I'm in many
apologetic groups on FaceBook. In one such group, a member made the
following statement:
I've
never understood the claim that a sin, no matter how small (say, a
failure of cognition) against an infinite God, requires infinite
punishment. I understand that many Christians also find that claim
to be fatuous, and inevitably adjust their theology to one of
universalism, annihilation or a finite punishment.
I've heard
similar points made many times so rather than replying on FaceBook, I
thought I'd make my reply into a post here. I have several points I
can make.
So
what if it were unfair?
I've always
found it curious how some people have this expectation that the
universe must be fair. A cat will kill a mouse. Is it “fair”
that the mouse really has no defense against the cat except to hide
from it? Where do people – especially atheists – believe cosmic
justice would come from? The universe doesn't care what happens.
“Fairness” can only exist if there is a real God who administers
justice. In the absence of divine justice there in nothing but
cruel, indifferent reality.
But
assuming that God is real, why must He be limited to our sense of
justice. I might think it's unfair to pay a $35 fine for failing to
put 25¢ in the parking meter. Apparently, the city of Cincinnati
doesn't think that's unfair since that was the amount I had to pay
them for my last parking ticket. The laws are made by the person (or
people) in authority and they also set the penalties for the people
who break the laws. The guilty might feel his punishment is too
great for his crime. That doesn't matter.
Now, I'll
explain in a moment why God's law is fair. But even if it were to
seem unfair by every measure of our sensibilities, what are we
supposed to do? Should I conclude that God can't be real because
He's not fair? You can see how that doesn't follow. Perhaps you
could argue that He isn't worthy of our worship because He is unfair.
That is foolhardy because your indignation toward the law doesn't
excuse you from being bound by the law. The mouse can protest all it
wants but, in the end, the cat will still eat the mouse.
It is far,
far better to simply acknowledge the reality of the situation. There
is a God who judges sin. Your protests, your finite understanding of
justice, and all your moral outrage will not be a defense.
We're
all guilty
The
question asked on Facebook was why only one little sin will send
someone to hell. It's rather optimistic to believe there is anyone
who has committed only a single sin. Is it wrong to lie? Most
people will say yes. OK, if it's wrong to lie then how many lies
have you ever told? It's just you and the computer right now so at
least be honest with yourself for a moment. How many lies have you
told today? This week? This month? This year? Let's face it –
we're all habitual liars.
Thou shalt
not bear false witness is just one of the Commandments (Exodus
20:16). How about the other Commandments? Have you always put God
first? Have you ever taken His name in vain? Have you always kept
the Sabbath holy? Have you always obeyed your parents? Have you
ever stolen anything? Have you ever coveted anything? You can see
where I'm going with this. It's not like there's someone out there
who has committed just one sin; everyone of us broken every
Commandment many, many times. We're all guilty. If we want to talk
about the fairness of going to hell over a single sin, then perhaps
we should ask what is the just punishment for someone who is a
habitual, unrepentant sinner?
God
is more than fair
In Jeremiah
18:1-6, we read this haunting account:
The
word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
Arise, and go down to
the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
Then I went down to
the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
And the vessel that he
made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it
again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the
LORD came to me, saying, O
house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD.
Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand,
O house of Israel.
The point
of the story is simple. The potter shapes the clay however he sees
fit. If he doesn't like how the clay is formed, it is the right of
the potter to destroy it and start over. We are God's creation and,
so, are subject to His will.
God created
a perfect universe where there was no death or suffering or toil. He
gave mankind dominion over the entire earth and everything in it was
for our benefit. Yet we rebelled. God had no obligation to us. He
did not have to forgive Adam nor does He have to provide salvation to
any of us. If He destroyed all of creation at the very moment Adam
sinned, that would have been fair. But that's not what He decided to
do.
If God
decided He should destroy us at the very moment we sin, that would be
fair. But that isn't what He decides to do.
God could
have required us to earn our salvation. If He put some tremendous
burden on us, where we had to do 1,000 good deeds to atone for each
sin we commit, that would be fair. But that's not what He decided to
do.
What God
did do is leave His heavenly glory to put on a body of flesh, He came
to earth in the most humble of circumstances, He lived a sinless
life, He was scorned and shamed, and finally He was tortured and put
to death on the Cross to pay the penalty that we owed for our sins.
After this, Christ rose from the dead and currently sits at the right
hand of the Father making intercession for us. Finally, the Bible
tells us that God will restore the creation that was marred by our
sin and we will live forever with Him in a home He prepared for us.
What
exactly do these critics think is fair? Do they believe they can
live their life however they want, they can indulge their flesh, they
can spurn God, they can mock the death of His Son – but if God
punishes them for it, then He's being unfair? Yes, I think that's
exactly what they want to believe.
Given all
these things, the original question seems rather absurd. There's no
reason unbelievers should expect fairness. We haven't committed just
one sin – we are each one habitual sinners who do things every day
which, by anyone's standard, we know are wrong. We've been told the
consequences of our sin but the lost continue to rebel against God.
Yet even then, and even though He is under no obligation, God still
makes eternal reward available to those who will simply confess their
sins and accept the free gift of Christ. Why do people still claim
that God isn't being fair?!
The point of the story is simple. The potter shapes the clay however he sees fit. If he doesn't like how the clay is formed, it is the right of the potter to destroy it and start over. We are God's creation and, so, are subject to His will.
ReplyDeleteNote that the pot in question is the nation of Israel, not individual Israelites, and the Potter's options are to withdraw or grant blessings to the nation as He sees fit. This is not offered as a defense of eternal conscious torment in the afterlife; the Old Testament has (a single passage in Daniel, which speaks of "everlasting shame" rather than "everlasting torment" or "punishment" is possibly an exception) no concept of post-death punishment. Indeed, much of the Old Testament has no concept of an after life at all: Jeremiah's words are perfectly and obviously consistent with the Mosaic Law, in which all punishments and rewards are visited on people (or their descendants) in this life.
Later, a concept of a future resurrection of the righteous is seen in some of the later prophets. And still later, there are hints of a future resurrection and punishment of the wicked -- though even by New Testament times, Paul makes no mention of Hell. It seems an odd detail to leave out, either of Paul's lessons to the church, or Moses' lessons to a collection of half-barbarian tribesmen, if they'd actually had such concepts, so it seems likely to me that they did not.
Of course, given a doctrine of Hell, and a further doctrine that God is as ontologically superior to us as we are to a lump of mud, eternal punishment cannot be decried as unfair. But this is the only defense to be made of the doctrine.
"Fair" punishment, in any terms comprehensible to humans (the only terms, obviously, in which you can argue that something is fair or unfair), serves to varying degrees the threefold purposes of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence (restitution is not punishment).
Given that God's immutable omnipotence implies that nothing we do can harm Him in the slightest, and only finite harm can be done to finite beings by other finite beings, infinite punishment would seem by definition excessive as retribution.
Given that God's omnipotence implies that nothing can overthrow Him or mar His creations without His consent, eternal punishment seems excessive as incapacitation.
Given that this punishment is imposed after we're dead, it seems rather overkill as deterrence against committing further injury (though I've noted before that, as deterrence in this life, the infinite nature of Hell serves to counteract discounting against the future -- but note here that the threat does this, the actual punishment does not.
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteYou're obviously a little more studied in the Bible than many other critics so I'm not sure where you got the idea that the OT doesn't talk about an eternal punishment. Granted, it doesn't talk about hell as much but it's certainly not absent from the OT. When Jesus was discussing hell in Mark 9, He directly quoted from Isaiah 66:24. Isaiah 33 talks about how the sinners in Zion will dwell in the “devouring fire” and “everlasting burning.”
Regardless, the NT is further revelation from God. The Bible was written over centuries and later prophecies expounded upon the earlier ones. If the NT only mentioned hell once, that is enough attestation to accept it as real.
The rest of your comments are interesting but there is more than I can address in a single comment. I will just say, again, that your sense (or even my sense) of what is fair cannot change the reality of what is. I heard Matt Dillahunty once say that, if he were wrong about what he believe and ended up in hell, he would forever be consoled with the knowledge that he at least had the moral high ground (or words to that effect). How sad. Considering the sacrifice Christ has made to redeem us to Himself and being warned of the cost of rejecting Him, it seems foolish to deny Him on the grounds that you're morally superior.
RKBentley