The whole question of hell — the biblical image of eternal torment for sin — is deeply problematic for a lot of people. Truth be told, the objection begins as emotional recoil, not logical reasoning. The idea of torment at all is disturbing, and eternal torment seems unbelievable and unacceptable. But the problem, of course, is that it’s biblical. It’s not a medieval invention crafted by religious extremists. Jesus Himself said it.
He spoke of “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:46) and described a place where “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47–48; cf. Isaiah 66:24). He said of the unpardonable sin that such a person will not be forgiven “in this age or the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Paul referred to “eternal destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9). Revelation is explicit: “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Revelation 14:11), and the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). That phrase “forever and ever” is the same phrase used for eternal life (cf. Revelation 22:5; John 3:16), which creates a serious problem for anyone who wants to make it mean “not eternal.” Scripture’s language is stubbornly consistent.
In thinking about this objection, Abraham came to mind.
When God came to Abraham and told him what He intended to do to Sodom and Gomorrah, He said, “Their sin is very grave” (Genesis 18:20). Abraham — compassionate, perceptive, and deeply concerned for justice — protested: “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” (Genesis 18:23). His concern was not sentimentality; it was justice. His protest was correct: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25).
Isn’t that our protest over hell? “That’s not fair! That’s not just! Eternal torment for our little sins is not a reasonable response.”
God’s response to Abraham is instructive. He did not rebuke Abraham for questioning. He affirmed the very principle Abraham appealed to: God will not punish the righteous with the wicked (cf. Psalm 7:11; Romans 2:5–11). If there were even ten righteous in the city, He would spare it (Genesis 18:26–32). God promised justice. No one would suffer wrongly.
You remember the outcome. God removed Lot and his family to safety (Genesis 19:15–17), and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah became legendary — the archetype of “fire and brimstone” (Genesis 19:24–28; Jude 7). And of the “righteous” people God saved, Lot’s wife looked back and was turned to salt (Genesis 19:26), and his daughters got him drunk and committed incest (Genesis 19:30–38). Scripture calls Lot “righteous” (2 Peter 2:7–8), but clearly not because of his moral performance. His righteousness was the result of God’s covenant mercy, not his own virtue (cf. Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3–8).
This is precisely the point.
When we apply that story to the question of hell, we find ourselves standing where Abraham stood. We ask, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And God answers the same way He answered Abraham: Yes. He will (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 89:14).
If, then, God does punish some with eternal torment, we can be absolutely certain it is just. Our responsibility is not to reshape God into the image of our emotional preferences, but to reshape our understanding of justice to match His (Romans 9:14–23).
And perhaps the deeper issue is this: Our “little sins” are not little. They are not minor missteps or trivial moral blemishes. They are assaults on the infinite worth of the Most High God (Psalm 51:4). The seriousness of sin is measured not by the size of the act but by the dignity of the One sinned against (cf. Hebrews 10:29). A violation against the Eternal God carries an eternal weight (Romans 6:23).
So Abraham’s question becomes our anchor: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” Yes. And when His justice and our emotions collide, it is our emotions — not His justice — that must yield.
It is the fact that God is just that makes Christianity the only answer for us sinners. If Christianity is false, eternal life is not possible, and God will save nobody because nobody is good enough on our own. If Christianity is false, live however you want, because no matter what you do, eternal damnation is the only viable option.
ReplyDeleteVery well said, though some won't be swayed, not because it isn't true, but because of the implications for those they defend, be it their own selves or others. The concern regarding those implications is perfectly natural and logical, but rather than preaching truth, they prefer to enable and excuse and rationalize that which proves they are not what they say they are.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have not engaged in the fierce debates about the reality and nature of hell that others have (and can add nothing terribly astute), I heartily agree that “emotional recoil” is involved, as you say--on the parts of both “naysayers” and “yeasayers,” in fact. Naturally, no reasonable person is happy about the reality of eternal conscious torment, but if one reads the Bible, the truth about hell (as you have regularly presented it) is impossible to miss. As with all “bad news,” the proper response is not denial but to deal with it as a mature, rational person. Just like if one is given a medical diagnosis of cancer; one might initially respond emotionally, but then they (hopefully) move to a rational course of action. A reasonable person would not continue for years to contend that “you doctors aren’t interpreting the lab tests correctly” or “you medical professionals are using human theories about this situation” or “this is not fair and just, and I will not believe it.” Instead, they accept reality and lead their emotions to submit to truth--for their own sake. Just as denying that medical diagnosis might facilitate one’s physical demise, rejecting God’s plain teaching on our sin and its consequences will assure an even more dire outcome.
ReplyDeleteYour closing point today--that eternal conscious torment for our sins is justified due to the nature of our offenses and the One we have offended--is the truth that quells all the objections. By rights, our “emotional recoil” should be at what we have done, rather than inspiring an attitude of “God should be OK with my little sins.” Our human reasoning and subjective judgments do not matter before God, who sees the rebellious heart behind those “little sins.” In fact, it is that other dangerously false belief recently addressed--that humans are basically good people, with no core sin nature--that leads one to see his/her sins as trivial and to then dismiss the reality of just punishment for our rebellion before Almighty God. We might behave nicely enough to pass as a “good person” before others, but in our heart of hearts, all of us are thumbing our noses and shaking our fists at God. The Lord sees our heart of hearts, of course, and He judges it rightly.
Great comment, Lorna!
DeleteThank you kindly, Art.
DeleteBy the way, if you are interested: I responded to Dan’s 5/17/26 post at Stan’s post of 5/8/26 (“How the Early Church Fathers Read ‘None Good’”), the location of my original comment to which Dan took issue. (It was so belated that I’m guessing that most missed it--probably even Dan.)
I just did, Lorna. Your comment there falls right in with how we've been dealing with Dan's truly self-serving positions. And therein lies his problems. He serves the self. I really don't understand the objection to what Scripture says and how people like the early church leaders, who affirmed what Paul said and what Scripture says from the beginning, and what those like ourselves repeat what all those say.
DeleteDan speaks of holes in our positions. It seems to me Dan's positions aren't one of holes, but of him standing on a most narrow of buttes with nothing around his position.
“It seems to me Dan … [is] standing on a most narrow of buttes with nothing around his position.”
DeleteYes, quite the “precarious perch” (as I termed it).
If I may speak from my heart, I do wonder about the wisdom of arguing with Dan. We all wish to talk him down from that ledge, so to speak, so he doesn’t fall to his (spiritual) death, but he strikes me as one who would jump just as his rescuer grabbed his hand--hoping even to take him/her down with him, if possible. Rather than give Dan a platform (no pun intended) to use to promote his alternate views, refusing to engage with him would help silence his voice a bit, don’t you think? Although I believe contending for the faith is critical work, personally, I feel that expending so much time, energy, and keystrokes on one incorrigible person is misguided. I suppose it depends on which half of Proverbs 26:4-5 one is led to follow--the first (“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him”) or the second (“Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes”)!
For the most part, Lorna, it's exercise. It's also a bit amusing and usually entertaining. At the same time, I'm always curious as regards how far he'll go to defend the indefensible. Sadly, it seems fairly clear that God has given him over to his corruption. Further, Dan is like a Big Book of "Progressive" Talking Points and he seems to encompass every negative of the left all in one suspect package. I don't waste as much time at his blog where "grace" is just a meaningless word he throws around while routinely being less than gracious. Both Craig and I...at least to a notable extent...are not adverse to fools and their folly at our blogs. Speaking only for myself now, my "motto" at my blog is "to persuade or be persuaded", the latter compels engaging with all manner of people (within certain limits).
DeleteI appreciate the reply, Art. I am glad to know the mindset behind your stance and how you view your interactions with people like Dan.
DeleteFull disclosure: In addition to Winging It--and because of it, in fact--I also read the postings at your blog, as well as Craig’s, Dan’s, and even Feodor’s (and Glenn’s of course, which is where, many years ago, I followed a link that introduced me to Winging It). Therefore, I am aware of the arguments taking place with Dan (and others like him). I do like your blog’s motto in theory, but I wonder how much of such an exchange truly occurs, as it seems to me that those with weblogs have fairly strong views and don’t easily relinquish them; asserting and defending those views seems to be one’s main purpose for blogging, in fact (not unreasonably so).
In any event, I am mindful of many directives in the Bible regarding how to respond to false teachers, “tares” in the church, counterfeit believers, trouble-makers, etc. Perhaps Stan can be persuaded to write a post sharing how he interprets and applies Proverbs 26:4-5, as it relates to the kinds of “fools” certain blogs attract. I am sure it relates perfectly to his blog’s motto: “Foolish guys to confound the wise.”