The most serious philosophical charge brought against God is
the charge that eternal punishment is unjust. It is part of an even broader
challenge – the problem of evil and suffering. It goes like this:
·
If the God of the Bible is just, loving, and
omnipotent, he wouldn’t allow the death of babies and suffering in general.
However, this challenge can easily be bypassed by the words
of Paul:
·
I consider that our present sufferings are not
worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)
If the suffering of this life is no more than a moment
compared to a blissful eternity, Paul’s revelation offers a reasonable reprieve
from the problem of evil. Besides, the Bible assures us that God has good
reasons to allow this evil for a limited amount of time.
However, this does not answer the problem posed by the
doctrine of “eternal punishment.” For one thing, it doesn’t seem right that God
would eternally punish us for sins we
committed within our fleeting lives. The famous atheist Robert Ingersoll
(1833-1899) charged:
·
“Eternal punishment must be eternal cruelty and
I do not see how any man, unless he has a brain of an idiot, or the heart of a
wild beast, can believe in eternal punishment.”
Put less crudely, the atheistic argument goes like this:
·
PREMISE #1 - Eternal punishment is not just.
·
PREMISE #2 - The God of the Bible promises to
punish with eternal punishment.
·
CONCLUSION - The God of the Bible cannot be just
(or even exist).
PREMISE #1 - Eternal punishment is not just.
Admittedly, this challenge is difficult to address. This is
because it is hard to precisely nail
down the nature eternal punishment. For one thing, there is the problem of
figurative language. For example, the skeptic charges that they will not
believe in a God who is stoking the eternal fires of hell. Even “Christian”
evolutionists question the just nature of the God of the Bible. For example,
the former co-Head of The Biologos
Foundation, which is devoted to selling evolution to the church, had
written, quoting Richard Dawkins affirmatively:
·
[The OT God is a] “tyrannical anthropomorphic
deity… [who] commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages”…But who believes
in this [OT] deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the
earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God. http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/
Although Karl Giberson didn’t mention his disdain for an
eternal punishment, it seems likely that his understanding of and preference
for “Modern theology” would also lead him and many “Christian” evolutionists to
question the NT teachings on eternal punishment.
But does God
proactively torment the unbelievers with fire? I doubt it. It seems that
much of the language of eternal fire is figurative rather than literal. Sometimes,
Jesus refers to hell as “outer darkness”:
·
"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie
him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will
be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'” (Matthew 22:13; also 8:12; 25:13; verses
“fire” – Matthew 13:42, 50)
Clearly, both the language of eternal fire and outer
darkness cannot be taken literally. Instead, they are mutually exclusive.
Besides, there are other verses describing what is associated with darkness or
fire – “the weeping and gnashing of teeth” – as associated with neither fire or
darkness, but of eternal regret:
·
"There will be weeping there, and
gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the
prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. (Luke 13:28)
In this verse, “weeping… and gnashing” is not the product of
darkness or fire but of the eternal loss of blessing. This would lead us to
believe that eternal torment might not be the product of God proactively
tormenting these unfortunate souls but of their perceived loss.
It also seems unjust
for God to punish all of the lost souls with the same exact punishment.
However, it is apparent that there will be degrees of punishment:
·
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which
most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe
to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in
you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and
Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-22)
Judgment will depend upon the amount of evidence we had
(John 15:22, 24). Nevertheless, it seems that we all have some degree of
evidence or light (Romans 1:18-20; 2:14-15). However, we reject that light
(John 3:19-21).
And the fate of
babies or the aborted pre-born?
·
"That servant who knows his master's will
and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with
many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment
will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will
be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will
be asked.” (Luke 12:47-48)
Although these verses do not explicitly lay out the
punishment that each deserves, they do teach that God will judge fairly, taking
into account individual situations.
There are also other considerations that make it difficult
for us to determine the exact nature of eternal punishment. It seems very possible that hell and our
condemnation might be self-chosen:
·
“For God did not send his Son into the world to
condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him
is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because
he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict
[“condemnation;” KJV]: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates
the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be
exposed." (John 3:17-20)
Many verses inform us that Jesus didn’t come to judge (John
5:45; 8:15; 12:47-49; Matthew 7:2). How then is the unbeliever condemned? He is
self-condemned! How can this be? “Whoever does not believe stands condemned
already because he has not [refused to] believe (John 3:18).” Verse 19
reconfirms that judgment is a self-judgment.
The unbeliever has the light but rejects the light in favor of the darkness and
flees from the light.
Will this same condemnation accompany the unbeliever into
the next life and before the great judgment? It seems so. Many verses assure us
that those who reject the light will not approach the light:
·
Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the
wind blows away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor
sinners in the assembly of the righteous. (Psalm 1:4-5; also 24:3-4; 15:1-2;
Luke 21:36; Isaiah 2:20-22; Malachi 3:2; Rev. 6:15-16; 20:11)
It is very possible that this same hatred of the light that
had brought about the sinner’s present self-condemnation will also bring about
their self-condemnation in the next life. Although this is horrific, in light
of this self-condemnation, we cannot
easily charge God with injustice. Instead, it is we who are unjust! From this perspective, the sinner is merely
choosing his own destiny – the darkness in which he feels the greatest sense of
comfort. How can this be unjust?
But doesn’t this theory circumvent the Bible’s teachings
that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that “each one may
receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or
bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10)? No! The great judgment might simply represent an
affirmation or a rubber-stamping of what we have already chosen.
For the children of God, the great judgment will be a time
of rejoicing. This is because our fate has already been settled. It is then
that we will be changed “in a twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:50-52) to become
like Him (1 John 3:2; 1 Thess. 4:14-17). Therefore, when we stand before Him,
there will be no doubt of our eternal fate.
Likewise, it seems that the lover-of-darkness has also
sealed his own fate by running from the light. In view of this possibility, no
one can coherently blame God.
However, doesn’t the
fact that hell is eternal, even if self-chosen, still transcends any
consideration of justice? Not necessarily! Perhaps God will give the
sufferers the option to pull-the-plug and face utter annihilation. Although,
even this option is horrific, it cannot be unjust. If God is the giver of life,
there is nothing unjust about His allowing the self-condemned to extinguish it.
Can the skeptic coherently say that eternal punishment is unjust? To claim that something is unjust, we need to compare it with an objective standard of justice. However, skeptics have rejected an objective standard in favor of moral relativism. They have become like the math teacher grading an exam without objectively correct answers. To do so is absurd. However, this is exactly what the skeptic does, when he claims that eternal punishment is unjust.
As an atheist, C.S. Lewis came to see this very predicament:
·
My argument against God was that the universe
seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and
“unjust”?...What was I comparing this universe with when I called it
unjust?...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument
against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world
was really [objectively] unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my
private fancies….Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. (Mere Christianity (MacMillan, 1960)
p.31)
Lewis perceived that atheism was unable to bear the weight
of his life and to provide the roadmap he would need in order to navigate it.
The poet and atheist, W.H. Auden, learned the same lesson –
that secular humanism is unable to provide any moral basis for our indignation against
evil. Auden moved to Germantown in NYC from his Ireland in the early 1930s.
While he was watching a news clip in the movie theater about the Nazi invasion
of Poland, he was horrified to see the audience rise to its feet to applaud and
cry out, “Destroy the Poles.” Auden wanted to take a strong moral stance
against their response, but he realized that, as an atheist, his values were
merely self-constructed and, therefore, lacking in any persuasive value. This realization
sent him into a moral tailspin, resulting in his becoming a Christian.
Does the skeptic have any substantive and objective basis
for his indignation against the prospect of eternal judgment? Seemingly not!
Rather than being
unjust, it seems that eternal punishment is a necessary element of justice.
Contrary to secular opinion, we need to know that God will ultimately judge. It
is this knowledge that enables us to leave aside thoughts of revenge, hatred,
and unforgiveness and to apply ourselves to what we have been called to do – to
love.
Miroslav Volf, who has survived the civil wars of the former
Yugoslavia, has written:
·
The only means of prohibiting all recourses to
violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it
comes from God…My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in
divine vengeance.
Volf knew that his stance would be unpopular in the West. He
understood that when we have no substantive experience with victimization, we
also have no experience of the overwhelming, life-controlling need to avenge.
Writer and theologian Timothy Keller, explains:
·
Can our passion for justice be honored in a way
that does not nurture our desire for blood and vengeance? Volf says the best
resource for this is a belief in the concept of God’s divine justice. If I
don’t believe that there is a God who will eventually put all things right, I
will take up the sword and will be sucked into the endless vortex of
retaliation. Only if I am sure that there’s a God who will right all wrongs and
settle all accounts perfectly do I have the power to refrain. (The Reason for God, Dutton, 2008, 75)
Instead of the belief that hell leads to a more hellish
society, it seems that the absence of this believe will incline us to seek our
own form of “justice.” Why? The impulse to seek justice transcends the way we
had been raised. Even children universally demand justice. Desiring justice is
part of our human nature, and it demands expression and satisfaction.
Keller observes that in societies where the doctrine of
eternal judgment rejected, brutality reigns:
·
Many people complain that belief in a God of
judgment will lead to a more brutal society…[but] in both Nazism and
Communism…a loss of belief in a God of judgment can lead to brutality. If we
are free to shape life and morals any way we choose without ultimate
accountability, it can lead to violence. Volf and [poet Czeslaw] Milosz argue
that the doctrine of God’s final judgment is a necessary undergirding for human
practices of love and peacemaking.
PREMISE #2 - The God of the Bible promises to punish
with eternal punishment.
This is true. There are many verses that promise eternal
judgment or condemnation, for example:
·
"Then they will go away to eternal
punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)
The punishment will be just as eternal as “eternal life.” It
is understandable that such verses are troubling. However, we do not know the
exact nature of this eternal judgment. (Perhaps God will offer the sufferer the
option of pulling-the-plug?) In light of this uncertainty, the lover-of-light
will give God the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I often respond to these
challenges this way:
·
I don’t know how it will all come out in the
end, but I do know that our God is both merciful and just. I also believe that
our Creator has the right to judge His creation, and if we find this troubling,
we should reconcile with Him before it is too late.
CONCLUSION – Job
had also charged God with injustice, and it seemed that he had good reason to
do so. God had allowed Satan to deprive him of almost everything, and Job was
left devastated. However, his loss didn’t justify Job’s allegations against
God.
·
Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He
said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job
38:1-3)
The Lord then asked Job a series of questions, and Job could
not answer any of them. And Job got the point. He understood too little to
bring his indictments against God and, therefore, repented:
·
The LORD said to Job: "Will the one who contends with the
Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!" Then Job
answered the LORD: "I am unworthy--how can I reply to you? I put my hand
over my mouth.” (Job 40:1-4)
What made Job unworthy? He was beginning to understand that
he had spoken presumptuously about things he didn’t understand:
·
“You [God] asked, 'Who is this that obscures my
counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know. You [God] said, 'Listen now, and I will
speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have
seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." (Job
42:3-6)
Many will find Job’s response repugnant, but why? We too
speak about things we do not understand. Although we know that we are just a
speck in this grand universe, we act as if we were omniscient. Instead, we
cannot even define the basics like the nature of time, space, matter, or light.
The simplest things are beyond our knowing, and yet we too have the hubris to
accuse God of injustice. Perhaps we too need to learn a little humility in
keeping with our smallness and cosmic insignificance.
If eternal punishment is a reality, love would require us to
warn. The greater the threat, the more must genuine concern warn. This is
especially true in regards to eternal punishment. In the West, we readily
dismiss this threat as so barbaric that it couldn’t possibly be the design of a
God of love. However, we refuse to consider how little we truly understand.
Keller calls hell “simply one’s chosen identity” (78). In
other words, hell is something we choose. Lewis calls hell “the greatest
monument to human freedom.” In “The Great Divorce,” he paints a vivid picture
of how we choose hell:
·
Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always
complaining, always blaming others…but you are still distinct from it. You may
even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a
day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the
mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a
machine. It is not a question of God “sending us” to hell. In each of us there
is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.
(78-79)
How do we nip it? By confessing our sins (1 John 1:9),
crying out for Christ’s mercy (Romans 10:12-13)! How did we get into this mess?
According to Lewis, we continue to harden our heart against the Lord until we
have no heart left (Romans 1:24-28). With every refusal to turn away from our
sins and to turn to Christ, we embrace our final destination. Lewis therefore
concludes:
·
There are only two kinds of people—those who say
“Thy will be done” to God or those to whom God in the end says, “Thy will be
done.” All that are in Hell choose it. (79)
Is this assessment Biblical? Keller correctly reflects that
there are no Biblical accounts of people pleading to be released from hell into
God’s presence (Luke 16). This makes perfect Biblical sense. If we hate the
Light so much in this life that we flee from it, we will flee all the more
hastily when confronted with His greater intensity in the next life (John
3:19-21).
The Apostle Paul taught that we are a stench to those who
are perishing (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). How much more will our Lord’s glorious presence
nauseate them in the next life! By that time, their fate is sealed, along with
their tastes and preferences.
This is horrific. What then must we do if we love the
hell-bound? We must warn!
No comments:
Post a Comment