One of the most fundamental Christian doctrines is that of the Trinity. It separates genuine Christianity from the cults and from other religions and is essential to understanding the Gospel. We recently received a message challenging an article I had written responding to a critic who denies the third Person of the Trinity: The Holy Spirit.
We have been examining the claims of critics who deny the biblical teaching of eternal hell. Often, those who deny central Christian doctrines will deny that the major English versions of Scripture are well-translated. They must argue this way because all the conservative English translations show that the duration of punishment and torment in hell for unbelievers is the same as the duration of heaven for believers – namely eternal. So, in this segment, we will look at Tracy’s claims that the original languages deny eternal hell.
We have been examining critics who deny what the Bible teaches about the eternality of hell. Since the Bible explicitly states that those in the Lake of Fire “will be tormented day and night forever and ever,” those who deny this teaching cannot rationally defend their position. In all cases, their arguments commit one or more logical or hermeneutical fallacies. A study of these can help us avoid error and remain faithful to what the Bible teaches.
In a previous article, I examined the biblical teaching of hell. Though it is unpleasant (as is necessarily the nature of punishment), it demonstrates the perfect justice of God. We all have a tendency to minimize how heinous our sin really is, and how holy God is. We cannot fully appreciate salvation in Christ until we recognize just how severe a punishment we really deserve. Many people reject the idea of unbelievers spending eternity in the Lake of Fire, but such rejection is always due to emotional preferences, not biblical exegesis. Consequently, a few people posted on Facebook their disagreements with my article. Here are two of them along with my response.
A critic commented on one of our webcasts on logic. He apparently believes that Jesus is not God. That’s a problem because declaring Jesus as Lord (as Yahweh) is a requirement for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; Joel 2:32). Let’s examine Jake’s (not necessarily his real name) comments in purple text with my response in black text.
In this final segment, we continue to critique William Lane Craig’s claim that Genesis 1-11 is mytho-history. The New Testament often quotes from the Old Testament as if the events recorded therein actually happened. Craig attempted to show that some such references may not be endorsing the historicity of such events, but merely using them as literary illustrations. However, none of the examples he provided suggested anything other than a reference to actual historical events. There is nothing wrong with using a fictional story to illustrate a point. But there is no evidence that any biblical author thought of Genesis as anything but straightforward history.