Posted by Jon Meyer in Philosophy & Apologetics | 13 Comments
The Justice of Hell
EDITOR: Okay, one last post about the afterlife debate before we lay it to rest. Having published two arguably unorthodox views, it’s only fair that I publish an argument for the traditional view, which in Christian circles is too often assumed and rarely argued for.
Dante speaks with the traitors in the ice.
While I think there are rebuttals to be made in this situation, such as the problem with Daniel Rubio’s argument (3) (sometimes free-will choices cannot be taken back, e.g. once you jump off a cliff you cannot go back), I want to focus on the reason for proposing an Annihilationist or Universalist viewpoint.
Although some who do not believe in an eternal Hell have philosophical or theological arguments for their position, I believe they ultimately reject the doctrine of Hell because they find it to be unfair. This certainly is a question that needs attention: does the punishment fit the crime? I argue yes.
God is a God of all perfections, including justice and virtue. If God’s infinite character defines what is right or wrong, then what we do wrong (our sin) is ultimately a slam against God (Psalms 51:4 claims David’s sin was against God even though he had slept with another man’s wife and had him killed). Then we should be able to say this:
God’s infinite character defines right and wrong (lying is wrong because God is Truth.)
(1) Everything we do wrong is a slam against God
(2) Wrongs are a slam against God’s infinite character
(3) Therefore, every wrong action, no matter how miniscule, is infinitely wrong.
(4) God is infinitely just (God is Justice)
(5) Therefore, God must infinitely punish our infinite crimes against Him.
Therefore we must conclude that Hell is not only justified, but an infinite punishment is necessary in the face of God’s infinite justice.
The good news is that God could also punish an infinite being (Himself in the form of Christ) in order to satisfy the infinite punishment criteria. This Divine justice is then applied to us and we no longer have to endure the infinite punishment. Therefore, God is just in sending all of us to Hell for our infinite crimes, but He is also graceful in supplying an alternative infinite punishment, one that He took on Himself. The choice is up to each individual which punishment to accept.
Jon:
Thanks for this post. I disagree with multiple presuppositions of your argument, but I think the biggest problem with it in its current form is that it’s not valid without further premises. (3) does not follow from (1-2) unless offending against an infinite character (and I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that) makes an act infinitely wrong; and that’s an assumption I would not grant. (I also think (3) is self-evidently false: genocide is self-evidently worse than lying.) Moreover, (5) does not follow from (1-4) without further assumptions. In particular, you need not only the claim that eternal punishment is fair/just, but that not eternally punishing people is unfair/unjust. The universalist can actually grant that eternal punishment would be fair, but assert that God, because he is infinitely loving, is gracious to all and does not punish us as we deserve. The way I framed my argument is in terms of what God will do, not what it would be fair for him to do.
Moreover, adding the principle that not punishing people is unfair/unjust is made harder by the fact that you’ve defined moral rightness and wrongness as being ultimately dependent on God. If this is so, God ought to have the capacity to forgive even an infinite sin against him. One can’t in one breath say that God is the ultimate judge of morality and then in the next say that he is morally obligated to punish sinners eternally (or punish a proxy). The latter claim requires a pretty strong view of morality as metaphysically independent of God; so I think you may end up with contradictory premises.
For the record, I also reject Divine Command Theory, a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, a retributivist theory of justice, and soteriological exclusivism, all of which your argument assumes; but I’m actually able to grant all of those for the sake of argument and still have my argument for universalism go through. Even if God determines right and wrong, we deserve eternal punishment for our sins, Jesus’ death was a blood sacrifice for those sins, and you have to consciously accept certain theological propositions in order for that sacrifice to cover you, an all-loving God would still desire that all be saved and seek to realize that desire, which would imply giving us an infinite number of chances to accept Jesus’ sacrifice after death. (Even if he would be just in punishing us eternally, he still, because of his nature, wouldn’t punish us eternally.) If we have free will, each of us will eventually accept that sacrifice, and so be saved.
@ Jon
I echo many of Nevin’s concern, particularly the criticism that the argument as it stands is invalid. I also reject exclusivism and divine command, and penal substitution plays a much smaller role in my view of salvation than it typically is asked to do (I reject purely retributive views of Jesus, but would accept a mixed theory where retribution is included).
However, assuming a valid argument on that point can be made (Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, the Godfather of penal substitution theories of the atonement, may help in that regard), the annihilationist has an easy response.
I can grant that sin deserves the ultimate punishment. I may even grant an infinite punishment, if I’m feeling charitable towards the concept of an actual infinity today.
I can then assert that annihilation is that punishment. Annihilation is not less infinite than hell: it lasts every bit as long. Furthermore, count the goods available:
Hell: at least one good. Existence. Also, a connection to God, namely, God’s sustenance.
Annihilation: No goods because you don’t exist, and likewise no connection to God.
Annihilation seems the metaphysically greater punishment. Hell has the advantages of being cruel, but since I consider cruelty a vice, so much the worse for hell say I.
I believe I’ve also adequately answered the objection that some free will choices can’t be taken back. I agreed. The choice that leads to total corruption is that choice. Your objection to annihilation is no objection at all.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Here is why I disagree:
@Nevin
To begin, I also reject Divine Command theory. I accept instead what might be called Divine Character theory. The slight prima facia differences actually turn out to make quite a bit of difference. Divine Character theory is the idea that what is right or wrong is based on the very essence, nature, and character of God. Lying is wrong because God is truth. Stealing is wrong because God is justice. Notice that God is not simply just, nor does He simply make just utterances, but He is Justice. Accepting this as a sort of presupposition is not necessary in order to make my case, but at the very least, in order to have this conversation, we must assume God has traits of perfect justice, love, mercy, etc. If we reject God’s perfect justice, but still affirm His love, well, then that god could be a universalist, but not the traditional God of Christianity. The point here is if God did let people off the hook for the things they have done, whether out of love or some other thing, God would not be just. Justice requires punishment for wrongs. Perfect justice must always punish wrongs in order to maintain perfection in justice. Beside that, I think perfect love will also punish, simply because God loves those who have been wronged and wants to satisfy the injustice.
As for my premise 3, interesting things happen when we talk about infinites. If we talk about an infinitely good God, and we compare different situations, we find that only perfection makes the cut. Let us assign some quantitative amount of good to each of the things mentioned. Let us say that on a scale of 0 to infinity, 0 being completely evil and infinity being God’s goodness, mass genocide = 100, and lying = 320,000. What is the difference between infinity and 100? Infinity. Infinity – 100 = infinity. Similarly infinity – 320,000 = infinity. While we may step back and say one is way worse than the other, ultimately both fall infinitely short of infinite good. In fact, any finite number will fall infinitely short of infinity. The only thing that is good enough is absolute perfection.
Further, if you reject retributive justice, then does this mean you would not have a problem with a disproportionately large punishment for the crime? I assume you would want it to go the other way, having a smaller punishment for the crime, but why not eternal punishment? If again it is the reasoning that a loving and fair God would not send someone to Hell for all of eternity, I think in the face of infinite justice and infinite love, the only fair thing to do to those people is to send them to Hell. God, in order to remain God, must punish people for eternity for their infinite wrongs.
I can understand the position that it seems a loving God should let people choose to follow Him after they die. Unfortunately that is not what God has revealed is His plan. For Hebrews 9:27-28 says, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.“
@Daniel
I’m actually not sure I ever made an argument against annihilationism, I was simply stating the case for a traditional view. What I did say about annihilationism is that I believe most people accept it because they do not think the eternal punishment fits the crime. You are free to correct me if you had a different reason for originally proposing such a position. If so, I would like to discuss it.
Your idea about annihilation being a worse punishment is an interesting prospect. I’m not sure what you think about animals, but I, at least at this point, am actually an annihilationist in regards to the death of pets. (I am open to other possibilities) However, for the sake of argument let us say that when a cat dies they are annihilated, does that mean in the case of an old dying cat who is clearly in pain all day long, that euthanizing my cat is not “putting it out of it’s misery,” but is in fact sending the cat to a fate worse than Hell?
Interesting topics guys. Good stuff.
@ Jon
I am deeply skeptical of infinity-talk when it comes to God’s attributes. I suspect much of it is incoherent. I think we are better off describing His attributes as maximal.
As for my annihilationism, it is motivated by several things. First, I think it’s an ontological consequence of being separated from God, which I think is a consequence of becoming totally corrupt. Because i think only the totally corrupt will be left out of heaven, annihilation follows. Although I am unconvinced that anyone must become totally corrupt.
I also see the traditional picture of hell as needlessly cruel. As I have argued, I think – if God must punish someone [and I am not convinced of this] – that annihilation is a metaphysically worse yet less cruel punishment than endless torture.
My view is very similar to Nevin’s; we have a few slight disagreements, but I hold out hope that we are both right.
On the subject of justice: what teachings of Christ point to God’s desire/need/demand for justice over that of love? In this “traditional” view, justice is supreme, and love and mercy are secondary. You can say that love demands justice, even if that justice is seems to be void of love, but you will need to do better than that. Why does love demand justice? Why do you claim that God is Justice? How do you reconcile God being Mercy with His being Justice? Should we do this same “God is X” with all attributes the we deem good, and follow what each will mean as THE supreme attribute?
This perspective of God makes relations with such a being highly difficult. How does one reconcile the presence of sin in the life of the Christian? Now you are a son of God, and still commit infractions of infinite offense. Is this more or less offensive than if you were ignorant? In your view, it is just as offensive, but how can this be? If the infinite sacrifice of Christ because of His character, love, appeases God’s character, justice, how does that not apply to the ignorant? How does knowledge and acceptance have any bearing on the effects of this cosmic transaction of infinite neutralization for the individual? Either God’s infinite justice is infinitely appeased by his own infinite sacrifice of infinite perfection, or he is not. If he is, why would there be any need for a place of punishment? How do you have a relationship with a God that demands more when an infinite (blood) obligation has already been paid?
I already feel uneasy with the way that rationality dictates theology in these posts (I know, they are philosophical), but this one illustrates the danger more than the others. There is some logic here, but it is used in a way that can dramatically change the way we view God, and therefore all that God does (creation, salvation, existence). I peek into that world and I see a dark place with a vengeful god that punishes more than forgives, who’s love is conditional and petty, and who is wholly unapproachable. Not the God I worship.
“Yes, I am sorry little boy, squishing that ant on purpose offends me to such a degree that you will suffer in Hell for eternity. Yeah, actually you did not have to do anything because I counted you guilty of Adam’s sin before you were even born.”
For you are a good God, and lovest mankind.
@Jon:
Like Daniel, I’m not convinced that talk of infinite attributes make sense. I’m also not convinced that statements of the form “God is justice” make sense if taken literally; such talk might be good poetry but bad philosophy. (Although, as a rhetorical point, I’ll note that the only such identification made in the Bible that I am aware of is “God is love.”)
But setting these points aside, I think that the distinction between Divine Command and Divine Character Theory can only do the work you want it to do if the following proposition is true: there exists no possible world in which what is just is different from what is just in the actual world. (One might defend this claim by noting that God has his attributes necessarily.) Otherwise, God could make the actual world one in which justice does not demand that sinners be punished in hell eternally. However, if you take this line, it is not clear to me in what sense morality still depends on God. God is eternal; but that doesn’t mean that our definition of eternality essentially involves reference to God. God is omniscient, but that doesn’t mean that our definition of omniscience essentially involves reference to God. Indeed, if these things were defined by reference to God, everything we say about God would be vacuous; saying that “God is eternal” would be as uninformative as “a = a.”
Let me also say a bit more about why I think (3) doesn’t follow from (1-2), and why I don’t think you’ve adequately shown that it does. Suppose that God is “infinitely good”; and that our actions fall short of this infinite goodness by an infinite amount. It doesn’t follow that our actions are wrong to the extent that they fall short of infinite goodness by this amount. It follows from the fact that infinity – 320,000 = infinity and infinity – 100 = infinity that infinity – 320,000 = infinity – 100. It doesn’t follow that 320,000 = 100. It also doesn’t follow that our actions are wrong because they fall short of God’s perfection, any more than it follows that my past existence is finitely long because it falls short of the infinity of God’s past existence.
Incidentally, I think this whole picture of our depravity and distance from God is problematic. I think it’s simply obvious that St. Francis of Assisi was closer to God than Hitler. But your view would have us deny this, because they were both “infinitely” short of perfection. I take this to be a reductio of your view, myself.
But even aside from all of that, your arguments requires a definition of justice I reject:
The point here is if God did let people off the hook for the things they have done, whether out of love or some other thing, God would not be just. Justice requires punishment for wrongs.
Any my point is that this is not self-evident. It does not just fall out of the definition of justice. Justice can and has historically been understood to mean things besides punishing wrongdoers. As far as I’m aware, the words translated as “justice” in the Bible are most commonly used to refer to something more akin to “social justice”—opportunity, equality, and peace for the downtrodden, oppressed, and outcasts. Zechariah 7: 9-10, for example, explicitly pairs justice with mercy and compassion; in contrast to a retributive view that would pit them against each other.
Moreover, I think the view of justice you’re putting forward is completely contradictory to Christian teaching. God is capable of forgiving sins. Jesus was not being unjust when he told the paralytic man that his sins were forgiven. He was not being immoral when he stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman. The parable of the prodigal son did not end with the father saying “Sorry, son, I’d love to forgive you, but justice demands that I punish you eternally for your rebellion against me.” Jesus did not say “You know that old saying, ‘An eye for an eye?’ That’s about right.” I really have difficulty fathoming how one can look at the God who revealed himself through Jesus of Nazareth and see this vengeful retributive God who demands eternal punishment for sin.
Beside that, I think perfect love will also punish, simply because God loves those who have been wronged and wants to satisfy the injustice.
This is a common (and not entirely implausible) defense of retributive justice, but I think it’s wrong. My humanity is not diminished if you wrong me and are not made to suffer for it. Rather, I think my humanity is diminished if I demand revenge for the wrong done to me. Jesus taught us that we should forgive others, and I take this command very seriously.
(Also, I’ll note as a rhetorical point that speaking of “those who have been wronged” as a reason for punishment seems to contradict your earlier claim that an act is wrong and so deserves punishment because and to the extent that it offends against God.)
Further, if you reject retributive justice, then does this mean you would not have a problem with a disproportionately large punishment for the crime? I assume you would want it to go the other way, having a smaller punishment for the crime, but why not eternal punishment? If again it is the reasoning that a loving and fair God would not send someone to Hell for all of eternity, I think in the face of infinite justice and infinite love, the only fair thing to do to those people is to send them to Hell. God, in order to remain God, must punish people for eternity for their infinite wrongs.
As I said above, the only purpose of punishment is restoration. God punishes us to bring us back to him. How much punishment is necessary depends on the person and on how long it takes him to repent. Obviously an infinitely long period of punishment, by definition, cannot serve the purpose of restoration; hence, I do not believe God would punish anyone for an infinite period of time.
One last point. You don’t really believe that “God, in order to remain God, must punish people for eternity for their infinite wrongs,” if you believe in penal substitutionary atonement (and you said as much in your original post). However, if God is capable of deferring punishment for some, then why not for all, if he loves all and desires that all be saved? (And why do so many discussions of the atonement in the New Testament, such as I Corinthians 15:22, Colossians 1:20, and Romans 5:18-19, seem to imply that it applies to all?) Is it because those who don’t accept it in this life don’t “deserve” it? That’s not going to square well with a view that says that none of us deserve it. Is it because God wants to respect our free choices? Then why not respect the free choice we make after death when we realize what a mistake we made in life? Your only defense of God’s exclusion of some here seems to be an appeal to Hebrews 9:27-28. However, you’re simply assuming that “judgment” in that verse means eternal punishment in hell, which is exactly what is at issue. Moreover, if “God is loving” implies “God will let people choose to follow him after death,” and Scripture says both that God is loving and that God will not let people choose to follow him after death, then Scripture is contradictory. You can’t avoid “not both A and not-A” by arguing that Scripture says that both are true; if that’s so all you’ve done is given a reason to not be an inerrantist about Scripture.
Not all infinities are equal, some are bigger than others. (ex. The set of all natural numbers is infinite, the set of all real numbers is infinite…..but the set of all real numbers is still bigger than the set of all natural numbers….it’s a math thing). So even if genocide > lying…..that doesn’t keep them both from being infinitely wrong.
@Chris:
I would think that the fact that infinities can be different sizes serves to illustrate how problematic infinity-talk is in this area. If God is “infinitely great,” what kind of infinity does God’s greatness exemplify? A countable one (the natural numbers)? An uncountable one? If it’s an uncountable one, which of the uncountable infinities is it? The one exemplified by the reals, or a different one? In other domains in which talk of infinity more clearly makes sense we can answer these questions (for instance, it’s been proven that the infinity of points in geometrical space is the same as one of the infinities in number theory–I think it’s the infinity of the reals, but I’m not positive).
The problem is even worse than that. It turns out that there are infinite orders of cardinality, so which ever infinity you assign God’s greatness, there is a greater one.
Jon, have you examined the notion of an “infinite wrong” closely enough? The wrong in question is committed by a creature of God, who because s/he is finite cannot act on an infinite plane. Anything of infinity in this problem rests squarely on God’s side, in which case the infinity of it boils down to God’s decision about how offended to be.
A creator God Who damns his creatures based on His personal capacity for being offended–that is, who actively visits eternal torture on creatures of His own fashioning in order to satisfy His own unappeasability–is a mere solipsist, absorbed in His own closed processes. That’s no loving *or* just God, that’s a misbegotten horror. But that, I believe, is the kind of god that theologians are trafficking with when they introduce the very idea of an infinite human wrong that merits an infinite punishment.
@MH
a Catholic response btw,
The original creatures were created good, naturally perfect with no evil, only free will. They had no inclination to sin. By rejecting God’s command to not eat the fruit from the tree of good and evil with no predisposition to sin they rejected a commandment of God, a perfect sin. This caused an infinite rejection of an infinitely perfect God, because there was no predisposition to the tendency to sin the sin was infinite, a perfect rejection of God. It caused original sin to inflict the human race. that is why humans tend toward sin and that first sin was necessary to be offset by a human with no original sin accepting God. Therefore we have Mary, the mother of God. God became man himself as God the son to die to allow heaven to be open. and ya i lost what i was about to say after that but thats my point on the plane of infinite level. God only condemn people who outright reject him ask through their actions to go to eternal damnation which God is obligated to provide because you chose that with your free will and he will not stop you from exercising that. on the other hand if a soul asks for forgiveness even a little bit he can help you out with is infinite mercy but you have to reject that sin that you committed and ask for forgiveness and passage into heaven. You’ll go then to purgatory to be cleansed of your sin so as two be observed completely clean to be hen worthy of heaven to be admitted into heaven.
btw, sorry for spitting life into this old thread but i thought i should mention that and I’m only 15 years old but know a lot about my faith. Any questions or do you need me to explain more just say what ur problem is.
oh and @ MH
you don’t seem to understand that God IS. He is infinite . He himself defines righteousness, fairness, love, justice. Because he is those things wholly, he defines them. Therefore when you reject him you reject a good and punishment is necessary, God is not a man who gives us rules and punishes us when we slip up, God is saddened but willing to deprive you of himself- all good- into all evil, if you express total rejection of his laws. Dante reiterates many times that Damned souls are there because they chose it and God gives us free will to chose it, not because of his capacity for being offended, but by you offending him by rejecting a moral, what is stated and defined by God himself to be good and the rejection of that by your own free will without repentance merits eternal punishment.
oh and at Jon the bible says particularly in the old testament in hebrew God identifies himself as I AM. meaning God is. God is the definition of all positive things specifically the virtues and faith hope and love. the term Yaweh is meant to identify with the presence of these things.