Can a Just and Loving God Send People to Hell?
By Steven B. Cowan
I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity. . . .How can Christians possible project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any moral standards. . .1
The sentiment expressed toward the Christian doctrine of hell in this quote is all too common in our culture. Most people will say they believe in heaven, but far fewer believe in hell. Even in the church, belief in eternal punishment in hell is waning as demonstrated by the latest research.2
So what is the problem with hell that leads more and more people today to reject this biblical teaching? The problem is essentially a philosophical one. God is believed to be a just and fair God. He is loving and good. And it is simply thought that eternal punishment in hell is inconsistent with the existence of a just and loving God. How could it be fair for God to send people to hell forever for the sins committed in the course of one human lifetime? A person’s sins in this life, regardless of how bad they are, are finite in number. How, then, could it be right to exact a punishment that never ends? Moreover, if God loves human beings, how could he subject them to the torments of hell no matter how long they last? As Clark Pinnock (quoted above) would put it, a God who could send people to hell would be cruel and unjust.
In this article, I will argue that the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell is not inconsistent with the existence of a just and loving God. God can be perfectly just and perfectly loving and yet consign sinful human beings to hell forever.
The Theological Rationale for Hell
In order to make our case for the justice of hell, the first thing we need to note is the sinfulness of man. Since the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden—what we call the Fall-which plunged the whole human race into a state of moral wretchedness, each and every human being has come into the world predisposed to sin. And we all engage in actual sinful acts as soon as we are capable of making moral choices. King David confessed what is true of all of us: “I was a sinner from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Also, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies” (Ps. 58:3). The apostle Paul describes the entire human race when he writes,
“There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of god before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:10-20)
Put succinctly, “All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). This is the clear and unmistakable teaching of holy Scripture.
It is worth pointing out that this biblical teaching regarding the sinfulness of man is confirmed continuously in our experience. The Lutheran theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once said that of all the doctrines of the Bible, the doctrine of human sinfulness is one that is empirically verifiable.3 Everyone does evil things and we all know it.
Now the second thing we need to note is that the Bible teaches that our sinfulness positively deserves the wrath of God. Specifically, our wicked deeds merit for us eternal punishment in hell. After Paul reminds us that we are all sinners, he goes on to say that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). This “death” is further described in Scripture in the following ways:4 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. (2 Thes. 1:9-10)
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Pet 3:7)
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)
So, given the fact of our sinfulness and our desert of eternal punishment, we can provide a theological rationale for hell in the following way:
1.Every human being is a sinner.
2. All sinners deserve eternal punishment in hell.
3. Therefore, every human being deserves eternal punishment in hell.
Of course, this underscores the absolute indispensability of God’s grace in salvation. The fact that we deserve to spend eternity in hell means that our only hope of escape is the unmerited grace of God in Christ.
But is Hell Just?
Of course, the question may still be pressed: Would it be just for God to send people to hell forever? The Bible may teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, but perhaps the Bible has got it wrong. Many skeptics in our contemporary culture would make just such and assertion about the biblical teaching. A person only lives a finite number of days and years in this world, he will remind us. No matter how many sins he commits in this span of time, the number of his sins will be merely finite. How, they ask, can a person deserve eternal punishment for the finite number of sins he commits in this lifetime?
Christian philosophers over the years have offered answers to this kind of question to show that eternal punishment is not unjust or unfair after all. Michael Murray, for example, outlines the two most significant answers that may be given.4 One of these I call the “Dignity Argument.” Suppose that one day, just out of sheer meanness, I kicked your dog really hard and broke some of its ribs. I dare say that you would not take too kindly to my action and would demand that I be punished in some way. What would the appropriate punishment be? Many of us think (and the law agrees) that the right punishment would be a severe fine. But now suppose that instead of kicking your dog, I kick you! I have broken your ribs and put you in the hospital for several days, say. Would a fine be appropriate? Certainly not. I would very likely spend some time in jail for this assault on you.
Now the question is this: assuming that the different punishments in these two cases are appropriate, why are they appropriate? What justifies the greater punishment for assaulting you than is meted out for assaulting your dog? The answer is that you, a human being, are more valuable than a dog. You have more intrinsic dignity and worth.
The point should now be clear. Just as we justly require a more severe punishment for a crime against an animal, we should also recognize that it is just for God to require the most severe punishment for a crime against an absolutely perfect being, a being with infinite dignity and worthy, namely, himself. Eternal punishment in hell seems fitting, then, for a sin against an infinitely holy God.
The second response to the question about the justice of hell we may call the “No Repentance Argument.” Remember that the question asks why a finite number of sins merits and endless punishment. Notice, however, that the question presupposes that the sinner will not continue to sin in hell. In other words, it is assumed that the sinner’s sins are limited in number. Yet, the Bible seems to indicate that sinners in hell will never repent of their sins committed in this life, but will continue for all eternity in rebellion against God, even continuing to curse and hate him (cf. Dan. 12:2; Matt. 8:12; Rev. 16:11; 22:11). As D.A. Carson explains, “One reason why the conscious punishment of hell is ongoing is because sin is ongoing.”6 If so, then an eternal punishment in hell is not for finite sins, but for perpetual, eternal sins. As such, eternal punishment could not be unjust.7
But is Hell Loving?
Justice, however, is not the only attribute of God. God has many other attributes including the attribute of love. Indeed, the Bible says that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). The one who is skeptical about eternal punishment may concede that I have shown that the doctrine of hell is consistent with the justice of God, but still claim that it is not consistent with the love of God. A loving God, it may be said, could never consign his creatures to eternal hell.
There are two things to be said in response. First, we need to be reminded that Scripture clearly portrays God as both a God of love and a God of just wrath. The same Bible that says “God so loved the world” (John 3:16) also says, “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. 7:11) and “I have hated Esau” (Mal. 1:3). Jesus himself, the friend of sinners, is the one who warned about the dangers of hell more often than anyone in Scripture. And at his Second Coming he will, according to the Apocalypse, cast the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20). The point is that we should not pit God’s attributes against each other. In the present context, this means that the love of God should not be interpreted in such a way as to be inconsistent with God’s wrath in general and eternal punishment in particular. The notion of love that many modern people have that seems to them inconsistent with hell is a sentimental and unbiblical view of love. In fact, it is a view of love that defies common sense. Which leads me to the second part of my response.
Second, the objection presupposes that one cannot both love a sinner and give him his just deserts at the same time, and that when a choice has to be made between love and justice, love necessarily overrides justice. But there are strong reasons to doubt this presupposition. Elsewhere I have addressed the same point with the following analogy:
Consider the case of a king (call him Roy) who also functions, as most traditional monarchs do, as a judge. The prosecuting attorney for the kingdom informs Roy of a pending case involving a particularly heinous crime. The accused is responsible, he says, for a vicious, hate-motivated, premeditated murder. Moreover, the accused is a career criminal who has thumbed his nose at the law many times, who has been in and out of jail many times. What’s more, the evidence against the accused is overwhelming. Indeed, he was caught in the act. There is no doubt of his guilt. Worst of all, the accused shows no sign of repentance or a desire to reform, no remorse for his crime at all. In fact, he expects to be let off scott free!
“What arrogance!” Roy exclaims. He commands the bailiffs, “Bring the accused before me now!”
When the accused is brought before the bar, it immediately becomes evident to Roy why he expected to be set free rather than punished. The accused is Roy’s estranged son! He stands before his father, his king and judge, with a smirk. He knows that his father loves him dearly, and believes that his father could never sentence him harshly.
After several agonizing moments, with tears in his eyes, Roy raises his scepter and says, “I hereby sentence you to death for the crime of first degree murder.” A few days later, Roy’s son is executed for his crime.8
This response of a loving father to his wayward son seems obviously right and good. It is clearly consistent with the demands of justice. Yet, it does not imply that justice trumps love in such cases. On the contrary, Roy’s decision is also consistent with the demands of love. Specifically, we should say that it would not be loving to let one’s loved one persist in thinking that he is immune from the demands of justice. In other words, love sometimes requires justice. When it does, a truly loving person will see that justice is done even at the cost of great pain to himself and his loved one. So it is not the case that a loving God could not consign sinners to eternal punishment. Given that sinners deserve hell and (like Roy’s son) are unrepentant in their sin, a loving God could and would consign some sinners to hell. Not to do so would be unloving.
Conclusion
I have found that people react in two very different ways when they learn about the doctrine of hell. The first, more common, reaction to the notion of hell goes like this: “Ugh! A God who would send people to hell must be a mean, sadistic ogre!” The basic idea behind this popular reaction is that the doctrine of hell, if it were true, would cast negative aspersions on the character of God. That is, as we have seen, hell is thought to be inconsistent with the idea that God is good and loving.
Now, those who react to hell in this first way will wind up in one of two places. On the one hand, they can become atheists or agnostics. These, like Richard Dawkins (who wrote The God Delusion), believe that the Bible does teach the doctrine of hell and that the God of the Bible must therefore be really bad and unworthy of serious belief. On the other hand, they can convince themselves that the Bible doesn’t really teach the doctrine of hell—perhaps the texts that seem to teach this are not to be taken literally or are simply not true—and they continue to believe in a good and loving God. For the latter group, God (as they understand him) simply would never consign anyone to eternal torment.
There is a second (and I think correct and biblical) reaction to the doctrine of hell. It goes like this: “Whoa! I must really be bad!” The idea here is that the doctrine of hell, if it were true, would not cast negative aspersions on God, but on us! Hell, on this view, is perfectly consistent with God’s goodness and love (as we have seen). In fact, on this view, if hell did not exist, God would be wicked! He would be unconcerned about justice; uncaring toward the victims of our unrighteous deeds. He would be someone who simply winks at sin and never holds people accountable for the evil that they do. Hell, then, is an indictment against us. It points us to the sad truth of our sinful condition. It points us to the biblical teaching (confirmed in our daily experience) that human beings are morally corrupt, depraved, desperately wicked.
Those who react to hell in this second way are not disposed to see an inconsistency between God’s goodness and hell. Rather, they are strongly inclined to feel an inconsistency between God’s goodness and the gracious and merciful way he treats us desperados. That is, there seems to be a “problem of God’s goodness”—why and how can he be so kind and good to us who are so bad? Why is it that we are not all cast into hell from the moment of our first breaths? (This was the question and the theme of Jonathan Edwards’ great sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”)
The problem with the first reaction to hell is that it starts with the assumption that human beings are basically good (or, if they are bad, not all that terribly so). No wonder then that a God who makes a hell is seen as a malicious monster! But, if we begin with the assumption that human beings are basically wicked (an idea taught on almost every page of Scripture), one will cry out with Paul, “Oh wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:24). And one will stand awestruck and eternally grateful when one finds that the God who owes him only His eternal wrath instead casts his sins into a sea of everlasting forgetfulness. Then one will know just how amazing God’s grace truly is.
Steven B. Cowan is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southeastern Bible College and the Associate Director of the Apologetics Resource Center in Birmingham, Alabama, as well as the editor of its Areopagus Journal. He is the co-author (with James Spiegel) of the forthcoming book The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy (Broadman & Holman, 2009).
Notes
1 For discussion of the latest statistics concerning he waning of belief in eternal punishment, see Craig Branch’s Veritas column elsewhere in this issue of Areopagus Journal.
2Clark H. Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review 4 (1990): 246-47.
3Reinhold Niebuhr, Man’s Nature and His Communities (New York: Scribner, 1965), 24.
4For a more thorough discussion of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of eternal punishment, see Ray Clendenen’s article, “Eternal Punishment: The Biblical Evidence” elsewhere in this issue of Areopagus Journal.
5Michael J. Murray, “Heaven and Hell,” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 287-317..
6D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 533.
7For more on the question of the justice of hell and these two responses see, Christopher W. Morgan, “Annihilationism: will the Unsaved be Punished Forever?” in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004),
207-212.
8Steven B. Cowan, “’It Would Have Been Good for that Man if He Had not Been Born’: Human Sinfulness and Hell as a Horrendous Evil,” Philosophia Christi, Series 2, 10:1, (2008): 239-47.