The Remonstrants on the Nature of Faith: Simon Episcopius Expounds upon Salvational Faith

        [K]nowledge alone of the divine will does not suffice for true and saving faith, or understanding of all the concepts [which] are contained in the gospel. For this is possible without assent and trust. Indeed, it really is in the demons, and in many of the ungodly and unbelieving. Nor indeed is it any assent whatever, namely sudden, perfunctory, implicit, brutish or blind, ungrounded in reason and yielded without judgment. For this by itself, taken alone, is not saving, nor can it ever sufficiently move the will to any rational and free obedience. And therefore [assent] is not rarely found in those who live little like Christians, but it must be entirely firm and solid, strengthened by the command of a deliberate will.[1]

        Finally, assent which is faithful and obedient is called faith, not just an absolute confidence of special mercy, almost as if already secured, namely, by which I believe that my sins are already forgiven me (for this is not the essential form which constitutes justifying faith, but only a certain additional consequent[;] indeed it necessarily presupposes saving faith itself, as its prerequisite condition), but by which I firmly establish that it is impossible that I should escape eternal death and to the contrary obtain eternal life by any other means than Jesus Christ, and in any other way than by that prescribed by him. And hence this has always had joined to it our debt of new obedience to Jesus Christ, that is, not some sterile purpose of obeying or feelings without effect, but which continually brings forth of itself true and actual obedience itself.

Simon Episcopius,[2] ‘On faith in Jesus Christ’, in Mark A. Ellis (trans. and ed.), The Arminian Confession of 1621, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2005), pp. 78–9

Copyright © Mark A. Ellis, 2005. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Ellis’ The Arminian Confession of 1621 (2005),* see the links to the following websites:

• Pickwick Publications (Wipf and Stock Publishers)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
• Amazon

Notes

        1.  In order to enhance readability, I have added a paragraph break (not found in the original). 

        2.  Simon Episcopius (1583–1643), protégé of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), is attributed as the author of the Arminian/Remonstrant Confession of 1621 (i.e. the ‘Confession or Declaration of the Pastors which in the Belgian Federation are called the Remonstrants, on the principle articles of the Christian Religion’). See Ellis, ‘Introduction’, in Tbe Arminian Confession of 1621, p. ix, par. 2. Ellis’ translation of the confession is from Latin to English. (As an aside, the Dutch names of Episcopius and Arminius are Simon Bisschop and Jakob Hermanszoon [respectively].)  —J. D. Gallé

Revisions:  Emended the title of post on Saturday, 30 October 2021; added a note on Saturday, 28 September 2024.

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Robert E. Picirilli on the Nature of Discipleship

        To be a disciple means to repent and believe the gospel and so to enter the Kingdom of God. It means to declare sincerely that one is a follower of Jesus, learning from Him. It means one must renounce all other competing allegiances and values and submit to His Lordship as the one who will teach the will of God. It means applying that teaching to one’s own life and so bringing forth “fruit worthy of repentance.” It means giving the word of God a favorable hearing and keeping it. In short, this means leaving, following, and learning.
        And this is what it means to be a Christian.

Robert E. Picirilli, Discipleship: The Expression of Saving Faith (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2013), p. 38, emphases in original

Copyright © Robert E. Picirilli, 2013. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Picirilli’s Discipleship: The Expression of Saving Faith (2013),* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Matthew 3.12 and Traditionalist Translational Bias in the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 10 March 2017

        The CSB[1] translates Matthew 3.12 in such a way that it is apt to reinforce belief in the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment amongst its (principally) conservative evangelical readership:

“His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn. But the chaff he will burn [katakausei] with fire that never goes out [puri asbestō].”[2]

        By way of contrast, the BSB,[3] LEB,[4] MEV,[5] Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (2011), NASB,[6] NET,[7] and NKJV[8] translate katakaiō as ‘burn up’, and six of the seven preceding English Bible translations render pur asbestos as ‘unquenchable fire’.[9]
        The trouble with the CSB’s rendering of Matthew 3.12 is that it is interpretational in nature, potentially (if not very likely) misleading, and reflective of traditionalist translational bias. A fire that never goes out conforms well with the conventional notion that the wicked will be preserved for ever in a place of torment (i.e. ‘hell’), but such a reading of Matthew 3.12 is not derived from the actual text.

Katakaiō 

[K]ατακαίω [katakaiō] means not only to burn, but “to consume” by fire ([…]). It is used in relation to burning the gates of the Jerusalem temple (1 Mac. 4:38), of books (Acts 19:19), trees and grass of the earth (Rev 8:7), weeds (Matt 13:40), and chaff […] [Matt 3:12].[10]

Pur Asbestos

[T]he image of unquenchable fire throughout the Old Testament prophets, […] [describes] fire that cannot be resisted or put out. Not surprisingly, such a fire consumes, reduces to nothing and burns up whatever is put in it (Ezek 20:47-48; Amos 5:6; Mt 3:12).[11]

Commenting on Mark 9.43 and the ‘unquenchable fire’ of Gehenna, Kim Papaioannou observes:

[Ἄσβεστον (asbeston)] qualifies the nature of the πῦρ [pur], namely, that it cannot be put out by a third party. It is thus a description of the nature of the fire without any reference to duration.[12]

Conclusion

        When left unmolested by the traditionalist biases of certain English Bible translation committees, Matthew 3.12 can readily be seen as providing solid support for an annihilationist understanding of the future and final judgement of the unrepentant. The contrast John the Baptiser sets forth in this text is one of preservation and destruction. As wheat is gathered and preserved in a barn at the time of harvest, the righteous will be preserved from the wrath of God on Judgement Day. Conversely, as chaff is discarded and consumed at harvest time, the unrighteous will not be so preserved, but completely destroyed (see Matt. 13.30, 40).
        Regrettably, the Christian Standard Bible obscures this rather plain reading of Matthew 3.12 in two ways. The CSB (1) blunts the force of the term katakaiō (‘burn up’, ‘consume’) by rendering it simply as ‘burn’; and (2) reads duration into pur asbestos where such a consideration is absent (i.e. the ‘fire that never goes out’).

Notes

        1. Christian Standard Bible (2017). All emphases in scriptural quotations have been added by the author.
        2. Compare Matthew 3.12c in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009): ‘“But the chaff He will burn up [katakausei] with fire that never goes out [puri asbestō].”’
        3. Berean Study Bible (2016).
        4. Lexham English Bible (2012).
        5. Modern English Version (2014).
        6. New American Standard Bible (1995).
        7. New English Translation (1996–2006).
        8. New King James Version (1982).
        9. The NET reads ‘inextinguishable fire’.
        10. Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehena, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), p. 69 n. 55.
        11. Edward William Fudge, ‘The Teachings of Jesus’, in idem and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), p. 38.
        12. Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell, p. 34.

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2017, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Addendum.  Readers are encouraged to consult the volumes cited in this article (see nn. 10 and 11 above).


Latest revisions: 19 February 2018 (all colons dividing chapters and verses of scriptural references have been converted to full stops; added a comma in n. 10; altered a ‘cf.’ to ‘see’); 24 February 2018 (abbreviated a scriptural citation; converted one semi-colon to a comma); emended note 11 (9 Oct. 2021); altered one scriptural abbreviation (2 Dec. 2021).

1 Peter 1.20 and the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 27 January 2017

        The Christian Standard Bible (2017) joins the ESV,[1] LEB,[2] NASB,[3] and NET[4] in rendering proginōskō as ‘foreknown’ in 1 Peter 1.20:

He was foreknown [proegnōsmenou] before the foundation of the world but was revealed in these last times for you. (CSB, emphasis added)

        The CEB,[5] HCSB,[6] and NIV[7] have ‘chosen’ for proginōskō in the main text; the Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (2011) has ‘chosen in advance’; the MEV[8] and NKJV[9] read ‘foreordained’; the NRSV[10] and RSV[11] have ‘destined’.
        Why is this a matter of importance? The aforementioned readings – ‘chosen’, ‘chosen in advance’, ‘foreordained’, ‘destined’ – are theologically loaded renderings of proginōskō. In 1 Peter 1.20, knowing in advance, not ordaining or choosing in advance, is specifically the concept in view. God’s plan of redeeming fallen humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, whilst foreknown to the Father prior to the foundation of the world, has now been made manifest to believers at the end of the times (see vv. 18–21). What was previously concealed has now been disclosed.

Notes 

        1. English Standard Version (2001–2016).
        2. Lexham English Bible (2012).
        3. New American Standard Bible (1995).
        4. New English Translation (1996–2006).
        5. Common English Bible (2011).
        6. Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009). (As from early 2017, the HCSB will be replaced by the CSB translation.)
        7. New International Version (2011).
        8. Modern English Version (2014).
        9. New King James Version (1982).
        10. New Revised Standard Version (1989).
        11. Revised Standard Version (1971).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2017, 2018. All rights reserved.


Addendum.  To view the Christian Standard Bible online, see the link to the following website: <https://read.csbible.com>.


Latest revisions: 28 January 2017 (emended last paragraph slightly; added one sentence); 18 January 2018 (converted three colons to full stops); 7 May 2019 (modified URL).

Does ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?

J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Preface

        The following article, ‘Does “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth” Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?’ (4 Oct. 2016), is a revised/reworked, expanded, and retitled version of my earlier piece, ‘Does “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth” Denote Suffering in Scripture?’ (16 Jan. 2015).


Does ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ Denote Ongoing Suffering in the Synoptic Gospels?

        For the best and most detailed exposition of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts that I am presently aware of, see Kim Papaioannou’s recently published work on the doctrine of final punishment as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus (2013).[1] As it turns out, the phrase does not indicate what Robert Peterson and fellow traditionalist interpreters typically assume that it does: externally inflicted pain experienced by the unrighteous in ‘hell’ throughout eternity. Rather, it is an expression intended to denote the acute, internal emotional response of those finally excluded from the kingdom of heaven/God (Lk. 13.28; cf. Matt. 8.12).

        Throughout Scripture, when a person or group is said to gnash or grind his/her/their teeth at another, it invariably denotes a hostile, wrathful response directed against a perceived party of injury or offence (see Ps. 112.10; Acts 7.54). It does not signify the external imposition of suffering, pain, or torment that will be undergone by the unjust in Gehenna.[2, 3] Weeping likewise arises from a negative psychological state, stemming from sadness or despair. The lost will be be grieved beyond measure (weeping) and enraged at God and Christ for not inheriting the kingdom (gnashing their teeth). Any physical suffering the unrighteous may undergo as a result of divine retribution being meted out on them on the day of judgement is not the point being emphasised in these texts.
        Lastly, it must be noted that not one of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts (Matt. 8.12; 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30; Lk. 13.28) provides any warrant or expectation that this response will carry on unendingly.[4] How long the activities of wailing and teeth-gnashing are to continue is not a factor under consideration in these passages. Even so, Peterson insists on reading everlasting torment into these texts largely due to his unwillingness to re-examine the one foundational assumption underlying his entire study on the nature of final punishment: universal human immortality. For this reason Peterson is left with no choice but to define the scriptural language of death and destruction in such a way that the supposition of general immortality is left unscathed.[5] Unfortunately, much of Peterson's argumentation is circular in nature and his exegesis suffers greatly on key texts as a result.[6]

Conclusion

        Firstly, in the Synoptic Gospels the expression ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ specifically pertains to the visceral, emotional response of the unrighteous following their banishment or removal from the heavenly kingdom. These two emotions are grief and anger (or rage). The response of the excluded is one that issues from an internal state: a state of mental distress resulting from their great disappointment in being rejected from the kingdom of heaven/God. The phrase is not used with reference to any external infliction of pain or suffering that the unrepentant may experience as remuneration for their sins on Judgement Day. Bodily torture is not in view.
        Secondly, in respect of duration, the seven ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ passages are silent regarding how long the wicked will endure their condition of psychological misery.[7]
        Thirdly and finally, in the light of the foregoing considerations, none of the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ texts located in the Synoptics can be used as positive support for the teaching of endless torture. These passages should therefore no longer be employed by adherents of the conventional view of ‘hell’ as proof texts for eternal, conscious punishment.

Notes

        1. Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), pp. 175–233. See also idem, ‘Shedding Light on the Outer Darkness: A Fresh Look at the Language of Hell’, Ministry: International Journal for Pastors vol. 84, no. 9 (Sept. 2012): 19–22, <https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/09/shedding-light-on-the-outer-darkness>.

        2. Contra Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995), pp. 51, 164–5, 167–8; idem, ‘The Foundation of the House: Scripture’, in Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), pp. 139, 159.
        3. This common misunderstanding and misapplication of the expression ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ has been observed by Edward William Fudge (‘A Conditionalist Response to Traditionalism’, in idem and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, pp. 197–8):

Peterson asserts that “Scripture repeatedly explains the effect of hellfire on those cast into it; it brings great pain” (p. 139). As proof he refers to Jesus’ mention of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Like all traditionalists, Peterson reads into this language the meaning he needs to prove. He completely ignores the Bible’s own usage of “gnashing of teeth”—a phrase consistently indicating great anger.

        4. As noted in Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell, pp. 190, 240–1. See also David J. Powys, ‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997 / Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), p. 283.
        5. That is, metaphorically, paradoxically, counter-intuitively.
        6. See, for example, Peterson’s treatment of Matthew 3.12; 10.28; 13.40; John 3.16, 36; 2 Peter 2.6; 3.6–7, 9; and Jude 7 in Hell on Trial and Two Views of Hell. (For complete references of the two aforementioned titles, see n. 2 above.)
        7. Nevertheless, we do find evidence in one pericope indicating that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will – rather, must – come to an end: Jesus’ exposition of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13.36–43). As the tares will be bundled and burned up at the time of harvest, so it will be in the case of the unrighteous at the close of the age (v. 40). Contrary to the conventional view, the imagery of fire and consumption strongly suggest destruction, not preservation in torment.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Addendum.  Readers are encouraged to consult the literature cited in this article. See especially note 1 (above).

Latest revisions: 1 November 2016 (altered one word in n. 7); 5 November 2016 (altered ‘Jesus’s’ to ‘Jesus’ ’ in n. 7); 17 January 2017 (converted ‘InterVarsity Press’ to ‘IVP Academic’ for citation in n. 2; hyphenated one term); 3 April 2017 (minor emendations made to some references); 12 July 2017 (added three commas); 25 December 2017 (converted an en dash to a colon in n. 4); 19 January 2018 (all colons dividing chapters and verses of scriptural references have been converted to full stops); 23 February 2018 (some scriptural citations abbreviated [e.g. ‘Matt.’ to ‘Mt ’]; added brackets to n. 3; replaced ‘and’ with ampersand in n. 4); 24 February 2018 (removed a hyphen in one place); 11 May 2019 (replaced ‘e.g.’ with ‘for example’ in n. 6); 23 May 2019 (replaced ‘I.e.’ with ‘That is’ in n. 5; altered preposition in n. 6); added further detail to n. 1 (18 Sept. 2021); altered scriptural abbreviations (31 Oct. 2021); emended n. 6 (25 Feb. 2022); slightly emended citation in n. 3 (13 Aug. 2022); emended n. 1 (7 Sept. 2022); reverted a portion of n. 2 to its earlier, original form (26 Sept. 2022).

The Promise of a Complete Table of Contents for ‘The Promise of Arminian Theology’ (2016)

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 8 September 2016

        What follows is the table of contents for the recently released festschrift, Matthew Steven Bracey and W. Jackson Watts (eds), The Promise of Arminian Theology: Essays in Honor of F. Leroy Forlines (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2016).[1] Included are the names of the various essayists and comprehensive chapter pagination.

Introduction: Celebrating a Hero of the Free Will Baptist Faith | Matthew Steven Bracey (pp. 1–4)

Part 1[2]: Prolegomena 

1. The Theological Method of Forlines | Andrew Ball (pp. 7–25)
2. Worldview and Culture in the Thought of Forlines | Phillip T. Morgan (pp. 27–51) 

Part 2: Understanding the Gospel 

3. Election and the Influence and Response Model of Personality | Kevin L. Hester (pp. 55–80)
4. Forlines’s Theology of Atonement and Justification | Jesse F. Owens (pp. 81–100)
5. Sanctification and Spirituality | Barry Raper (pp. 101–120)
6. Leaving Jesus: Forlines’s View of Conditional Perseverance | David Outlaw (pp. 121–139)
7. Forlinesean Eschatology: A Progressive Covenantal Approach | Matthew McAffee (pp. 140–170) 

Part 3: Ethics, Culture, and the Church 

8. Building a Forlinesean Ethic | W. Jackson Watts (pp. 173–197)
9. Confronting Secularism | Matthew Steven Bracey (pp. 199–222)
10. Communicating the Gospel: The Church’s Mission and Ministry | Christopher Talbot (pp. 223–245)
11. Understanding and Helping People | Edward E. Moody, Jr (pp. 247–266) 

Part 4: Personal Tributes 

F. Leroy and Fay Forlines: A Tribute to Our Parents | James Forlines and Jon Forlines (pp. 269–275)
F. Leroy Forlines as a Colleague and Friend | Robert E. Picirilli (pp. 277–283)
F. Leroy Forlines as Mentor | J. Matthew Pinson (pp. 285–290) 

Conclusion: Forlines and the Future | W. Jackson Watts (pp. 291–293) 

Acknowledgments | Matthew Steven Bracey and W. Jackson Watts (p. 295) 

Contributors (pp. 297–300) 

Subject and Name Index (pp. 301–311)

 

Notes

        1. The occasion for this post arose for the simple reason that, at the time of this writing (7 Sept. 2016), I have been unable to locate either a preview or a table of contents for The Promise of Arminian Theology on the publisher’s website (Randall House) or any other major online book retailer in North America (e.g. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Christianbook). The information contained in this post will be useful for prospective purchasers of this volume.
        2. I have taken it upon myself to replace Roman numerals with Arabic numerals. (As an aside, this volume [disappointingly] contains endnotes rather than footnotes.)

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase a copy of Bracey et al. (eds), The Promise of Arminian Theology (2016),* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
  
• Christianbook
  
• Barnes & Noble
  
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Franklin Leroy Forlines (1926–2020) died on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, aged ninety-four.

• Helwys Society Forum
• Tribute Archive (obituary)

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Is Salvation about Hell-avoidance? A Response to Gregory A. Boyd

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 16 June 2016

        In an endnote from The Myth of a Christian Religion (2009), Gregory Boyd writes:

Many today embrace the erroneous view that getting “saved” is about avoiding hell.[1] The biblical concept of salvation is not about avoiding the consequences of sin (hell) but about being freed from the sin that leads to those consequences. It’s about being empowered to walk in a Kingdom way that leads to eternal life, not death.[2] This is why the New Testament speaks of salvation as something that has happened, is happening, and will happen.[3, 4]

        What is presented here is a rather obvious case of a false dichotomy. Human salvation consists of both the deliverance from the power and consequence(s) of sin. In other words, it is a case of both-and, not either-or. As Boyd and I are in basic agreement on salvation entailing deliverance from sin’s power, it is upon the latter point that I will dwell: salvation is from the penalty of sin.

Jesus on salvation from Gehenna

        Jesus solemnly warns of the adverse eschatological fate awaiting those who fail to take even extreme measures to overcome the stumbling block of indulging in illicit lust (i.e. covetousness): they will be cast into Gehenna (Matt. 5.29–30). (Elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus defines Gehenna as a place where soul/life and body are destroyed [10.28].) Jesus tells his hearers that it is better for an individual to have a single member of his or her body perish (an eye, a hand) than to lose his or her entire person in Gehenna (the ‘whole body’, 5.29–30). This is one instance where Jesus attempts to motivate those who would be his disciples to obedience by taking the necessary precautions to avoid the negative outcome (i.e. consequence[s]) of sin.[5] Persevering disciples of Jesus will be saved from Gehenna; the unrighteous will not (see 18.8–9; 25.41).

Paul on salvation from the wrath of God

        Other NT evidence corroborates the truth that an integral aspect of salvation is deliverance from sin’s penalty. For example, Paul states that God’s wrath is already present in some way against those who persist in unrighteousness, ungodliness, idolatry, and suppression of the truth of God as sovereign Creator (Rom. 1.18–32). For those who abuse the kindness of God and fail to respond in repentance in the present age, the day of judgement will be a day of wrath (2.4–5). ‘There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek’ (v. 9).[6] For those who ‘do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury’ (v. 8). Conversely, having been declared righteous by the blood of Christ, believers will be saved from the future wrath (5.9). An integral aspect of salvation, then, is the avoidance of the negative divine judgement against sin.[7]

Notes

        1. With regard to the nature of future punishment (i.e. ‘hell’), since 2008 or earlier Boyd has apparently adopted the position of annihilationism. See Gregory A. Boyd, ‘The Case for Annihilationism’ (19 Jan. 2008): <https://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism>.

        In an earlier publication, Boyd attempted to advance a kind of hybrid between endless, conscious punishment and final annihilation. See idem, ‘A Clash of Doctrines: Eternal Suffering and Annihilationism’ and ‘A Separate Reality: Hell, das Nichtige and the Victory of God’, in Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), pp. 319–37 and 338–57. In the end, Boyd’s former attempt at amalgamating endless torture and final annihilation resulted in a variation of the conventional view.
        2. It is not entirely clear whether Boyd intends ‘death’ to be taken in a literal or metaphorical sense. If the former, this would comport well with the doctrine of final annihilation.
        3. I believe Boyd is essentially correct that human salvation may be properly distinguished in three tenses: past (initial), present, and future (final, eschatological).
        4. Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of a Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), p. 218 n. 1 (par. 1), emphases in original. To visit Boyd’s website, see <https://www.reknew.org>.
        5. In another place, Jesus stresses both positive and negative sides of eschatological judgement in terms of (positively) entering life/the kingdom of God or (negatively) being cast into the Gehenna of fire (Mk 9.43, 45, 47; cf. Matt. 18.8–9).
        6. All scriptural quotations are taken from the English Standard Version.
        7. That negative outcome culminating in death (see Rom. 6.23a).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revisions: 19 June 2016 (one sentence slightly emended); 16 September 2016 (minor emendations made to par. 5; one note added); 18 September 2016 (n. 7 revised); 2 October 2016 (minor emendations); 6 October 2016 (minor revision made to reference in n. 5); 15 January 2017 (omitted a term in par. 3; added ‘in Matthew’s Gospel’ to brackets in par. 4; added capitalisation to one term in par. 5 [i.e. ‘Creator’]; 3 April 2017 (minor emendations made to some references); 21 April 2017 (added ‘s’ to the URL code in n. 4); 26 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); 26 May 2019 (inserted comma in n. 1); added italics for emphasis in par. 1 (18 Oct. 2021); made assorted, minor modifications to n. 1 (19 Nov. 2021); modified one word in n. 6 (21 Feb. 2022).

Jacobus Arminius on the Alleged Authority of the Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church

        The Roman Pontiff[1] is not the head of the church; and because he boasts himself of being that head, the name of “Anti-christ” on this account most deservedly belongs to him.

 

Jacobus Arminius, ‘Disputation LIII: On the Head and the Marks of the Church’, in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, London edn, 3 vols. (repr., Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1986), 2.418

Note

        1. In our present time, the Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church is more commonly referred to simply as ‘the Pope’. —J. D. Gallé