Why there has to be a place of eternal punishment.
“Contemplating the horrible consequences for His unrepentant people, Jesus wept: ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing’ (Mt. 23:37). Likewise, the Apostle Paul solemnly cried out, ‘I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race’ (Ro. 9:2–3).”
“Contemplating eternal separation from God——namely, ‘hell’——is a horrible reality. No wonder many unbelievers deny its existence and even some believers at times doubt it. It has been called cruel, inhuman, and barbarous. Bertrand Russell said anyone who threatens people with eternal punishment, as Jesus did, is inhumane. Even believers question the justice of hell. In this pluralistic age, it seems too harsh a punishment just for believing the wrong thing.”
“Whatever else may be said against it, the Christian doctrine of hell cannot be an illusion. For no compassionate person wishes there to be a hell. On the other hand, no realistic person can afford to ignore its possibility—certainly no one who takes the words of Scripture seriously. In fact, the one Person in all of history to be in the best position to know had more to say about hell than He did about heaven.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: These passages don’t require eternal conscious torment. Jesus wept over Jerusalem’s coming destruction in 70 AD – a temporal judgment described in Matthew 24. Paul’s anguish concerns Israel’s present rejection of the Messiah, and he concludes with hope that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26). The claim that Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven is factually incorrect – Kingdom of heaven/God appears over 100 times in the Gospels while Gehenna appears only 12 times. Most importantly, Jesus never taught “eternal conscious torment” but consistently used destruction language: “destroy both soul and body” (Matthew 10:28), “perish” (John 3:16), “burned up” (Matthew 13:40). The moral revulsion toward eternal torment reflects our God-given conscience – even John Stott admitted finding eternal conscious torment “intolerable” and questioned how people live with it “without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain.”
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: These passages actually support God’s persistent love! Jesus’s lament “you were not willing” shows temporary human resistance, but does finite human will ultimately defeat infinite divine love? The hen metaphor suggests protective love that doesn’t give up. Paul’s anguish leads to hope: “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to ALL” (Romans 11:32). If moral intuition recoils from eternal torment, that’s the image of God within us speaking – would a perfectly loving God create beings capable of more compassion than Himself? Jesus came “not to judge the world but to SAVE the world” (John 12:47) and promised to “draw ALL people” to Himself (John 12:32). His warnings serve to turn people from destructive paths, not announce inevitable eternal torture.
Jesus taught the existence of hell.
“Jesus warned, ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell’ (Mt. 10:28). Later, He declared, ‘Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt. 25:41). Elsewhere He affirmed: ‘If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out’ (Mk. 9:43–44).”
“In the very vivid story in Luke 16, which, unlike parables, uses an actual name of a person (Lazarus), Jesus tells in graphic detail about a rich man in hell.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: Matthew 10:28 actually disproves eternal torment! Jesus says God can “DESTROY both soul and body in hell” – the Greek apollumi means complete destruction. If souls were indestructible, this warning becomes meaningless. Matthew 25:41’s “eternal fire” parallels Jude 7’s description of Sodom suffering “eternal fire” yet Sodom isn’t still burning – the fire’s consequences are eternal, not its duration. Mark 9’s “unquenchable fire” quotes Isaiah 66:24 describing fire consuming “DEAD BODIES” – corpses, not conscious beings. The Lazarus story occurs in Hades (intermediate state), not Gehenna (final judgment), uses symbolic imagery (tongues, drops of water), and draws from known folk tales. Even if literal, Revelation 20:14 states Hades itself is thrown into the lake of fire, proving it’s not the final state.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: The word “destroy” (apollumi) often means “lost” rather than “annihilated” – the same word describes the “lost” sheep, coin, and son in Luke 15, all of which were found and restored! The “eternal fire” uses kolasis (corrective punishment) not timoria (vengeful punishment). Aristotle distinguished these: kolasis benefits the punished, timoria satisfies the punisher. Jesus chose the redemptive term! The rich man in the parable shows moral transformation beginning – he cares for his brothers and acknowledges Abraham as “father.” The “great chasm” doesn’t say it’s eternal. Christ’s victory destroys every barrier between God and humanity. As Origen argued, divine fire purifies rather than tortures, ultimately preparing souls for restoration.
The Bible teaches that there is a hell.
“In addition to our Lord’s words, the other inspired writings of the New Testament affirm the existence of hell. Perhaps the most vivid of all is found in Revelation. John declared: Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. —Rev. 20:13–15”
“The Apostle Paul spoke of everlasting separation from God, saying that those ‘who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus . . . will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power’ (2 Thess. 1:7–9).”
“The writer of Hebrews added a note of finality when he wrote, ‘Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment’ (Heb. 9:27).”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: These passages powerfully support annihilationism! The lake of fire is explicitly “THE SECOND DEATH” – death means death, not eternal conscious existence. Death and Hades being thrown into the lake shows abstract concepts being destroyed, not tormented. Paul speaks of “everlasting DESTRUCTION” using olethros (ruin, death) – the destruction is everlasting in result, not process. Being “shut out from the presence of the Lord” means non-existence since God sustains all existence: “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Hebrews mentions death and judgment, not eternal torment. The author warns of “destruction” (10:39) and “raging fire that will CONSUME the enemies” (10:27) – language of complete annihilation.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: Revelation’s symbolic language requires careful interpretation. The same book shows “kings of the earth” destroyed (19:19-21) yet later bringing glory into New Jerusalem (21:24). The lake of fire represents purification – fire and sulfur (theion, “divine”) were ancient purifying agents. Even “second death” may not be final – Christ holds “the keys of death and Hades” (Revelation 1:18). Paul’s “everlasting destruction” (aionios olethros) could mean “age-lasting destruction of the old nature.” His ultimate vision is “every knee bowing… every tongue confessing” (Philippians 2:10-11) and God becoming “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). Hebrews says God disciplines “for our good, that we may share in his holiness” (12:10) – suggesting redemptive judgment.
God’s love demands a hell.
“The objection most often leveled against the doctrine of hell is that it is eminently unloving. An all-loving God could not possibly send anyone to hell. To be sure, the Bible asserts that ‘God is love’ (1 Jn. 4:16). But love cannot act coercively, only persuasively. A God of love cannot force people to love Him. Paul spoke of things being done freely and not of compulsion (2 Cor. 9:7). A loving being always gives ‘space’ to others. He does not force himself upon them against their will. C. S. Lewis observed, ‘The Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will . . . would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.’ Therefore, those who do not wish to love God must be allowed not to love Him. Those who do not wish to be with Him must be allowed to be separated from Him. Hell is this eternal separation from God.”
Human dignity demands a hell.
“Since God cannot force people into heaven against their free choice, human free choice demands a hell. As C. S. Lewis said, ‘There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.” Matthew 23:37 indicates that God wants to gather everyone, but they were not willing. Forcing people to do something against their will is an affront to their dignity.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: These arguments create false dilemmas. There’s a third option between forced love and eternal torment: allowing rejection of God to reach its natural conclusion – death. God respects freedom by letting people choose death over life, not by artificially sustaining them forever in torment. That would be the ultimate coercion! Lewis himself suggested the damned might cease being human, becoming “remains.” True love would allow those who reject Life to cease existing, not force eternal existence in agony. Human dignity is better preserved by respecting the choice to reject existence’s Source, resulting in non-existence, rather than forcing eternal existence in torment. Lewis’s “thy will be done” works perfectly for annihilation – separation from Life’s source naturally results in death.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: This underestimates divine love’s power! God doesn’t coerce, but perfect love is ultimately irresistible when fully revealed. Paul wasn’t coerced on the Damascus road, yet Christ’s revelation overwhelmed his resistance. The argument assumes human will is stronger than divine love, but Scripture teaches God’s purposes cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2). True human dignity comes from God’s image, not the ability to permanently destroy ourselves. Can finite, fallen beings make truly free, fully-informed eternal decisions? Thomas Talbott argues rejection of God always stems from ignorance or dysfunction – no one would freely choose eternal separation from perfect Love if they truly understood. God’s patient education will eventually overcome all resistance through truth and love, not coercion.
God’s justice demands a hell.
“In addition to the direct affirmations of Scripture, there are many other reasons for the existence of hell. One is that justice demands the existence of hell and God is just (Romans 2). He is so pure and untainted that He cannot even look upon sin (Hab. 1:13). But not all evil is punished in this life. Many observers have noted that the wicked sometimes prosper (Ps. 73:3). Thus, the existence of a place of punishment for the wicked after this life is necessary to maintain the justice of God. Surely, there would be no real justice in the universe unless there were a place of punishment for a demented soul like Hitler, who initiated the merciless slaughter of some six million Jews and others. God’s justice demands that there is a hell.”
God’s sovereignty demands a hell.
“Unless there is a hell there is no final victory over evil. For what frustrates good is evil. The wheat and tares cannot grow together forever. There must be an ultimate separation or else good will not triumph over evil. In society, punishment for evil is necessary that good might prevail. Likewise, in eternity good must triumph over evil. If it does not, then God is not in ultimate control. In brief, God’s sovereignty demands a hell, otherwise He would not be the ultimate victor over evil which the Bible declares that He is (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24–28, Revelation 20–22).”
The Cross of Christ implies hell.
“At the center of Christianity is the Cross (1 Cor. 1:17–18, 1 Cor. 15:3). Without it there is no salvation (Ro. 4:25, Heb. 10:14). It is the very purpose for which Christ came into the world (Mk. 10:45, Lk. 19:10). Without the Cross there is no salvation (Jn. 10:1, Jn. 10:9–10, Acts 4:12). Only through the Cross can we be delivered from our sins (Ro. 3:21–26). Jesus suffered great agony and even separation from God on the Cross (Heb. 2:10–17, Heb. 5:7–9). But why the Cross unless there is a hell? If there is no hell to shun, then the Cross is a sham. Christ’s death is robbed of its eternal significance unless there is an eternal separation from God from which people need to be delivered.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: Justice demands proportionate punishment, not infinite torture for finite sins. Biblical justice follows “eye for eye” proportionality. Hitler deserves death, not trillions of years of torture. Scripture teaches degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47-48) – impossible with infinite torment. These arguments actually support annihilation MORE than eternal torment. If evil exists forever in hell, it hasn’t been defeated but quarantined. True victory means evil’s complete elimination. The cited passages describe God destroying “every rule and authority” – annihilation language. The Cross remains essential – Christ saved us from DEATH, sin’s wages. If sin’s penalty is eternal torment and Jesus didn’t suffer eternally, He didn’t pay our penalty. But if the penalty is death, Jesus fully paid it by dying in our place.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: True justice seeks restoration, not retribution. Does torturing Hitler forever undo his crimes or just add infinite suffering? Christ “is the atoning sacrifice… for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2) – justice is already satisfied at the Cross. God’s sovereignty is why universalism is true! How is God “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28) if billions remain separated? True victory transforms enemies into friends, not perpetual warfare. The Cross has MORE significance in universalism because it actually accomplishes universal salvation, not just makes it possible. Christ is “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14), not potentially. The Cross reveals God’s love pursuing humanity even unto death – a love that never gives up until all are reconciled.
A Response to Objections about Hell
“Why punish people? Why not reform them? The answer is simple from both a biblical and rational point of view. First, God does try to reform people; the time of reformation is called life. Peter declared that ‘The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’ (2 Pet. 3:9). However, after the time of reformation comes the time of reckoning. Hebrews tells us that ‘man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment’ (Heb. 9:27). Further, hell is only for the unreformable and unrepentant, the reprobate (2 Peter 2). God in His wisdom and goodness would not allow anyone to go to hell who He knew would go to heaven if He gave them more opportunity. He does not want ‘anyone to perish’ (2 Pet. 3:9) but desires ‘all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4).”
“In addition, God cannot force free creatures to be reformed. Forced reformation is worse than punishment; it is cruel and inhumane. At least punishment respects the freedom and dignity of the person. C. S. Lewis insightfully notes, ‘To be ‘cured’ against one’s will . . . is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.’ Humans are not objects to be manipulated; they are subjects to be respected because they are made in God’s image. Human beings should be punished when they do evil because they were free and knew better.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: God desires none to “perish” – apollumi means destruction! The contrast isn’t heaven versus eternal torment, but repentance leading to life versus impenitence leading to perishing. The claim about the “unreformable” raises questions about those who never heard the gospel, infants, and the disabled. The argument against forced reformation actually works AGAINST eternal torment – what’s more coercive than forcing someone to exist forever in agony? Death respects their choice to separate from Life’s source. Annihilation provides just punishment while mercifully ending existence rather than perpetuating it in torture.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: If God “desires all men to be saved” and is omnipotent, His desire will be fulfilled! Calling some “unreformable” limits God’s power. Are we saying human stubbornness defeats divine love? Why should death end God’s reformative efforts? Scripture hints at continued opportunity – Christ preached to “spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19). God doesn’t force reformation but persuades through truth and love. When someone truly sees Christ, resistance melts. The assumption people would knowingly reject infinite love for infinite misery indicates mental illness, not free will. God’s healing isn’t coercion but liberation – “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
“Isn’t eternal damnation for temporal sins overkill? To punish a person eternally for what he did for a short time on earth seems at first to be extreme. However, on closer examination it turns out to be not only just but necessary. For one thing, only eternal punishment will suffice for sins again the eternal God. The sins may have been committed in time, but they were against the Eternal One. Furthermore, no sin can be tolerated as long as God exists, and He is eternal. Hence, punishment for sin must also be eternal.”
“What is more, the only alternative to eternal punishment is worse, namely to rob man of his freedom and dignity. This could be done by either forced compliance or total annihilation. Forcing someone into heaven against his free choice would be ‘hell’ for him since he doesn’t fit in a place where everyone is loving and praising the Person he wants most to avoid.”
“Nor is annihilation an option. Annihilation of the wicked is contrary to both the nature of the immortal God and the nature of humans made in His image. It is not consistent with an all-loving God to snuff out those who do not do His wishes. What would we think of an earthly father who killed his children when they did not do what he wanted them to do? The fact that these persons are suffering no more justifies annihilating them than it does for a parent to kill his child who is suffering.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: This philosophical argument has NO biblical support and contradicts proportionate justice. Where does Scripture say sins against an eternal God require eternal punishment? Jesus taught degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47-48) – impossible if all sins deserve infinite punishment. If sins require infinite punishment, Christ’s finite suffering couldn’t pay for them! The argument misrepresents annihilation – it’s not God “killing” people vindictively but the natural consequence of rejecting Life itself. The Bible says ONLY God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16) – humans must “put on” immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53). Being made in God’s image doesn’t mean sharing all His attributes. What’s worse – a father who lets rebellious children die, or one who keeps them alive specifically to torture them forever?
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: If sins against an infinite God require infinite punishment, then Christ’s finite suffering was insufficient – you can’t have it both ways! The statement “no sin can be tolerated as long as God exists” contradicts reality – God tolerates sin NOW for redemptive purposes. Being made in God’s image means we’re created for relationship with Him – an image that may be marred but never destroyed. A loving parent neither kills nor tortures their children forever but patiently works toward reconciliation. “Love never fails” (1 Corinthians 13:8). The assumption people would find heaven hellish after being healed is absurd – would someone freed from addiction curse their liberation? Once shown God’s true character of infinite love, who would continue avoiding Him?
“Finally, without an eternal separation, there could be no heaven. Evil is contagious (1 Cor. 5:6) and must be quarantined. Like a deadly plague, if it is not contained it will continue to contaminate and corrupt. If God did not eventually separate the tares from the wheat, the tares would choke out the wheat. The only way to preserve an eternal place of good is for God to eternally separate all evil from it. The only way to have an eternal heaven is to have an eternal hell.”
“How can we be happy in heaven knowing a loved one is in hell? No concerned believer has not struggled with this problem. However, once the emotional fog lifts, the mind can see that the very presupposition of this question is seriously flawed. It supposes that we are more merciful than God! God is perfectly happy in heaven, and He knows that not everyone will be there. Yet He is infinitely more merciful than we are. What is more, if we could not be happy in heaven knowing anyone was in hell, then our happiness is not in our hands but someone else’s. But hell cannot veto heaven! We can be happy in heaven the same way we can still enjoy eating knowing others are starving. And remember, just as bad memories can be healed here on earth, God will ‘wipe away all tears’ in heaven (Rev. 21:4).”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: This argument better supports annihilation! If evil is truly contagious, wouldn’t God eliminate it entirely rather than preserve it forever? The wheat and tares parable shows tares being “burned up” (katakaiō – consumed), not kept burning forever. Revelation says “nothing impure will ever enter” New Jerusalem (21:27). How can tears be wiped away if loved ones are being tortured forever? The comparison to enjoying food while others starve is morally troubling. Annihilation offers closure – loved ones no longer exist rather than suffering eternally. The claim that God is “perfectly happy” while billions suffer makes Him seem psychopathic rather than loving.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: Evil isn’t a thing to be quarantined but a privation to be healed! You don’t quarantine darkness – you bring light. The objection about happiness in heaven disappears if everyone is eventually saved. Could perfectly loving beings really be happy knowing others suffer eternally? If so, they’re not perfectly loving! Revelation 21:4’s promise that God will “wipe away every tear” makes perfect sense if all causes of tears are removed through universal restoration. How can God be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28) if billions remain separated? True heaven requires not eternal hell but the complete transformation of all evil into good through God’s patient, persistent love.
“Why did God create people He knew would go to hell? Some critics of hell argue that if God knew that His creatures would reject Him and end up in such a horrible place as hell, then why did He create them in the first place. Wouldn’t it have been better never to have existed than to exist and go to hell? No doubt most of us have at times wished for oblivion as an alternative to our suffering. But like the apostle’s wish to be accursed for his brethren (Ro. 9:1–3), it is an unfulfillable wish. Like the desire never to have been born, once one has been created an immortal soul, the desire for mortality is unrealizable.”
“Further, the very implication that ‘nonexistence is better than existence’ is meaningless. For ‘nonexistence’ is nothing, and nothing cannot be better than anything—for it simply does not exist. To affirm that nothing can be better than something is a gigantic category mistake. In order to compare two things, they must have something in common. But there is nothing in common between nothing and something. They are diametrically opposite. Someone may feel like being put out of his misery, but he cannot consistently think of non-being as a better state than being.”
“True, Jesus said of Judas that it would have been better if he had never been born (Mk. 14:21). But this is simply a strong expression indicating the severity of his sin, not a statement about the superiority of non-being over being. Nothing cannot be better than something, since the two have nothing in common to compare them.”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: The author begs the question by assuming souls are immortal – the Bible never teaches this! Only God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16); believers “put on” immortality at resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:53-54). This philosophical word-game doesn’t address the moral issue. We regularly make meaningful comparisons between existence and non-existence. If eternal torment awaits most people, creating them was unconscionably cruel. Jesus’s statement about Judas makes literal sense if eternal torment is true – non-existence would be infinitely preferable. Creating beings who might cease to exist is understandable; creating beings for eternal torture is evil.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: God created everyone because He foreknows their ultimate salvation! Would perfect Love create beings knowing they’d suffer eternally? That makes God worse than any monster. But if God creates knowing ALL will eventually be redeemed, creation is pure love. The philosophical argument about comparing existence to non-existence is irrelevant – there’s a third option: transformed existence in harmony with God! Jesus’s statement about Judas expressed the horror of betrayal, not eternal destiny – He still called Judas “friend” during arrest (Matthew 26:50). Some church fathers believed even Judas would be saved. If God’s love extends to Paul, the “chief of sinners,” why not Judas?
“Life is like a game—a very serious one. As in every game, there are rules and there are results. Lewis put it, ‘If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it.’ And simply because some will lose in the game of life does not mean it should not be played. Before we take to the road each day we know that many people will be killed in traffic accidents. Yet we continue to drive. When we have children, we know great tragedy could befall our offspring or ourselves. Yet in all these cases our foreknowledge of evil does not negate our will to permit the possibility of good. Why? Because when the game of life is played, some must win and some must lose.”
“But we deem it worthwhile because it is better to have played with the opportunity to win than not to have played at all. From God’s standpoint, it is better to have loved the whole world (Jn. 3:16) and lost some than not to have loved them at all. Life is a serious moral game, and morality is not possible without free choice. It was good for God to create free creatures, and it is good to be free. But there are consequences to free choice—sometimes final and irrevocable consequences. Jesus passionately desired all His people to be in the fold, but mournfully added of some, ‘but you were not willing’ (Mt. 23:37).”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: The game analogy trivializes eternal torment’s horror. Games end – losers go home disappointed but intact. If losing means ETERNAL torture, it’s not a game but cosmic horror. No one would play with such stakes! The traffic comparison fails – we accept rare, temporary risks, but traditional hell says MOST humanity suffers ETERNALLY. If most drivers faced eternal torture, driving would be immoral! Annihilation makes the risk rational – potential eternal life versus ceasing to exist. Jesus’s “you were not willing” led to Jerusalem’s temporal destruction, not eternal torment. Free will is preserved when people choosing to reject Life face death, not when they’re forced to exist forever in agony.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: Life isn’t a game where some must lose – it’s a divine drama where ALL win! God doesn’t play games with eternal stakes. He’s the Good Shepherd finding every lost sheep, the Father awaiting every prodigal. The traffic analogy undermines the traditional view – we constantly work to REDUCE deaths through safety improvements. Similarly, God works to save everyone and, being omnipotent, succeeds! Jesus said, “I shall lose NONE of all those he has given me” (John 6:39). Since the Father gives “all things” to the Son (John 3:35), Jesus loses no one. Temporary “you were not willing” doesn’t mean permanent divine failure. “Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Romans 5:20). In God’s “game,” love ensures everyone wins eventually.
“Is it just to send people to hell when they can’t help being sinners? The Bible says we are born sinners (Ps. 51:5) and are ‘by nature the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3, NKJV). But if sinners cannot avoid sinning, is it fair to send them to hell for what they could not stop doing? First of all, according to the Bible, people go to hell for two reasons: (1) They are born with a bent to sin, and (2) they chose to sin. They are born on a road that leads to hell, but they also fail to heed the warning signs along the way to turn from destruction (Lk. 13:3, 2 Pet. 3:9).”
“Furthermore, while human beings sin because they are sinners (by nature), nonetheless, their sin nature does not force them to sin; they choose to sin. As St. Augustine correctly said, ‘We are born with the propensity to sin and the necessity to die.’ Notice, he did not say we are born with the necessity to sin. While sin is inevitable since we are born with a bent in that direction, nonetheless, sin is not unavoidable.”
“Likewise, the ultimate place to which sinners are destined is also avoidable. All one needs to do is to repent (Lk. 13:3, Acts 17:30, 2 Pet. 3:9). All men are held responsible for their decision to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. And responsibility always implies the ability to respond.”
“All who go to hell could have avoided going there if they had chosen not to. No pagan anywhere is without clear light from God so that he is ‘without excuse’ (Ro. 1:19–20, Ro. 2:12–15). And those who seek, find. Just as God sent a missionary to Cornelius (Acts 10:3–5), so He will provide the message of salvation for all who seek it. For ‘without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him’ (Heb. 11:6).”
Conditional Immortality & Universalist Response
From a Conditional Immortality perspective: This highlights eternal torment’s injustice! If we’re born with an unchosen sinful nature, infinite punishment for its expression is unjust. The warnings say “perish” (Luke 13:3, 2 Peter 3:9) – destruction, not eternal torment! Augustine said we have “the necessity to DIE” – exactly what conditionalists affirm. Death is sin’s consequence, not eternal conscious torment. The claim that all could avoid hell ignores billions who died without hearing the gospel, infants, and the disabled. The Cornelius example is exceptional, not normative. Romans 1:19-20 establishes people are “without excuse” warranting judgment – death, not infinite torture.
From a Biblical Universalist perspective: If we’re born with a sinful nature we didn’t choose, a loving God would heal it, not punish eternally! We don’t punish sick people for being sick – we heal them. The warnings serve their purpose – eventually turning all from sin. If “responsibility implies ability to respond,” God ensures everyone eventually has genuine ability. What about those who never heard, children, the disabled, those raised in other religions? A just God provides whatever time and healing necessary for genuine response, perhaps beyond death – Christ preached to “spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19). Romans 1-3 establishes universal guilt to proclaim universal grace: God “has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to ALL” (Romans 11:32).
Final Reflection
This theological dialogue demonstrates that conservative Christians who take Scripture seriously can reach dramatically different conclusions about eternal destiny. Both conditional immortality and biblical universalism offer sophisticated biblical rebuttals to every traditional argument while maintaining high views of scriptural authority.
Conditionalists emphasize taking biblical destruction language literally – death means death, perish means perish, destroy means destroy. They argue the traditional view requires reading these clear terms metaphorically to mean their opposite: eternal conscious preservation in torment.
Universalists emphasize God’s sovereign love and biblical promises of universal restoration. They argue that if God truly desires all to be saved and is omnipotent, His desire will ultimately be fulfilled through patient, persistent grace that eventually overcomes all resistance.
Both views address the moral revulsion many feel toward eternal conscious torment while maintaining sin’s seriousness and Christ’s necessity. They present a God whose character remains consistent with Jesus’s revelation – taking sin seriously while ensuring justice serves redemptive purposes and love ultimately triumphs. The author’s own journey away from eternal conscious torment suggests these arguments deserve careful consideration.
© 2010 – 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
I fear Hell but I also fear its inevitability even more. I used to believe in the justice, mercy, and goodness of God but that was before I learned that God has actually consigned the vast majority of mankind to hell. Mankind is generally “reprobate”, a term meaning worthless, and are on a conveyor belt ride to Hell no matter what they do. In His mercy, God decided to save a few men from Hell called the “elect” and they are the sole inheritors of heaven. It was for the elect, and the elect alone, that Christ died. This decision to choose certain men and reject others, I have learned is prenatal, irrevocable, and occurred before the creation. With this in mind, I realize that salvation is a lottery, not a choice.
Because man would not choose God, God must make the decision on our behalf. This is what I have been taught. Is it true? It certainly makes God out to be less than just, in my opinion.
Hi Darryl:
It sounds like you have been taught calvinism or a reformed view of theology and God. I also used to believe strongly in Calvinism but over time (and much struggle) came to see that the calvinistic view of God has a distorted view of God’s love and other aspects of His nature. God has not purposefully chosen (consigned as you say) people to hell. He desires all to be saved. Only their rejection of His drawing (and Christ) will result in their eventually going to hell. Jesus wants to show mercy on every person, and died so that every person could have the chance to be saved. Some folks though will reject Him, but that is their choice, not the choice of God in eternity past to purposefully send them to hell to burn with no possibility of their doing otherwise.
Darry – God loves you!
Matthew
Very simple explanations with bible quotes, powerful enough for me.