Scripture is not shy about presenting an angry God who hates sin and punishes evil (e.g., Exo 32:10; Deut 6:15; Psa 7:11; Nahum 1:2; Isa 13:9; Prov 6:16-19; Mark 3:5; John 2:15-17; Rom 1:18; Rom 2:6). The ultimate punishment, biblically, is eternal with descriptions of “fire” and “torment” that, likely, are used because the reality of this punishment exceeds human comprehension. Therefore, it is claimed, any such “God” cannot be regarded as “good” and anyone who holds to such a claim is blaspheming the truly good god who … you know … isn’t actually pulled from Scripture, but from other sources. It’s a serious charge—against the God who breathed Scripture and those who believe Him—and it deserves a serious answer.
This doctrine is emotionally difficult, but Scripture never treats it lightly. The easiest answer to the accusation takes place in the pages of Scripture itself. Paul is describing how God shows grace and mercy to whomever He chooses (Rom 9:6-18) where he claims, “So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills” (Rom 9:18). I’m sorry, but that plays right into the accusation we’re looking at. But Paul addresses that accusation directly. “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!” (Rom 9:14). There is no injustice with God.
We’re not left to Paul as our sole source of thinking here. Scripture gives the foundation; theologians across centuries have clarified its implications. R.C. Sproul points out that the real scandal isn't that God sends people to hell for their sin, but that He allows any sinner into heaven at all (à la Rom 9:22). Sproul writes, "The question is not why God punishes sinners, but why He doesn’t punish us all immediately." C.S. Lewis argues that God doesn't force anyone into heaven. He famously held that "the doors of hell are locked on the inside." Because people choose hell. Major theologians like John Stott, J.I. Packer, and the bulk of classical Protestants argue that God delays judgment to allow repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and offers salvation to all. Packer argues that hell isn't cruelty; it's God taking evil seriously. Earlier theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin insist that humans are not morally neutral and that the accusation against God is a misunderstanding of the scale of human sin. Sin is not a misstep or a moral accident; it is a deep corruption of the will. Aquinas argues that if God is obligated to give grace ... it's not grace. Calvin holds that God's justice demands punishment and hell shows what Christ endured for His people. His thinking is "If hell is unjust, then the cross is unnecessary." Theologians from Jonathan Edwards through Tim Keller reason this way. "Without hell, God’s justice is trivial. Without mercy, God’s love is absent. The cross is where justice and mercy meet." To them, if you don't believe in hell, you don't understand the depths of God's love. Across almost all traditions, the position is "God is not unjust for condemning sinners; He is astonishingly kind for saving any. Hell is not a blemish on God’s character; it is the unavoidable expression of a moral universe governed by a holy God."
This notion of judgment and separation from God is neither modern nor peripheral. It’s central. It started in the Garden of Eden at the Fall. It continued throughout human history. It explains a holy God, the moral outrage of sin, the absolute necessity for justice and for a Savior, and the reason God loved the world by sending His Son to die for those who believe. “Justice” is that which is right and if Scripture is right and hell is real, justice explains that our sin is proportional to eternal punishment because the violation of a holy God demands it. Eternal punishment preserves the seriousness of God's holiness, the meaningfulness of human moral agency, God's moral structure of the universe, the meaning of the cross, the substance of grace as unmerited favor, and the moral weight of rejecting God. Without it, God’s holiness is diminished, human sin is trivialized, the cross is emptied, grace is cheapened, and justice is denied.
1 comment:
Dan, I can't tell you "Look, I recognize this makes no rational or moral sense" because it makes perfect rational and moral sense to me. That's because I'm NOT beginning with a "human theory," but taking the text at face value. I don't have a prior commitment to "what makes sense to me" and instead conform "what makes sense to me" to what the text says. You demanded input from other theologians and other sources and I gave it. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not correct. Perhaps you're the one thinking wrongly and following the traditions of others. And it's not like I'm making this up on my own since it has always had a strong thread of agreement in church history. Disagree if you want, but don't falsely accuse me of "human theory" or being irrational. I've laid it out plainly. Just admit it's your disagreement.
Post a Comment