Theology – Biblical Notes

Apologetics, Deity of Christ, Doctrine, Existence of God, Holy Spirit, Logic/Philosophy, Nature of Man, Theology, Uncategorized

Grappling with the Godhead

Posted on May 12, 2026May 21, 2026 by Mac Deaver

Recently, a friend sent me a lectureship book dealing with God. Various authors presented their material on differing aspects of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Much truth is given but glaring mistakes are made. I do not need to identify the book or the authors. My effort just here is not intended to be an embarrassment to anyone. I only seek to correct and, if possible, to clarify so that the correction is clear.

The Godhead as a topic of study is enormously difficult in specific detail (where we are most curious) while being somewhat simple in general. As the reader may know, the word “trinity” does not appear in Scripture, but the word “Godhead” does. And as the reader also knows, the finite mind cannot completely fathom the concept of Godhead. We can only approximate it with our pitiful struggling to comprehend it. I am not excusing us from study; I am only suggesting that our study be extremely serious and that with time, we make progress.

The word “Godhead” appears in the American Standard Version in Acts 17:29 and Colossians 2:9. In Luke’s passage the Greek word is theion. In Paul’s passage, the word is Theotatos. In Romans 1:20, Paul uses the word theiotas translated by our word “divinity.” We will not engage here in the definitions for we are in this article basically concerned with the relationship that obtains between the members of the divinity or Godhead. Our basic problem with the concept of the “Godhead” is trying to understand that while there is only one God, there are three manifestations that entail a divine relationship among the members of the Godhead, and which also entail a relationship of the “Godhead” to man.

I will begin by referring to some statements made in the lectureship book referred to above:

“When we speak of the Trinity, we name the eternal reality that God is one in essence and three in persons. Let’s be clear: God is not one person who plays three roles, and God is not three gods working in harmony. God is one Being—one divine nature, one glory, and one will that is shared eternally by three distinct persons.”

In the next paragraph the writer claims “This is not a contradiction nor nonsense.” Well, let us see.

Consider the following True-False questions that address what the writer is claiming and see whether or not there is contradiction and thus nonsense.

T/F 1. God is one being and that being is person (Deut. 6:4; Rom. 1:20-21; Acts 14:17).

T/F 2. God is three persons (This is what the writer claims).

T/F 3. A husband and wife are two human beings who are distinct persons (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 18-25).

T/F 4. A husband and his wife are one flesh (Gen. 2:23; Matt. 19:4-6).

T/F 5. Being one flesh does not make husband and wife one person.

T/F 6. If God is one Spirit (John 4:24; Deut. 6:4), then there are three manifestations or representations in the “Godhead” but which cannot make them three persons.

We have to be very careful here not to abuse language so as to use “person” one way when speaking of man and another way when speaking of God. The word “person” must retain its legitimate definition as both to human persons and to the one divine person. Of course divinity is not the same as humanity. So, a divine person must be different from a human person, but if there is one God, and if God is person, then we can speak of God as person and of a man as person. The man person is a combination of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23). God as person is composed of pure eternal spirit (John 4:24).

T/F 7. If God is three persons, then God is three Gods or gods. [Note: There are only four possible classifications of intelligent beings to which these three alleged persons can be assigned. Each is either: demon, angel, God, or man.]

T/F 8. In Rom. 1:20-21 Paul affirms that the everlasting divinity is a “him” rather than a “them.”

T/F 9. If someone sees a husband, necessarily he at the same time sees that husband’s wife. [Note: This is clearly “false.” If someone saw Adam, he did not necessarily see Eve.]

T/F 10. If a man saw Jesus when Jesus was on earth, he necessarily saw Jesus’ Father as well. [Note: This is “true” (John 14:8-9).]

T/F 11. If someone when seeing a husband does not at the same time necessarily see the husband’s wife, and if when someone saw Jesus, he at the same time necessarily saw the Father, then the distinction that characterizes the difference between the individuality of husband and wife as distinct persons cannot be the distinction that characterizes the difference between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, for that matter).

Now, let us go back to the citation of the quotation above from the lectureship book and consider the individual positions by the writer taken and see if they are True or False:

T/F 1. God is not one person.

T/F 2. God is not three gods.

T/F 3. God is three persons.

Remember, God has to fit into some category. If in three persons, he remains God (divine), he would have to be three gods since he cannot be three demons, three angels, or three men.

The writer claims that #1 (God is not one person) and #2 (God is not three gods) are both true, but they cannot be. They are contradictions! The writer cannot accurately claim that God is not one person and then claim that God is not more than one god. Deut. 6:4 says that God is “one Lord.” Rom. 1:20-21 says that there is one God whose singular existence can be identified by the correct consideration of the universe (cf. Psalm 19:1; Acts 14:17). So, somehow God has always been one person. Just here, let me inject Isa. 43:10. Read it carefully: “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.”

The several theophanies(visible appearances of God) that we find in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen. 18:2, 13; Josh. 5:13-15) were appearances of the one true God. And according to Isa. 43:10 any appearance that would come before Isa. 43:10 was written or after it was written could not be the representation of more than one person in the Godhead. The word “Godhead” that we would later find in the New Testament could not represent more than one divine person any more than it did or could in the Old Testament. It would be a Godhead of plural function in plural manifestation just as it had been in the Old Testament beginning in Gen. 1:1.

In Isa. 45 and 46 God attempted to make it as clear as he could, knowing of Israel’s propensity for idolatry and polytheism. Eight times God declared that there is “none else” or “none like” or “no God else” other than himself! In Isa. 46:5 God raises the question, “To whom will ye liken me (not us, MD), and make me (not us, MD) equal, and compare me, (not us, MD) that we (God and idols/gods, MD) may be like?” This means that the coming incarnation of Christ would not and could not be another God so that the Father would be one person and Jesus another. God had already told us in Isa. 43:10 that we should not interpret the person of Christ to be a different person from the Father and from the Holy Spirit. Such an interpretation would be wrong!

Now, let us continue with the writer’s claims:

T/F 4. God is neither one person nor three gods, so God is either three persons or one God.

T/F 5. God can only be one God by not being three persons.

T/F 6. If three persons do not render God three Gods or gods, then three persons cannot be three distinct persons but can only be one person.

Argument #1 on Spirit and Person

1. If God can make man in his image without making man divine, i.e. God, then God can separate himself into three manifestations/functioning roles without making himself three divine persons (three gods). [Note: Actually, for God to make himself into three divine persons he would be terminating himself as the one eternal, infinite, God. It would be divine suicide! Of course, such a thing is impossible of accomplishment.]

2. God can make man in his image without making man divine, i.e. God (Gen. 1:26-27).

3. Then God can separate himself into three manifestations/functioning roles without making himself three persons (three gods). [Remember: There is only one God, not merely one essence but one God. Polytheists believe in one divine essence and yet many gods. The Bible claims that this one essence (divinity) is only characteristic of one person! Biblical theists are monotheists rather than polytheists. It is neither sufficient nor accurate (in describing God) to say he has one essence and then ascribe that one essence to three persons! There can be many humans by distribution of Spirit; there can be only one God regardless of various conditions and/or functions.]

So, what does all this mean? It means that the Godhead is not separated into distinct persons such as a husband and wife are. It means that the form that each manifestation has (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a form that never can be separated in the sense of complete individualization from the other manifestations. Think about this truth carefully. It is a little complex.

When God compartmentalizes himself into three manifestations, conditions, or roles, he is distinguishing eternal and infinite Spirit as such for the sake of function. There can be only one infinite, eternal Spirit (John 4:24; Isa. 45:5, 18; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:20-21). Therefore, the “distinguishing” for function cannot be a complete individualizing of himself into more than one god or less than one God.

When God connects himself (eternal, infinite Spirit) to the fertilized human egg so that human reproduction occurs, another number in the human species arises. The flesh part is possible through male and female combination (John 1:13), and the spirit part is possible only because of Holy Spirit (Heb. 12:9; Mal. 2:14-15). Because of the law of kinds, the combination of flesh and Spirit allows for many individuals (cf. Gen. 1:28).

It is not so when eternal Spirit separates for function. In Gen. 1:1, God (one in eternal Spirit and plural in function) creates. God is plural in function although one in form. He has separated himself into peculiar parts of function so that he will throughout the existence of the physical universe inaugurate a threefold relationship that he wants to obtain between himself (God, Word, and Holy Spirit). In the New Testament this will become (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). But at no time could an individualization of eternal Spirit take place. God is one Lord. Moses recorded this after the creation (Deut. 6:4).

When Jesus came to earth, he gave up the “form” of God (Phil. 2:5-8). He could not stop being God! At the same time, however, that he gave up the “form” of God, he maintained his connection to (or association with, or combination with, or identity with) the Father and Holy Spirit so that oneness of person remained. It is only by remaining one person that Jesus can remain God by being the eternal and infinite Spirit. But (like Nicodemus in John 3:9), we ask, “How can these things be?” Somehow, the separation of the divine Spirit (which had allowed for the very creation of man and the following reproduction of men) allowed for that eternal Spirit to enter the womb of Mary, thus producing the Son of God. Notice, please, that in Luke 1:35 we are told that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary and that the power of the Most High would overshadow her. The result would be a begettal. It would be a begettal via Holy Spirit and flesh. The flesh would not be a fertilized human egg. The flesh would be that of a virgin. So, by imposing himself on Mary, God produced a Son who was a combination of Spirit and flesh. This new entity would be called the Son of God. How could it be so? It would be so because the new product would be a combination of eternal God and created man. The holy thing that would be begotten would be called “the Son of God.” The one infinite, eternal Spirit continued to exist and thrive in the Lord Jesus while he was on earth and, the one infinite, eternal Spirit (John 4:24) continued to exist as the identical Spirit in the Father and in Holy Spirit in heaven (Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus would not be the Son of God without God’s maintaining his Oneness of existence!

Notice please that Paul affirms that Jesus when he came to earth gave up the “form” (singular) of God. He did not give up “forms.” This would mean that even though the Father and Holy Spirit have distinguishable identity in function, they remain one in form. It is Jesus who took on another form, that being the form of man (Phil. 2:5-8). The Father and Holy Spirit retained the “form” of God.

Understanding this helps me to see the singularity of God even though there is a plurality of function or purposed divine effort entailed in a changed divine condition (two forms).

The Bible does not say that God eternally existed with identity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say that God eternally existed in the identity of God the first part who became the Father and God the second part who became the Son or as God the third part who was the Holy Spirit. What the Bible claims is that at the moment of creation, God had already “compartmentalized” himself into three roles in order to establish the exact relationship between himself and the creation that he desired to exist or obtain during the time of man’s existence on earth. The word for God in Gen. 1:1 is plural and the pronouns in 1:26-27 are plural and clearly identify the plurality of role (or function, or effort) that God would make with regard to man. But what these words do not tell us in the light of Deut. 6:4 is that God had always existed in these distinctive roles. That is mere assumption.

A different error made in the lectureship book is that Jesus was always the son of God. One writer wrote, “Jesus has been identified, or known, as Son of God throughout all eternity. There are many passages that prove this.” Interestingly, the passages that he cites (John 3:16; 1 John 4:14) do not prove the claim at all! The Bible nowhere teaches this. If Jesus had always been the son of God, then Jesus would have always been inferior to the Father eternally. Paul said there was complete equality between God and the Word before the incarnation (Phil. 2:5-8). If Jesus were the eternal Son of the Father, Jesus as Word could not have been equal. To make him equal, we would have to redefine the definition of Father and Son. And we are not in the position to change definitions to support our faulty concepts.

Another writer says, “The phrase ‘eternally begotten’ is often used here by theologians in reference to the eternal nature of the Son (cf. John 1:1-3).” Again, the passage, while claiming the eternality of the Word (who became flesh—John 1:14), says nothing about the claimed eternality of the Word existing as the Son of God. The expression “eternally begotten” is about as accurate as the expression “eternally created.” A begettal would be an event; so would a creation. How could either event be eternal? The fact is, Luke tells us the point at which the Word became the Son. Read Luke 1:35 very carefully, and the “mystery” disappears. An angel said to Mary, “Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called Son of God.”

When the Word became flesh (John 1:14), the Word became the Son (Luke 1:35). The eternal Word became the Son of God when he became the son of Mary. This isn’t hard to comprehend. Any passage referring to the Word (John 1:1-2) as the “Son” of God would have to be prophetic and proleptic. The references could not be historic! Recall that Cyrus was named in Isa. 44:28 (more than 100 years before his birth) to be God’s shepherd and builder of the temple. And the young prophet predicted at Bethel that Josiah would later burn priests’ bones on Jeroboam’s altar, and he made this prophecy 300 years prior to the birth of Josiah! Neither Cyrus nor Josiah existed when their names were called in these Old Testament settings. Any reference to the Word’s being the Son before the actual event of Luke 1:35 occurred would have to be prophetic and proleptic. Prolepsis is an ascription of a characteristic or trait, etc., to a subject but which trait is not yet historically realized. The trait is applied to the subject before it is actually eventuated. An example of prolepsis would be: President Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Kentucky.

Remember, too, that the prophesied Son would in the incarnation be the Father, also! There is no Bible affirmation that God (who became the Father to the Word who became the Son by means of the Holy Spirit) was Father to the Word prior to the actual historical event described in Luke 1:35. Recall Isaiah’s marvelous prophecy. Read it carefully: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

The Son would be the Father! The Father would be the Son! And the Father and Son would be the one mighty God, and the one mighty God would be and had to be the one Holy Spirit who only God can be (John 4:24; Rev. 4:8-11). There is only one Maker (Isa. 45:5, 9, 18). This means that the creation by means of the Word as described in John 1:1-2 was not a description of the creation by God through another person. God is and only can be one Lord (Deut. 6:4). That is what Jesus was trying to help Philip to comprehend in John 14:9 when he said, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?”

Now consider: The “distribution” of Holy Spirit (which the one God is) at the moment when Adam became a living soul (Gen. 2:7) or at the point when human conception takes place in human reproduction (Heb. 12:9), allowed and allows for a distribution of Holy Spirit into various individuals so that each person is completely distinct and completely whole as an individualized autonomous center of personhood, completely separate from all others in the same class of humans.

The compartmentalization of the one Spirit into functioning roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was a distinction in condition and function by means of the change in form which God underwent in the incarnation of Christ. But the change in form and in relationship (Father and Son by means of Holy Spirit) did not include a separation of eternal Holy Spirit among the three manifestations of the Godhead who remained one person (the eternal God). Remember, God remained whole and completely God (one Spirit) after the creation of Adam who was made in his image. So, God can only remain one God as this one Spirit is shared by the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This shared oneness of divine Spirit in a unique relational condition, yet retains for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deity itself! The “members” of the Godhead are manifestations (relationships of function) of one person rather than three.

Now, let me briefly note an objection which will arise to the above thesis. The question will come: If God is one person rather than three, what happens to the claim of Jesus on earth that he had the witness of the Father in addition to his own testimony. Look at John 8:12-20 carefully. The Pharisees suggest that since Jesus bore witness of himself, his witness wasn’t true (v. 13). In v. 14 Jesus claims that even if he had no other witness, what he was saying would still be true. And the proof which he cites has to do with his being God. He says, “my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go”. He came from God and is going back to God because he is God! God’s testimony does not require added witness! But, then, having made the claim that his word requires no further proof, he then adapts himself to their expectations under the law of Moses which required of mere men “witnesses.” He claims (v. 16) that his judgment is true for he is not alone. The Father that sent him is with him, and then he refers to the law of Moses which gave the witness requirement (v. 17). He says that he and the Father both bear witness and if the Pharisees knew who Jesus really was, they would know the Father (v. 18-20). Later in John 10:38, he claims that his works witness to his truth. They are the works of the Father, and if they would believe the works, they would then know that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. So, when we consider the witness required under the law of Moses for humans (that of two persons was required and sometimes that of three [cf. Deut. 17:6]), we see that the Lord’s discussion of himself and the Father is an accommodation to the Jewish law. And since the Father’s works constitute a witness, this shows clearly that the witness provided by deity does not necessitate witness of an additional person, for works are not a person! Too, remember that since God to Abraham could swear by none greater, “he sware by himself” (Heb. 6:13). He did not swear by “themselves!” Indeed, God is one person and always has been and always must be.

Now, when someone argues that we do have one God in the sense that we have one divine essence, but that we have three persons as necessitated by the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, his reasoning will not hold. Why not? Think of Rom. 9:5 with 1 Cor. 8:4-6. In Rom. 9, Paul claims that Jesus in the flesh was of Jewish ancestry. But he was much more than that. He was and “is Christ,” and Paul says that Christ is the one “who is over all,” and the Christ who is over all is “God blessed for ever. Amen.” Jesus Christ, a Jew “as concerning the flesh” is over all because he is God!

In 1 Cor. 8, Paul is discussing food sacrificed to idols. In that discussion, he says that Christians know that there is only one God (v. 4). Then he points out that in the world the view is different. There are many alleged beings that are “called gods whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many” (v. 5). Then in contrast to the false view in the world, he says “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him” (v. 6). Now follow these arguments:

Argument #2 on 1 Cor. 8:4-6

1. If (1) Paul affirms that there is only one God, and if (2) Paul grants that there are many so-called gods and lords, and if (3) Paul says that Christians have only one God the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ, then Paul is affirming that the Father and the Son constitute one person.

2. (1) Paul affirms that there is only one God (v. 4); and (2) Paul grants that there are many so-called gods and lords (v. 5); and (3) Paul says that Christians have only one God the Father and one Lord (v. 6).

3. Then, Paul is affirming that the Father and the Son constitute one person.

Paul is not saying that the world has many gods and lords but that the church has only one of each, and thus has more than one God! He has already said in v. 4 that the church has only one God! If the gods and lords of the world are viewed as distinctive singularities in person, then Paul cannot be saying that the church has two!

Argument #3 on Perpetual Oneness of Person

1. If (1) God is one God, and if (2) God was one God before the incarnation of Christ, and if (3) God remained one God after the incarnation of Christ, then the distinction drawn between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be a distinction in plurality of persons.

2. (1) God is one God (Deut. 6:4), and (2) God was one God before the incarnation of Christ (1 Cor. 8:4; John 1:14), and (3) God remained one God after the incarnation of Christ (1 Cor. 8:4).

3. Then, the distinction drawn between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be a distinction in plurality of persons.

Argument #4 On Essence and Number

1. If (1) there is only one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God), and if (2) that divinity is characteristic of one God, then that one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God) equals one person.

2. (1) There is only one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God) (Rom. 1:20-21; Acts 17:29), and (2) that divinity is characteristic of only one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4).

3. Then, that one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God) equals one person.

Argument #5 On God and Number

1. If (1) one God equals three persons and if (2) three gods equal three persons, then one God equals three gods.

2. But it is false that (1) one God equals three gods (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

3. Then, it is false that one God equals three persons.

So, over the years, we in the churches of Christ have been wrongly describing God! He is not simply one divine essence in three persons. He is the one divine essence who is the one God!

Now, let me close with three final arguments. In our past interpretation of passages which referenced Jesus Christ or the Father or the Holy Spirit, we envisioned three divine persons. We were wrong in the plurality of persons and we miscounted the number of forms. There are only two forms that involve the Godhead: the form of God and the form of man (Phil. 2:6-7). There are not three. Regarding God and man, we are dealing with divinity and humanity (or, we can say that we are dealing with flesh and Spirit). Now, consider these two arguments:

Argument #6 On Two Forms

1. If (1) Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form, and (2) if the Father and Holy Spirit retained the form (not forms) of God, then during the incarnation of Christ, the Godhead existed in two forms (the form of God and the form of man).

2. (1) Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 2:9), and (2) the Father and Holy Spirit retained the form (not forms) of God (Phil. 2:6-7).

3. Then, during the incarnation of Christ, the Godhead existed in two forms (the form of God and the form of man).

What we have historically interpreted from the New Testament as three persons in the Godhead [(1) the person of God the Father, (2) the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and (3) the person of the Holy Spirit] has always been one person in two forms. Now, consider the last argument:

Argument #7 On Shared Being and Shared Intelligence

1. If God can use Holy Spirit in the making of men in one form of humanity and who share being and intelligence in several persons, then God can use Holy Spirit in producing the incarnation of Christ in one form (the form of humanity) while the Father and Holy Spirit retain one form (form of divinity), both forms sharing in one person, being (eternal existence) and intelligence.

2. God can use Holy Spirit in the making of men in one form of humanity (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; Mal. 2:14-15; Heb. 12:9), and who share being and intelligence in several persons (Gen. 2:18-25).

3. Then, God can use Holy Spirit in producing the incarnation of Christ in one form (the form of humanity) while the Father and Holy Spirit retain one form (the form of divinity), both forms sharing in one person, being (eternal existence) and intelligence (Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:6-7; Matt. 16:13; Mark 14:61-62).

I hope we have learned that while it is possible for the eternal and infinite one God to make man in his (singular) image, and while it is possible for God to produce the incarnation of himself in Christ, it is impossible for God to stop being one God. Some of you who read this will remember our being taught that God is the one necessary being. It is impossible for him not to exist. His essence is to exist. And I will say that his essence to exist necessarily entails all of his attributes. All of his attributes in combination make it possible and necessary or essential for him to be the eternal and infinite God.

So, we have one more argument to consider:

Argument #8 On God’s Necessity

1. If (1) God exists necessarily, and if (2) God cannot cease to exist since he necessarily exists, and if (3) God’s necessary existence entails all of his attributes including his singularity of person, then God cannot cease being one person.

2. (1) God exists necessary (definition), and (2) God cannot cease to exist since he necessarily exists (definition), and (3) God’s necessary existence entails all of his attributes including his singularity of person (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:11; 45:6, 9, 18; Rom. 1:20-21; 1 Cor. 8:4).

3. Then, God cannot cease being one person.

Argument #9 On Deuteronomy 6:4

1. If “one Lord” is one person, then, “The Lord our God” is one person.

2. “One Lord” is one person (by description; also Luke 1:32; Matt. 22:37).

3. Then, “The Lord our God” is one person.

Argument #10 On Deuteronomy 6:4

1. If (1) “one Lord” equals one divine essence, and if (2) one divine essence equals one person, then “one Lord” equals one person.

2. (1) “One Lord” equals one divine essence (by definition), and (2) one divine essence equals one person (Rom. 1:20-21; Acts 14:17; Luke 1:32; Matt. 22:37).

3. Then, “one Lord” equals one person.

Now, have we unraveled the complexity of the Godhead? Of course not! Have we made a little conceptual and thus descriptional progress? We in our struggling way hope that we have made a little. As we eliminate false concepts of God, and thus wrong descriptions, we make progress in our thinking. And the more truth about God that we come to realize, the more profound he appears to us in our meditation.

Apologetics, Doctrine, Epistemology, Existence of God, Logic/Philosophy, Theology

Why Can’t God Lie?

Posted on March 5, 2026 by Mac Deaver

To ponder the existence and attributes of the God of the Bible is an exercise in fascination. Of course, in our thinking, we eventually run up against a wall in that we cannot discover and it has not by revelation been made known the exact clue to God’s eternality. But, there are things that we can, in our focus, come to comprehend. And as we do this, it gives us greater understanding as to why things are in reality as they are. It certainly helps us to come to a greater appreciation of God, his wonderful word, and all that he has done for us in making salvation possible.

Before answering the question which constitutes the title of this article, I would have us consider several relevant points that hopefully will provide a little background for proper thinking about the question at issue.

The apostle John once wrote, “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21). John was writing to “the children of God” (3:1). He is not writing to non-Christians as such. And he is telling his brethren that they had come to understand saving truth or the gospel. In 2:21 he makes three claims regarding why he has written to them: (1) it was not because they didn’t know the truth; (2) it was because they did know the truth; (3) and it was because no lie is of the truth. If they did not know the truth, they would not yet be Christians. Furthermore, it was very important that they did know the truth because one cannot be saved without coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), and since truth is truth, in knowing it they could have the benefit of what truth offered because no lie is of the truth. If they had only known the lie, they could not yet know the truth.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, interestingly, there are definite articles which are so insightful. To some who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” Paul informs us that God will send “a working of error” that those people should believe “the lie.” These are folk who believe “not the truth,” but who have pleasure “in the unrighteousness.” The definite article “the” is there in the original text where I have positioned it.

So, to mankind, two options are open to us regarding salvation information: (1) the truth, and (2) the lie. And in 1 John 2:21, John declares that “no lie is of the truth.” The “laws of thought” as regulative intellectual principles are relevant just here. According to Lionel Ruby’s Logic—An Introduction, the Law of Identity as applied to things means that things are what they are. To say that a horse is a horse means that the thing (horse) is itself. As applied to propositions the law means that if a proposition is true, then it is true. If a proposition is false, then it, of course, is false. It is itself. The second law of thought is the “Law of Excluded Middle,” which for propositions means that a precisely stated proposition is either true or it is false. With regard to things, if we say that all men are mortals, it is either true that all men are mortals or it is false that all men are mortals. There is no middle ground to take. The third law of thought is the “Law of Contradiction.” For things it means that nothing can be both A and its contradiction, not-A. If it is true that a thing is a horse, then it cannot be true that the thing is a non-horse. As applied to propositions, if it is true that man is made in the image of God, then it is false that man is not made in the image of God. A precise statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. If a human being is a male, it is false to say that he is not a male. If it is false to say that he is a male, then it is true that he is a non-male. These are basic regulatory principles innate to man that govern all his thinking (see Ruby, pp. 262-268).

So, when John says that “no lie is of the truth,” he is saying something about the nature of God (since God is the ultimate source of truth), and the nature of man (since man is made in the image of God), as well as the nature of truth. John implies that (1) truth is truth (thus affirming the Law of Identity), and (2) if a precise statement is made, it is either true or it is not true—it has to be one or the other (the Law of Excluded Middle), and (3) if a statement is true, its contradictory cannot be true; it must be false. A precise statement cannot be true and its contradiction be true also (the Law of Contradiction). In his incarnation, Jesus claimed to be the personification of truth (John 14:6). The Bible is truth in proposition form (declarations, affirmations, statements).

Now, we have two passages in the New Testament that inform us that God cannot lie. In Titus 1:2 Paul refers to God “who cannot lie.” And in Hebrews 6:18, Paul affirms that “it is impossible for God to lie.” And so we learn that not only does God not lie, but there is an explanation as to why he never does. Now please consider the seriousness of this affirmation. If God has not, does not, and will not lie, and if God has written the Bible, then what he has written is what it is (the Law of Identity), and it is either, in summary, true or it is false (the Law of Excluded Middle), and finally, the Bible cannot be both true and not true (the Law of Contradiction). The Bible, again, has to be either true or false, if it is true then it is true, and if it is true, it cannot then be non-true or false. No lie is of the truth!

Now, as we proceed, some critic might suggest that all we yet know is that the Bible claims that God cannot lie. And, furthermore, the critic might suggest that it might be true that the claim itself allegedly made regarding God in the Bible is itself false. Maybe God can lie, he suggests. If there is a God behind the writing of the Bible, why can’t we think that he could put some falsehood in it without identifying the falsehood, and telling us all the time that the falsehood is, after all, true?

Let me here say that our options regarding the authorship of Scripture are very limited. Either man wrote the Bible or God wrote the Bible. Without going into elaborative proof of the fact that no man and no set of men could possibly have written the Bible (given the nature of the Bible), then we are left with the option of God. Now, if someone thinks that “God” or the alleged God named in the Bible is capable of lying, we take up the exploration of the question at this point. (If the reader wants more information proving the impossibility of non-divine authorship of Scripture, we would suggest that he get a copy of The Utterance of God from the Warren Christian Apologetics Center at WarrenApologetics.org or 304.917.3707).

But now, let us begin to explore the “why” it is that the God of the Bible (the One who is claimed to be the author of the Bible) cannot lie.

The very concept of truth and the concept of falsehood entail the necessity of person. Only a person can tell a truth or a lie. And since a lie (falsehood) is the denial of truth, it presupposes truth. In other words, if the falsification of truth were actually possible without the already existent truth, the lie could not be false.

As we think about God and his relationship to truth, let us ask two questions:

1. Why can’t God be evil?

2. Why can’t God do evil?

First, God cannot be evil because of the definition or meaning of what God would necessarily have to be. Since ultimate reality would have to be either mind or matter, and since eternal matter is impossible and since eternal mind would have to be personal, ultimate reality would have to be mind. (see the Warren-Flew Debate for an excellent philosophical discussion of this most important truth). The world as we experience it and the Bible as we possess it are rationally explainable only on the basis of eternal Mind. And since mind implies person (only person possesses mind), and since evil presupposes good, the ultimately eternal existent Mind would of necessity have to be good. Ultimate reality or ultimate greatness is not only person, it is good Person. Good person entails moral agency or morality. You might remember that Jesus said there is a sense in which God is the only good person there is (Matt. 19:16-17). This is no coincidence! Ultimate greatness would entail, among other things, moral perfection (that is, there is absolutely no deficiency of any kind in this attribute).

As ultimately good, God would have to be—

1. Eternally good

2. Infinitely good

3. Unalterably good

4. Invulnerably good

5. Willfully good

Anselm argued that God is “that greater than which cannot be conceived.” And any “god” that would be deficient in goodness could not be that God.

If someone says that what God is is good regardless of its moral quality or character, then he is denying the ontologically necessary distinction between moral good and moral evil. In other words, if God’s own character decides for us what “morality” will be but his character is not actually a morally good one but simply “the way God is,” then such would be a declaration that there is no qualitative distinction between what is really morally good and what is really morally evil. They could be the same. God could then merely pontificate that murder is good and loving one’s neighbor is evil.

Second, in answering the next question as to why God can’t do evil, we must consider that not only is it the case that God is good, but we must also consider that God desires to be good. That is, God wants to be who he is, and he is certainly content with himself. He is actually good and if he “decides” to do anything such as to create something, he always does so and desires to do so from the point of view of what his goodness would implement. This brings us to the concept of God’s will.

The will of God is such a fundamental and extraordinary concept in Scripture. Jesus taught us to pray with regard to God’s will that it be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). Jesus came to earth to do the Father’s will (John 6:37-38). If we are alive on earth today, it is only by the will of God (Jas. 4:15). Jesus also informed us that “If any man willeth to do his [that is, the Father’s] will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (John 7:17).

Now, as a moral agent (the ultimate One), God is good and, therefore, wills to do good. God can only will to do good because he is good. And since he is good and wills to do good, his relationship to truth then (as something told) can only be to tell it if he speaks or declares anything at all. It is impossible for God to lie because it is impossible for God to will to speak a lie. And if God cannot tell a lie, he cannot write one!

I will close this brief piece with the observation without elaboration that the accuracy and profundity of the Bible (as well as its other traits) conclusively demonstrate that God is the divine author of all Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; John 5:46). This is God who cannot lie!

Doctrine, Logic/Philosophy, Theology

It Shall Be More Tolerable

Posted on November 1, 2022 by Mac Deaver

The biblical doctrine of hell has been part of the arsenal of skeptics for years. Along with the problem, as they see it, of reconciling an all powerful, all loving God with the reality of human suffering on this earth (and with the reality of animal suffering as well), skeptics have also used the biblical doctrine of hell as a justification for their rejection of the Bible as the word of God and of the existence of the God who is alleged to have written it. In Thomas B. Warren’s debates with Antony Flew, Wallace Matson, and Joe Barnhart, each of Warren’s opponents used the concept of hell against God’s existence and/or the ethic of Jesus Christ. In Flew’s fourth affirmative on Tuesday night, Flew said, “Suppose now, considering those alleged arrangement, someone says, as I would say, that it would be absolutely wrong to keep any conscious being, man or animal, in such torment forever; and, furthermore that it would be to the last degree monstrously unjust for a Creator Himself to punish His own creatures in that way” (Warren-Flew Debate, p. 69). In Matson’s second affirmative on Monday night, he referred to the New Testament teaching on hell (Warren-Matson Debate, p. 38). And while Warren defended God’s infinite love and justice, Matson denied that God’s love could be harmonized with God’s allowing a person to suffer punishment for even one moment in hell (p. 48). Matson inconsistently admitted that it would be right for mere humans to punish Hitler and wrong for God to do so (p. 76-77). And in his first rejoinder on Monday night of the debate, Matson in referring to Warren, said, “He did say that he loves his children and he has punished them. With a blowtorch in the face, Dr. Warren?” And if so, for one second, for one minute, for ten minutes, for an hour?” (p. 88).

In the Warren-Barnhart discussion, Joe Barnhart, in his first negative speech, said, “It is one thing to say that the vast majority of the human race of adults will be tortured and tormented endlessly because they did not subscribe to Tom’s (Thomas B. Warren, MD) ideological tenets. It is another thing to say more concretely that Tom’s grandfather or his brother is currently screaming in hell, and that Tom’s only word of comfort is, ‘Grandad (sic), you have what is coming to you. So take your torture and know that it is fully just’” (Warren- Barnhart Debate, p. 15).

Please note that both the Warren-Flew debate and the Warren-Matson debate were on the existence of God. The Warren-Barnhart debate was about ethics, and particularly it was a discussion of the ethical system proposed by Jesus Christ and that proposed by Jeremy Bentham as to which system was superior. Warren, of course, advocated the life prescribed by Jesus; Barnhart stood with Bentham. Barnhart’s position was completely exposed.

It is interesting that in each encounter, Warren’s opponents attempted to show that the concept of hell cannot cohere with God’s love and power (Flew and Matson) or with an ethical system that employs it (Barnhart). To Warren’s adversaries, any doctrine that entailed the concept of hell had to be false. Warren showed that any doctrine that denied hell had to be incomplete and was ascribing mere finite justice to God. Warren, of course, in my judgment did a masterful job in his effort to defend what the Bible claims about hell. Philosophically, he showed the justice of hell and the implications of denying the reality of hell. Furthermore, he pointed out the inconsistencies of philosophers who want to admit suffering as an objective concept and yet deny God who is necessary as a concept in making suffering objective in the first place. His defense of hell as an essential part of divine justice in the Matson affair was, in my judgment, extraordinary.

But, many people will never read those discussions, and I would think that many brethren have at times been bothered by what they read in scripture about hell as they reflect on the destiny of departed loved ones. During my lifetime, some preachers have even “opted” for a doctrine of a finite hell in their desire to find justice, but such effort is futile. I would suggest to all of them that they get the Warren-Matson Debate and devour it. This should help them immensely in becoming familiar with the intellectual concepts involved in the notion and necessity of divine punishment and with the eternality of it.

Let me just here present a few thoughts that I hope will be helpful to Bible believers, and perhaps even some skeptics, in trying to harmonize divine justice with our intellect and emotion as we experience suffering on earth and think about eternal suffering in hell. The doctrine of hell, it seems, can trigger human emotion somewhat like in our country the issue of abortion does. People can get awfully defensive or accusative very easily and very early. Let me mention and briefly elaborate on twelve fundamental facts that I hope will help us in putting the Bible’s doctrine of eternal punishment in perspective, thus seeing the doctrine of hell without intellectual and/or emotional distortion.

One, hell was originally made for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41; cf. 2 Pet. 2:4). However, it is the eternal destiny of men as well who die in their sin (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:11-15). Jesus used the reality of hell as a warning to mankind to live according to God’s will or to face divine punishment (Mark 9:42-50). Even God’s own people, according to the New Testament, must be careful to live righteously so as to avoid having to face hell (cf. Heb. 10:30-31; Jude 20-21; Matt. 25:46). But it is also the case that a Christian can become so mature in spiritual development that he no longer relies on hell as motivation to his righteousness (1 John 4:18). He now loves God so much that the fear earlier felt no longer constitutes a part of his motivation to continual righteousness.

Two, the nature of hell is punitive. That is, it is not for correction. It is pure punishment. Too, it is unending punishment. Whatever heaven is in its duration, hell is in its own duration also (Matt. 25:46). If one attempts to rid hell of its everlasting quality, he must also do the same with heaven. This shows the enormous significance of sin which is the violation of God’s will and which inevitably leads to hell if it remains unforgiven (1 John 3:4; Rom. 6:23). Furthermore, hell shows the shame involved anytime anyone enters eternity having rejected the means of deliverance from it. A man who dies in his sin has turned his back on God’s desire and plan for his own salvation which plan had included the death of Jesus Christ. And a Christian who apostatizes from the faith is said to have “trodden under foot the Son of God, and to have counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and to have done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29-30). His final state is even worse than that of the alien sinner who never knew the gospel (2 Pet. 2:20-22). What a man, once having committed sin, does or fails to do with regard to the gospel is a central fact to consider in the analysis of his just punishment.

Three, the language of hell in scripture is, at times, extreme and at other times it is somewhat softened (Mark 9:47-48; Luke 12:47-48). That is, there are times when hell is described in extreme language as productive of much personal pain, and again there are times when the language is reduced to presenting a punishment with less pain. Luke’s reference to some who will receive “few stripes” indicates this use of language. Since God is always eternally and infinitely fair, hell would have to entail this characteristic (Gen. 18:25; Rom. 3:25-26; 11:32). Not everyone deserves the same amount or degree of punishment. In the law of Moses, God made it very clear that He is quite concerned about justice or fairness of treatment. His own nature is the background out of which the very precisely stated laws in Deuteronomy come. Consider Deuteronomy 22:22-29 which even entails the notion of granting the accused the benefit of the doubt (v. 24-25). The New Testament teaches that God is especially concerned with punishing (1) those who walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and (2) those who despise dominion (2 Pet. 2:9-10). Some sins are worse than others! Of course, neither heaven nor hell are physical places, and what they offer by way of reward or punishment cannot be physical as the spirits of men who enter these domains are not physical (Luke 16:19-31; 1 Cor. 15:50). But the language that God employs in describing both places is based on our acquaintance with physical pleasure and pain. Thus, we are able to make a comparison between human existence in time and in eternity.

Four, the concept of hell is intended to be a deterrent to wrong living. Both reward and punishment are utilized in the Bible as motivations to righteousness (2 Tim. 4:6-8; Rev. 20:11-15). Some would suggest that men do not need such, but the Author of the Bible knows human nature completely. And observant men know that children at times need incentives and even adults can find great motivation in rewards offered (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24-25). And those bent on violence at times are curbed by the fear of facing punishment or having committed crime, they are incarcerated. Even with the presence of the Bible in the world today, we do not have to search for ungodliness among men. It permeates the societies of men. Indeed, the whole world lies in the evil one (1 John 2:15-17; 5:19). If human society is this way with the Bible within it, what would human society be like without it?

Five, the basic shared condition of all men in hell will be separation. It is a separation from God forever. John would call it “the second death” (Rev. 20:6). The Greek word for “death” here is “thanatos.” According to Vine, it signifies (1) the separation of man’s soul from his body, and (2) the separation of man from God (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 276). Of course, when speaking of man’s separation from God, the scriptures describe the condition while the man is on earth as spiritual death or as a death in sin (John 8:24; Eph. 2:5). When a sinner becomes a Christian, he becomes dead to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11). A sinner who remains in his sin faces eternal death or the second death (Rom. 6:23; Matt. 25:46). So, just as a human body separated from its spirit is physically dead (Jas. 2:26), when a man is separated by sin from his God, he is spiritually dead. When that man is punished by God in hell, he is being separated from God forever. This is eternal death. And that is what all lost men face. And there is no remedy or relief from it once a person leaves this earth (Heb. 9:27). Thus, there is the necessity of obedience to the gospel of Christ. The gospel frees man from sin and prevents any entry into hell! All men should love God for making life possible and for making such fantastic delivery from sin available (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 4:19). Heaven is what earth is all about (Heb. 2:9-10; Eph. 3:10-11)! This is so because of God’s love and will. However, hell is what earth tends toward in the lives of those who die on it without God.

Six, the fact is that if a man enters hell he does so by his own choice. Given human free will, each man decides his own eternal destiny. Neither God nor the devil can make this determination for him. Each man decides his own destiny. No man will ever on earth unravel the complexities involved in human free will. But the fact is, each of us is free and thus the personal agent of his own thoughts and deeds. The doctrine of hell is involved in the doctrine of human responsibility and accountability. The New Testament warns all of us that we will give account of our lives on this earth. The doctrine of hell is intended to help man live on this earth before God and with his fellow man in a responsible way. He is under obligation to love God and his neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40). Whether he obeys his obligation or not, he will face God in judgment (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:11-15). If a man leaves this earth in his sin, he judges himself unworthy of eternal life (cf. Acts 13:46).

Seven, the Bible plainly teaches that God wants all men to be saved (Heb. 2:9-10; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). God has always had in mind the eternal purpose of saving man from the sin which God knew he would commit (Eph. 3:10-11). God does not want man to enter hell! If a man enters hell that implies that the man left this earth in his sin which God wanted removed. Remember, God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to die for all of mankind (John 3:16; Heb. 2:9-10). God finds no joy in the physical death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23, 32). The death of the righteous, however, is “precious” to God (Psalm 116:15). The Bible is marvelous in its own description of the divine plan of salvation that God had in mind before the creation of the universe (Eph. 1:3-10). The plan of salvation is wonderful in its development throughout history down to the coming of Jesus and the establishment of His church. Romans 11 is a most excellent summation of how God used both Jews and Gentiles to make sure that the gospel of Christ eventually would go to all men throughout the world as God took men from Patriarchy (Moral Law-ism) and Judaism to amenability to the gospel. Indeed in about thirty years from around 33 A.D. to about 63 A.D. the gospel was preached in the whole creation (Col. 1:6, 23; Mark 16:19-20). God knew that when He created man that man would have to have help. It evidently was always God’s desire to bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2.10). When a man physically dies in his sin, his spiritual death having been self-inflicted, now means that his “second death” destiny has been self-determined.

Eight, men who leave this world in their sin today do so having rejected all of God’s help available to them for their salvation. They have refused all divine aid available to rescue them from their evil ways. In other articles I have discussed this vital point, but I repeat that the system of divine delivery is sufficient to the salvation of each person. God is not helpless to deliver from sin. God sent His Son for all of us (John 3:16). God made each one of us by personal constitution such that we could and should search for saving truth (Acts 17:27). Paul told that truth to heathen idolaters in Athens. We are made to look for God! And God will help us find Him (Luke 11:5-13). While the church is responsible to uphold the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), God is still and always has been responsible to make sure that every person on the earth who desires the truth will find the truth. That is not up to the church. That is between that soul and his Maker!

Unfortunately, in my lifetime, most preachers have attempted to put that responsibility of rescue on the church, but one cannot rightly place it there. The church can certainly cooperate with God in upholding and circulating truth, and we should do that in compliance with our obligation to love our brethren and to love all men. But the basic responsibility of rescue (as with the right of divine condemnation) has always been God’s. God made man so that he would look for his Maker (Acts 17:27). And all men have God’s promise that He will as a loving Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him (Luke 11:13). And that Spirit is given to one who finds the truth and who obeys it (Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:2). The program is God’s. God wants to be found! The church is composed of those who have found God and His truth (1 Tim. 2:4), and the church certainly is to live in and support that truth (John 8:32; 1 John 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:15).

The church should do what we can in supporting the gospel especially in areas where it seems to be currently welcomed. But God opens and closes the doors to gospel reception (Rev. 3:7). Consider that the brotherhood combined, if it lost all of its love for the gospel, could not possibly prevent one alien sinner with an honest and good heart from being saved by God! God saved people before the Lord’s church was even here (Matt. 8:11). Now that she is here, she certainly should love the saved and the lost and love the truth by which any man can be saved (1 Thess. 4:9-10; Rom. 12:9-10; 13:8-10; 2 Thess. 2:10-12). The priority of her efforts, however, puts her regard for her brethren above those who are not (Gal. 6:10). In my lifetime, most brethren seem to place the priority on the lost rather than on the saved. This wrong idea did not come from scripture! We misunderstood scripture regarding evangelism and applied our misunderstanding of it to ourselves as an obligation which is impossible to obey. The mistake we have made is that the “great commission” given to the apostles and only to the apostles, is now somehow an obligation perpetually bound on the church. But as I have shown, this is not even possible. (If you have not read it, please read “The Great Commission Has Been Fulfilled” at biblicalnotes.com). Divine salvation, as with divine condemnation, is fundamentally a responsibility of God Himself who will always do right by man whom He loves (Gen. 18:25). Surely, no Christian for a moment thinks that his own death will lessen the opportunity for a lost man to become a saved one by the grace of God. In the year that king Uzziah died, God remained on His lofty throne (Isaiah 6:1). With the passing of any man or many men, God remains on His throne and in complete control of affairs on earth. He still knows how to get a lost man who loves truth and desires salvation into contact with that truth! And Christians, to be like God, desire the salvation of all men.

Nine, the separation from God forever will be more tolerable for some than for others. Consider Romans 9:1-5. I have puzzled over this passage for years. For most of my life I took the passage to be hyperbolic. That is, I took Paul’s expression of potential sacrifice to be figurative. Read the passage very carefully. Paul desires the salvation of his fellow Jews. His desire is great. He bemoans their fate in hell because of their rejection of the gospel (as a nation). Consider Romans 10:1-2. He says that if his own damnation could be a guaranty of their salvation, he could bring himself to wish that he were anathema. In other words, if he could possibly trade his salvation for damnation in order to the Jews’ salvation, he could bring himself to make the trade. He doesn’t say he wished that, but we cannot escape the point that he claimed that if the situation which could not be actually could be, that by that actualization, he could bring himself to the point of wishing or willing his own loss for the salvation of his kinfolk!

I no longer consider his remarks as hyperbolic. Why? Notice that before Paul makes the extreme point regarding this proposed conceptual sacrifice that he introduces it by emphasizing what he is about to say by affirming the following: (1) I say the truth, (2) I say the truth in Christ, (3) I lie not, (4) my conscience is bearing witness with me, and (5) my conscience is bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit. These four supports stand behind the truthfulness of what he is about to say, and what he is about to say is that he has great sorrow and unceasing pain in his heart for his kinfolk and that he could bring himself to wish himself anathema for their sake. I no longer think that he is presenting hyperbole. He would not have given the five points to support exaggeration for the sake of emphasis, which is what hyperbole is. Of course, a Christian who loves the souls of men as much as Paul could not possibly be involved in any such trade as Paul, in concept, is willing to entertain. But in saying what he does with regard to it, Paul gives us insight into a great truth regarding eternal punishment. While faithful Christians cannot be lost as long as they are faithful Christians, if they could be lost in that condition, their love of their fellow man would lessen their misery in hell! Otherwise, Paul could not possibly say that he could, in the given situation proposed, wish himself anathema. Hell is more tolerable for those who on earth loved their neighbor even though they didn’t love God and His truth (cf. John 15:13).

Ten, the separation from God forever must be eternal. But why couldn’t God simply “snuff out” the spirits of wicked men who leave earth unprepared to meet their God? The answer is that God cannot simply “snuff out” or annihilate the spirits of men. And this is true because the spirit of every man is of the essence of Holy Spirit. In a context where God through Malachi is rebuking His people for the way that they have treated marriage, Malachi points out that if the ideal marriage state had entailed more than one woman for a man, God could have given Adam more than Eve. How was that possible? He had the “residue of the spirit” (Mal. 2:15). Moses had told us that God had made man in His image (Gen. 1:26-27). And the Hebrews writer years later referred to God as “the Father of spirits” (Heb. 12:9). Men are in essence kin to God by our spirit which derives from Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23). We are not related to God because of our dust (Gen. 2:7). None of us can know exactly “how” God can produce kinfolk to Himself, but the fact is, per plain Bible teaching, He has done it. And somehow by using Holy Spirit in our construction, He made us in His image without making us divine. We could not become God (since we are created beings) but we could share with God His essence. Somehow the distribution of Spirit essence via human conception weakens that essence by its connection to flesh (cf. Matt. 26:41). This is why God cannot be tempted, but Jesus in the flesh could (Jas. 1:13; Matt. 4:1-11). So, man cannot be God. In fact, we are not even given the status of angels (Heb. 2:7). And while man’s body and soul can be terminated, a man’s spirit cannot because it is of the same essence as God Himself! God is eternal “in both ways” from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2); man has a “one ended eternity.” That is, while man certainly had a beginning, he can know no end, unlike creatures whose nature is below that of the human level. Man’s body (dust) can and does come to an end. His spirit does not. And since man can know no end, then final divine punishment given him can know no end either if remaining apart from God is punishment, and it is. Man’s eternal punishment must exist as long as he does, and since he cannot cease from existence, hell cannot end.

Eleven, God’s nature doesn’t change (Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17). Among other things, He is love (1 John 4:8). But we are instructed to accept His love and once having entered into the grace that that love brings, to remain in that grace or what, we will call, the expression of God’s love. Notice the warnings given in scripture regarding a disciple’s remaining in the love of God. Consider John 15:9-10. Jesus encouraged His apostles to abide in His love just as Jesus had abided in the Father’s love. And He stated that remaining in God’s love was attached to keeping God’s commandments. Jude wrote to brethren, “keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21). But now, given the fact that God doesn’t change His nature, what does it mean for a man to keep himself in God’s love? The answer lies in distinguishing between motive and methodology.

Paul exhorted the Corinthian church, “Let all that ye do be done in love” (1 Cor. 16:14). Earlier, however, he had asked the brethren with regard to a future visit that he himself hoped to make to them, “What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?” (1 Cor. 4:21). The context shows us that Paul had been rebuking the brethren regarding many things. So much was wrong with the church in Corinth! And due to the sad and unfortunate situation, Paul was having to be quite frank. And he wanted the brethren to correct their errors and get things back in order lest when he come to them again personally, he would have to rebuke them further. He did not want this. But he shows that it is up to them. If they do not change their ways, he will bring a rod. If they do make the necessary changes, he will be able to face them in love and in a spirit of gentleness.

Now, since Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:14 by inspiration tells the brethren that all that they do is to be done in love, he cannot himself possibly be meaning in 1 Corinthians 4:21 that he has the right to do some things that are NOT “in love.” So, what can 1 Corinthians 4:21 mean? If he can bring “love and a spirit of gentleness” on the one hand if they repent, does bringing a rod as distinguished from “love and a spirit of gentleness” mean that he won’t bring the rod in love? The answer lies in making the distinction between Paul’s (1) condition of love and his motivation of love with (2) the expression of it. If he is compelled to bring a rod, while his heart remains one of love for them and his motivation in writing is prompted by love, the rod as an expression of that love will not be pleasant! So the key is in understanding condition and motivation as distinguished from the expression of that condition and motivation or intention (cf. Heb. 12:9-11; Prov. 13:24). God remains Himself and part of Him is the infinite trait of love (1 John 4:8). Man is His own creation (Gen. 1:26-27). God loves man (John 3:16). But He tells us that He will punish us eternally for our sins if we refuse to accept His deliverance from them. While His love remains constant as His infinite and eternal condition and motivation, the expression of that love will not in hell be pleasant at all! In Romans 11:22 Paul wrote, “Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” God’s severity cannot cancel His goodness (as condition and motivation or intention), but it does eliminate the expression of that goodness as goodness (that which would be pleasant to receive). Rather, His personal goodness expresses itself to the lost finally in severity.

Jesus on one occasion was upbraiding some impenitent cities where He had performed miracles. The people had refused to repent. And so in speaking of Chorazin and Bethsaida, He said that if the mighty works that He had performed in them had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, that Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. And then He compared the eternal destiny of Chorazin and Bethsaida with that of Tyre and Sidon. He said, “But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you” (Matt. 11:22). Indeed, greater privilege brings greater responsibility, and failure with regard to greater privilege brings greater condemnation (Luke 12:48). Individual situations are not the same, but all men die either in sin or forgiven of it. And those who die in sin are told by God that they cannot be with Him in eternity. Jesus made this clear (John 5:28-29; Mark 16:15-16). And the apostle John in writing the last book of the New Testament describes the awful and eternal ruin of those whose names are not written in the book of life (Rev. 20:11-15).

Twelve, man is in no position to criticize God for telling us what to Him an unforgiven sinner finally deserves given his rejection of the divine offer of forgiveness. Warren stressed in public debate that man simply is in no position to criticize God! From what vantage point does an atheist present his criticism? He attempts to put himself above God in his critique of God’s character. Granted, man can know by pure reason that if God punishes man for sin, He must be fair in the doing of it. This we willingly and gladly admit. Man knows that God would have to be fair in all things, and he knows this, first of all, by his conscience. It is his conscience which provides man with the insight into the distinction between moral right and moral evil. Without conscience, man cannot distinguish between moral right and moral wrong. But in order for that moral information to be available for intuition (his immediate grasping of this distinction without having to reason about it), his conscience must be a product of God Himself. The intellectual CONCEPT of the distinction between moral right and wrong is not simply floating around in space. It is content. It is information insight. And as a moral conceptual fact, it has to have ultimate source in MIND. Also, remember that man’s own awareness of and the need for, at some level, JUSTICE ITSELF implies that the source of conscience is God HIMSELF. God is the ultimately fair or just PERSONALITY in existence. He cannot be otherwise (cf. Rom. 3:25-26).

The atheist is simply wrong in his conception of what ultimate “justice” would have to be. He wants to claim that if God punished man in hell, God would be unjust in that He would be the committer of moral evil Himself. But unfortunately for the atheist, objective moral evil requires the prior existence of objective moral good, and the existence of objective moral good has to reside in a person, and that Person must be God. In other words, the atheist attempts to ascribe objective moral wrong to such a hell-providing God without realizing that the very existence of objective moral wrong would demand the existence of an ultimate moral being—God! Without good there can be no evil, and without ultimate eternal Good, there can be no proper criticism of anyone for anything at anytime for any alleged moral wrong. God will always remain beyond the scope of righteous criticism. And instead of constantly attempting to justify oneself to oneself because he thinks hell would be unfair, a man should seek to glorify the God who made him and who assures him that He loves him. Indeed the skeptic needs to realize that the goodness of God is intended to lead him to repentance and obedience to the gospel of Christ (cf. Rom. 2:4; Heb. 5:8-9). And that skeptic should also know that if he remains impenitent he is simply treasuring up wrath for himself “in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom. 2:5).