The argument seems to go:
1. If God is good, he would not send people to hell.
2. God sends people to hell.
3. Therefore, God is not good.
One possible response to this argument is to say that God does not send people to hell, we send ourselves to hell (rejecting premise 2). While I am open to using this slogan under certain circumstances, I don’t think it adequately answers the challenge of hell because it ignores the simple truth that God punishes guilty people for their sin (Ps 145:20; Mt 25:41-46; Ez 18:20; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 3:25). Hell is not just a place that many choose, it is a punishment for sin, and the instrument God uses to enact justice.
Another possible response is to say that universalism—the notion that everyone is saved—is true. There are two lines of thought leading to universalism: Christ’s death atoned for all sin (thus all sin is punished in Christ) and God refuses to send people to hell (which would affirm premise 1). Regarding the first, we need not debate the nature of the atonement in this question. Whether Christ literally paid for all sins on the cross or only the sins of the elect is a matter of indifference. The question is how this payment is received; and the answer is clearly by faith (Rom 3:25). Those who do not have faith have not been saved. Since many do not have faith, many are not saved. Hence, universalism is false and premise 2 is true.
Regarding the second, God desires all people to be saved (2 Pe 3:9) and takes no pleasure in sending people to hell (Ez 18:23), but this is not to say that God refuses to send guilty people to hell. If God were to refuse to send guilty people to hell, let’s look at the consequences. A judge who pardons guilty persons is a corrupt and unjust judge. A god who is a corrupt and unjust judge is also an evil god. An evil god is untrustworthy, unfaithful, inconstant, and unloving. So, while it may be nice for all people to be saved, this god can just as easily send innocent people to hell or change his mind into sending all people to hell. Therefore, this reason for adopting universalism—God refusing to send people to hell—results in the very thing it sought to avoid: an unloving god.
After discussing and dismissing those two possible responses, my response to the argument of hell is to reject premise 1. My answer to how a good God could send people to hell follows: Because God is good, God is just; and because God is just, God sends guilty people to hell as a punishment for sin. It is precisely because God sends guilty people to hell that we know God is good. The question becomes, how could a good God not send guilty people to hell?
Comments