“Hell is morally good, because a good God must punish evil.”–Randy Alcorn, The Goodness of God, p 85
Feeds
Historical Picks
Christian Living Picks
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
“Hell is morally good, because a good God must punish evil.”–Randy Alcorn, The Goodness of God, p 85
32 Comments(+Add)
why must he punish evil?
I’ve always thought that framing this particular issue in these terms is ironically one of the things that has lead to a bit of an upsurge in universalism in evangelicalism. If God “must” punish evil, and Jesus took all the punishment for all the evil in the world (assuming an unlimited atonement view, which is still the majority view among US evangelicals – sorry Calvinists), then it’s not hard to see why some people simply come to the conclusion that hell is simply unnecessary.
Now, I’m not saying that hell isn’t necessary (although, I don’t really like that word), but I think that approaching it from a view of justice that is payment based leads to some weird philosophical places. I would say that when we look at the issue of redemption in terms of relationship, the discussion about who will spend eternity in God’s presence makes a lot more sense.
Phil – Jesus provided the WAY for eternal life, and took upon Him the sins of the world. However, that sacrifice is not effectual without the sinner’s consent (belief).
Anyone who claims to have the equation for redemption and justice is self righteous. My human reasoning and my finite knowledge of God struggles with the concept of hell (lake of fire, etc.) But I must bow to the many references in Scripture.
I cannot call “hell” good since it isn’t correction with a view toward redemption. I would prefer the word “necessary”.
And if indeed it is eternal punishment with conscious souls then it is horrific.
the implication of the quote connects god’s goodness and punishment in a causative sense. why does he think god’s goodness requires punishment?
i do not think i would ascribe to any statement about hell being good no matter how good was modified – unless the modifier was “not.”
Exactly. Hell might be just and necessary, but it surely is not good in any sense.
Hell shows that God is good and just and morally pure and holy.
If you love humans you must hate murder. God would not be good if he let murderers get away with murder.
That is the beauty of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. He has took on the wrath of God for our sins so that we do not have to.
The reality of Hell and wrath magnify the goodness of God.
God would not be good if he let murderers get away with murder.
And yet, he “let” Moses get away with it. He “let” Paul get away with it. If God is God, why can’t he forgive what he wants to forgive? How does Hell prove that God is good and just and morally pure?
#8 – Actually, God didn’t “let” Moses or Paul get away with their murders, their sins were paid for on the cross by Jesus. Those who’s sins are not paid for (through disbelief) are to be held accountable and punished for their sins.
If God were to forgive and forget, He would not be Just since crimes have not been accounted for. Romans explains the necessity of punishment for sins and the grace that is bestowed upon believers while maintaining God’s justice.
#9 – Good points.
This is where we would disagree, I think that when Jesus died, he paid for the sins of the whole world. Whether or not they believe their sins are paid for.
So, if that is true (you may not believe that it is), then Paul and Moses, and David did get away with murder.
Jesus died for them and the guy who doesn’t believe it just as surely as someone not believing in gravity would have zero affect on it as a law of nature.
#11 – Maybe, but I suggest that is doctrinal semantics?
#12. Really Rick? I’m surprised you are defending a blatantly Calvinistic bend. Is it because you really think that or you just dislike me.
The idea that Jesus did or didn’t pay the price for everyone is not semantics. It will color the rest of your doctrines, which you spend a lot of time stating is extremely important.
Which doctrines are important to you?
Jesus paid for the sins of the world, however that payment only becomes effectual by personal faith. Until then it is a pending payment. It is quite a mystery. It has nothing to do with “disliking” you – wow.
” The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.”
Sinners cannot pay for what has already been paid for. Again, in the spirit there are truths that do not easily translate into the natural.
#11 and #13 are patently Rob Bell Theology. #14 is absolutely true; Jesus’ blood paid for every sin past present and future for the whole world, but is only effective as one believes on it.
This idea of painting the blood on the doorposts of the whole universe is anti-Biblical universalism. It does not fly. People are not saved by an anonymous Jesus. It is only at His name that man can be saved.
Fixed it.
Apparently, The doctrines the scriptures clearly teach are important to Rick.
Careful, John, you are leaning Arminian!
It is clear that one must be Born Again for salvation to happen from the scripture:
Regeneration in the New Testament
For the record: here is how I honestly feel about the writers here.
Christian P. – Like
Phil – Seems fair – like
Neil – like
Joe – Mostly like
Jerry – I like his transparency, not his thread contentions
Chris L. – Like all but his nationalism.
Nathanael – Like
Rick – I have problems with him.
#14 and #16.
I never talked about when it was effectual. Did Jesus pay for the sins of the whole world or not? If he did, then the men mentioned don’t need to believe for it to be paid for, they need to believe for salvation, which I wasn’t arguing against.
Really nice strawman John Chisham.
Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. That death paid for everyone’s sins, EVERYONE’s.
I think I mentioned this book not long ago here, but I recently read The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective by Terence E. Fretheim. It’s a short, but good book on the issue of sin and how it affects God in the OT. The thing that’s interesting is that Israel’s sin seems to affect God just as much as it affected them. The picture of Yahweh isn’t one of a demanding despot who must be appeased, but rather of a spurned lover jealous for His beloved.
I just think that speaking of sin in terms of payment and debts actually makes the whole issue rather impersonal, especially for American audiences. The fact is that we are used having financial debts, and we don’t see it as big deal.
I guess the irony is that I see presentations of atonement based entirely on the idea of payment, wrath, and God getting what He is owed actually shrinking the importance and impact of the Cross and Resurrection.
With apoligies to Monty Pytohn – *bang* *bang* *bang* Bring out your dead. *bang* *bang* *bang* Bring out your dead.
Pardon me as I get out my “that brings us back to the definition of salvation” drum.
This brings us back to the fact that salvation is defined as the rebirth and regeneration by the Holy Spirit
“You must be born again”.
The condudrum is solved when one understands that forgiveness of sins does not equal salvation. It is but one part of making it possible. I’m with Joe that everyone’s sins were forgiven at Calvary. The emnity between God and man has been removed, reconcillation (not salvation) between God and man has been effected for all. Yet not all are saved (born again) which is effected through faith in what Christ did on Calvary. “If you do not believe in me (Jesus) you will die in your sins.”
If you do not believe in Christ and his atoning sacrifice, though your sins are forgiven and the penalty paid, you will not be born again and hince be subject to the 2nd death.
I still contend that this issue revolves around doctrinal semantics and at the very least is shrouded in mystery. That Christ died for the sins of the world is Scripturally clear.
After I die I will know the answer and then it will be too late to write a book!
I know John will agree with this: It doesn’t matter about the doctrinal nuances concerning the state of hell bound sinners. What matters is sharing the gospel with sinners because one thing we DO KNOW is how sinners can avoid hell and gain eternal life.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
#11, #13, and #14 can all be true… depending how you define the terms. but it seems you’d rather assume what people mean than find out.
‘course – it is more fun even if less honest.
i don’t think there is a contributor here who would disagree with this.
The people of Libya is currently experiencing hell: http://n24.cm/etGRdi http://n24.cm/gFufmB
And, yes PB, I know it fades in comparison to the real thing…
The people in Darfur have been living in hell for many years.
A few questions:
1. where does the doctrine of hell appear, even once, in Acts (spanning over 30 years of ministry)?
2. Any of the epistles of Paul, especially in Romans?
3. The epistles of the other writers?
4. How about the OT?
In the end, we’re left with the 3 first gospels, with most references to Gehenna (the dump outside Jerusalem).
The 2 ultimate ends of men constantly pitted in scripture: life and death (not heaven and hell). The Gospel of John demonstrates this clearly (not one reference to hell in his gospel either).
BTW, in the end “hell” is cast into the “lake of fire”. Make sense of that. A little hell is thrown into a bigger hell?
No, John tells us twice that the “lake of fire is the second death.”