Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

This part four in a five-part series on the biblical doctrine of hell as eternal punishment. For part one, follow this link.

Analysis of Arguments Against Eternal Punishment

If one abandons Scripture, doctrine becomes subject to our whims. The doctrine of eternal punishment in hell offends our modern sensibilities for many reasons. The esteemed Reformed theologian of the past century, Herman Bavinck, lists several reasons why people reject the traditional view of hell: 1) Eternal punishment is not compatible with the goodness, love and compassion of God; 2) eternal punishment is incompatible with the justice of God; 3) eternal punishment is simply unimaginable and inconceivable; 4) Scripture does not teach on eternal, endless punishment; 5) Scripture offers hope for the reconciliation and salvation of all people.[1] We have already dealt with the fourth argument in the previous section of this paper and demonstrated that the bible does indeed teach the doctrine of eternal punishment. The third argument stems from a basic lack of understanding concerning the holiness of God and the severity of sin. Eternal punishment seems unimaginable because we tend to downplay the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin. The fifth argument lies outside the scope of this paper,[2] but we can (and will) deal with the first two arguments. It should be noted that all objections to the doctrine of eternal punishment essentially reject or distort Scripture, grossly misunderstand and misrepresent the nature and attributes of God, and are based on emotion, human reasoning or both. Cornelis Venema makes an interesting point in his book, The Promise of the Future:

The doctrine of hell is a true test of our willingness to stay within the boundaries of Scripture when it comes to the subject of last things. At no point in our consideration of the Bible’s teachings about the future are we more inclined to allow our own judgment and opinions take precedence over an exposition of the Bible’s teaching and the church’s historic understanding. What we do with the subject of hell is a litmus test of our readiness to follow the way set out for is in the Scriptures, even when that way proves at times to be difficult and unpleasant.[3]

This observation is apparent when we consider popular books like Love Wins, by Rob Bell, or even more scholarly responses to the doctrine of hell, such as that by philosophy of religion professor, Wilko Van Holten, who writes, “Rather, such deviation [from the traditional view of hell] should be preceded by an exposition of the untenability of traditional claims, and be based on good rational argument.”[4] So what shall we say about the arguments offered against the traditional view of hell? Let us briefly consider the first two arguments Bavinck offers above.

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD

How could a God who is taught in Scripture to be infinitely good, loving and compassionate consign people to hell for all eternity? This seems to make God anything but infinitely good, loving and compassionate. How do we answer this question? The first thing we can offer by way of response is to affirm the premise of this argument; namely, that God is infinitely good, loving and compassionate. The bible does explicitly affirm that God is love (1 John 4:8), good (Psalm 25:8), and compassionate (Psalm 78:38). Moreover, God does not delight in punishing the wicked, but rather would that they would repent (Ezekiel 18:23). But we cannot pit the attributes of God against one another. While acknowledging that God is loving, compassionate and good, he is also just (Deuteronomy 32:4), righteous (Psalm 7:11) and holy (Isaiah 6:3). Furthermore, God, as Creator, is also Judge (Genesis 18:25), and a good judge must judge evil and punish it accordingly. God is the sum of all his attributes; they are not parts that are added onto to his essence – they are his essence. To say “God is” is to say, “God is love,” “God is good,” and “God is holy.” The question that must be asked to hell’s critics is can a God who is infinitely good not punish sin? Would we consider an earthly judge “good” if he did not execute justice on the evildoer? Another question that can be asked is assuming that eternal punishment is incompatible with God’s goodness, what about temporal punishment? If God is too good to punish unbelievers with an eternity in hell, is he not also too good to punish the unbeliever here on earth? The argument against the traditional view of hell based on its incompatibility with God’s goodness falls on its own sword. This argument essentially boils down to making God out to be like a permissive human parent who never disciplines his child.

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE JUSTICE OF GOD

Suppose those who argue against eternal punishment acknowledge that God, as just, must punish human wickedness. Granting that, the critics will then turn around and say that eternal punishment is incompatible with God’s justice. How can temporal, human sins warrant an eternity of punishment in hell? Is there not some measure of justice that dictates that the punishment must fit the crime? For example, God institutes the lex talionis in Exodus 21:23-25 (“Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…”). There is no possible way our temporal sins can deserve eternal punishment. One answer to this conundrum is that the lex talionis is applicable to man, not God. God is not subject to human standards of judgment. The lex talionis was instituted to make sure human systems of punishment are just and to avoid over zealous retaliation (you injure me, so I kill you). However, we do not want to push this argument too far. While God is not to be held to human standards, we also do not want to say that God’s standards are completely alien to human standards. The bible says that God’s law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and our sense of justice (despite our fallenness) is derived from God’s sense of justice.

Another answer to this problem of eternal punishment being incompatible with God’s justice is to put forth the argument from status – a sin against a human being is worthy of a temporal punishment, but a sin against a divine Being is worthy of eternal punishment. In other words, the guilt of a sin is proportional to the worthiness or honor of the offended party. Anselm of Canterbury is an advocate of this line of argumentation.[5] Critics of this argument, such as Van Holten, will argue, “The primary difficulty with [the status] principle is to find a proper interpretation of it.”[6] Upon what basis do we measure the status of individuals? What makes someone “more important” than another such that a crime against one is worthy of greater punishment than a crime against another? This critique has merit insofar as it is confined to the human realm. Nations may have laws that treat certain races, genders or social classes differently than other, but under God, we are all human, and our ontological status is equal coram Deo (before the face of God). However, this critique gets applied to the Creator/creature relationship: “Furthermore, there is an initial difficulty with the underlying Anselmian strategy of dividing beings into two ontologically different kinds: human and divine.”[7] Van Holten will go onto to say that it is difficult to see how God’s divinity is a “morally relevant characteristic, such that it entails that sinning against God makes humans liable to eternal punishment.”[8] This argument completely misses the infinite divide between the Creator and the creature! It also completely misses the fact that as creature, we owe complete and total obedience to our Creator. This ontological difference is so vast that, as prominent theologian, R.C. Sproul often says, “Sin is cosmic treason against God.” Furthermore, we, as creatures, do not get to sit in judgment on the Creator and dictate to him what is just and what is unjust. As noted above, God is just (“All his ways are justice…just and upright is he” Deuteronomy 32:4). If God, according to his infinite justice, attaches the penalty of eternal punishment for “cosmic treason” against him, then that penalty is just. It is not simply just because God says so (i.e., arbitrarily), but also because it is in God’s nature to be “just and upright.” It is a just punishment because he is just. We have no right, as creatures, to stand in judgment of God. As the Apostle Paul aptly says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”[9]

Next: Conclusion

[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, Vol. 4, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), pp. 704-5.

[2] This argument refers to the so-called “Universalist” texts of Scripture, such as Romans 5:18, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. Many Reformed theologians have offered explanations of these passages that harmonize quite nicely with the traditional view of hell. Bavinck has a lengthy treatment of this in his Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4, pp. 708-14.

[3] Cornelis Venema, The Promise of the Future (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), pp. 451-2.

[4] Wilko Van Holten, “Can the Traditional View of Hell be Defended? An Evaluation of Some Arguments for Eternal Punishment,” Anglican Theological Review 85, no. 3 (2003), p. 458 (emphasis added).

[5] Cur Deus Homo, book 1, chapters 11 through 15.

[6] Van Holten, p. 468.

[7] Ibid, p. 468-9.

[8] Ibid, p. 469.

[9] Romans 9:20 (English Standard Version).