As one young man once put it to a Christian friend of mine, “Why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith? If he is infinitely more loving than me, why would hell even exist? Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.” And it was because of this issue that he could no longer worship the God of the Bible. But are the existence of hell and belief in a good God necessarily incoherent as suggested by this young man’s complaint? Is a “lack of faith” really menial, and are God’s love and the notion of eternal torment really incompatible?

At the center of the debate about hell is what is often called the “disproportionality problem.” That is, the notion of eternal punishment seems disproportionate to the sins committed. It is argued that no matter how heinous the sin or the duration of the sinning on earth, earthly sinning is finite. Infinite punishment, that is, punishment of eternal duration is therefore disproportionate and unjust. After all, we would not punish a shoplifter with life in prison, and that same principle of proportion should apply to all justice, especially that administered by a being of infinite goodness.

This reasonable concern has motivated many theologians to support the “annihilation” view of hell. In this view, the offender experiences punishment for a finite period of time at the completion of which, the sinner is annihilated. On the surface, this appears to address the proportionality problem, since both the period and intensity of punishment can be adjusted proportionately to the crimes before annihilation occurs. But this position also raises a host of concerns.

First of all, it is not obvious that annihilation is anymore proportional than eternal conscious punishment. Do we not all have a dread of death and want to live? Is anyone certain that extinction is better than continuing conscious existence even if painful? By analogy, consider capital punishment versus life imprisonment. Our courts tend to look at capital punishment as a worse punishment, and most felons, if asked, would likely choose a lifetime in uncomfortable circumstances than the destruction of their lives.

In addition, the biblical text clearly reveals that hell is a place of everlasting conscious punishment. Although annihilation has everlasting consequences, consciousness comes to an end. Furthermore, why is the sinner annihilated and not freed into God's presence once she has completed her sentence? There seems to be no reason why this should not be the case. Finally, does annihilation really represent God’s final victory over sin and death if he needs to destroy persons made in his own image in order to accomplish his ends?

The traditional view of hell, which holds to eternal conscious punishment, avoids all of these questions but still must address the proportionality issue. It does so by changing the focus from the offense to the nature of the one offended. God’s goodness does not depend on his creation. He is eternally good, kind, and loving by virtue of his Trinitarian nature whether he chooses to create or not. Hence, God’s infinite moral brilliance and perfection precede any interaction with his creatures because God is an infinitely moral being. Therefore, God is morally in a category by himself. He is of a different kind than we are. As such, any sin against him is not menial, as our young objector suggests in our opening paragraph above. Any sin against an infinite being is of infinite seriousness and begets infinite retribution.

By analogy, if I were to douse the one living next door to me with gasoline and set her on fire, I should expect a much lesser degree of punishment if the being I incinerate is my neighbor’s cat than if it is his wife, all other things being equal. The difference would likely be between a hefty fine and capital punishment. Why is this? It is because a human being is of a different kind than a cat, a kind of inherently greater value. Then what should we expect if we offend a being of infinite value by failing to obey him? As theologian Shawn Balinski states, “Since the one wronged is of infinite value, punishment must be infinite; no other factors can mitigate the infinite nature of the guilty party’s desert without compromising the infinite worth, dignity and holiness of God.”

God is inherently and infinitely good and loving. Hence, he is good to all of his creation and loves all of his creatures. However, this does not require him to be merciful to all of his creatures, as the Apostle Paul argues in Romans chapters 9-11. Nonetheless, he has been merciful, offering us an escape from what otherwise is for humans an impossible dilemma. Since an offense against an infinite being is an infinite offense, atonement for such an offense can only be achieved by an infinite being. That is, the being must be of equal status with the offended one. He also must be a human being, of equal status with the offender, but without sin himself, since he cannot be in the process of atoning for his own guilt. 

The cross is the optimal response to this need, since the Second Person of the Trinity, as the incarnate infinite Son equal in stature to the Father and perfect in his humanity, paid our penalty for us. No other solution would work. Furthermore, those who do not kneel humbly before this cross and accept Christ's atoning work on their behalf still owe an infinite debt, and must pay it themselves in an eternal hell. This fate can be avoided only if we personally grasp and take to heart that Jesus Christ “was wounded for our transgressions…crushed for our iniquities” and that “upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes, we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile