text says, “their worm all not die, their fire shall not be quenched.” Jesus quotes this Himself—to support eternal conscious misery. Not one person reading Isaiah would conclude, “Oh yes, everlasting worms and unquenchable fire… clearly they disappear.” (Disappearance of these things is not required.)

Malachi 4:1 gets thrown in too—the wicked becoming stubble.

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.”

But Malachi isn’t describing annihilation. (Bare assertion.)

He’s describing judgment imagery Israel already knew by heart. Fire consumes. (Bare assertion.)

Fire destroys. Fire ruins. But the prophets use the same language about nations that continued to exist long after their “destruction.” The imagery describes severity—not cessation. (Bare assertion.)

Psalm 37:20 says the wicked “vanish like smoke.” True enough—smoke rises because something is still burning. The metaphor is about defeat, not obliteration. (Bare assertion.)

David said his bones were wasting away too—but they didn’t evaporate into cosmic dust. (David's bones are still around? Really?)

The other biblical writers don’t soften it either. John speaks of fire and brimstone endured in the presence of the Lamb (Revelation 14:9–11). (This passage is referring to those who receive the mark of the beast, a specific part of those who are lost.)

Paul says those who refuse the gospel “will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9). None of this is metaphor. None of it is temporary. None of it is optional.

And when Paul says “eternal destruction,” annihilationists start foaming at the mouth. ("Publisher" has a penchant for characterizing his theological opponents in an unfortunate and puerile way. We expect a bit of maturity from him, please.)

“See? Destruction!”

But the text says “eternal,” not momentary. Not temporary. (Um. What? Did "Publisher" miss that the word "eternal" is referencing destruction in this verse? "Eternal destruction" in this verse undermines his argument.)

And in Scripture, destruction never means non-existence. (Bare assertion.)

A sheep is destroyed when it is ruined. (Bare assertion.)

A house is destroyed when it no longer functions. (Bare assertion.)

Israel is destroyed repeatedly yet always remains. (We would dispute with "Publisher" that any of these scenarios represent destruction.)

Destruction is about condition, not extinction. (Bare assertion.)

Paul clarifies it anyway: “away from the presence of the Lord.” ("Publisher" is still referring to 2Th. 1:9.

He seems prone to merely asserting his position over and over without proof or documentation of any kind. 

Apparently, this particular Scripture is one to which annihilationists appeal to bolster their doctrine. "Publisher" does the very same thing regarding this Scripture on his side of the argument, but adds nothing more than his bare assertions.)

You cannot be away from a presence you no longer exist to experience. (Sigh. We are trying hard to embrace "Publisher's" defense of a doctrine with which we agree, but he's making it extremely difficult with really dumb comments like this.

When someone is away from something, one cannot experience what one is away from. The REASON for the away-ness is the matter under discussion. Is the dead soul separated and yet conscious, or separated and unconscious? That's the matter on the table, for which "Publisher" doesn't seem to have a biblical answer.)

The problem is that we evaluate our loved ones by a standard miles beneath the holiness of God. A depressed brother, a suicidal friend, a relative who died in rebellion—we convince ourselves their struggles somehow dilute their guilt. But every one of them has broken the law of their Creator. Every one deserves Hell. And so do we. Our emotions don’t override God’s righteousness. (We completely agree, but this all is irrelevant.)

Eternal conscious torment isn’t theological cruelty—it’s the logical consequence of sinning against an infinite God. (This is the matter to be proved, not just asserted.)

A finite being can never exhaust infinite offense. Divine justice demands satisfaction, and fallen humanity simply cannot provide it. That’s why Hell exists and why its punishment never ends. Not just because God is harsh, he is, but because His holiness demands it. (Again, this is the issue before us. But now "Publisher" has wandered off into some sort of comparative exchange regarding the sinner and the punishment. Where does the Bible tell us this?)

And this is precisely why annihilationism feels appealing—it lets us pretend sin has a manageable weight. ("Publisher" speculates. He thinks the opposition is responding emotionally. But he has cited the reasoning of no actual person who takes the annihilationist position.

But of course, his response is on the same level. More emotional than factual. He's more interested in waving his hand, shouting and pointing, "heretical, heretical!" We wish he would make a thoughtful, reasoned defense of his position rather than prattling on about why he imagines his opposition thinks they way they do.)

It lets us imagine that justice can be wrapped up quickly, boxed, and shelved, as if the infinite offense of rejecting the infinite God can be paid off like a parking ticket. But sin isn’t a finite infraction, and Hell isn’t a divine temper tantrum. It is the unending collision between infinite holiness and rebellion. There is no “time served” in eternity. (He repeats his point about some sort of comparative value. We long to find out where Scripture tells of this calculation.)

Hell is the blazing proof that God will uphold righteousness even when every earthly instinct begs Him not to. (We have no idea what this sentence means.)

And yet—this is the part modern soft-theology cannot stomach—Hell also magnifies the mercy shown to the redeemed. When the saints behold the misery of the damned, they will not gloat. They won’t become cold or cruel. They will see, with perfect clarity, the abyss from which they were rescued. (Again, speculating.)

They will know deep in their resurrected bones that the only difference between themselves and the condemned is sovereign grace. (Undefined phrase. What is "sovereign grace," and how does it differ from "grace," which "Publisher" will mention below?)

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Ironically, though, Annihilationism, for all its claims of tenderness,(Who makes this claim?)

robs grace of its backdrop. (In what way?)

If the wicked simply wink out of existence, then the cross becomes a modest solution to a modest problem. (It does? Why?)

But if the punishment Christ absorbed is truly eternal in weight (The Father did not punish Jesus.)

—if Hell is as dreadful as Scripture says—then grace becomes mind-blowingly incomprehensible.

That’s the part the deniers can’t accept. If Hell isn’t eternal, grace isn’t amazing. ("Publisher" seems prone to making glib little statements like this that seem clever but really don't say anything.)

Hell testifies to the costliness of sin, the perfection of God’s justice, and the scandal of His mercy. ("Scandal?" Why is His mercy a scandal? And weren't we talking about grace?)

Remove it, and Christianity collapses into sentiment. (Why? Please explain. Something, anything. O. We're at the end. Never mind.)

Keep it, and the cross becomes what it truly is—the only refuge from the wrath we all deserve.

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer;
But this I know with all my heart:
His wounds have paid my ransom.