Refine Search

Eternal Torment​—Why a Disturbing Doctrine?

“I hear you dismissed your pastor. What was wrong?”

“Well, he kept telling us we’re all going to hell.”

“What does the new pastor say?”

“The new pastor says we’re going to hell, too.”

“So what’s the difference?”

“Well, the difference is that when the previous pastor said it, he sounded like he was glad about it; but when the new man says it, he sounds like it is breaking his heart.”

SET out in a book of illustrations, this story reflects in its own way that many Bible teachers, as well as churchgoers, are not at ease with the doctrine of hell. In a larger context, it also confirms what Canadian theologian Clark H. Pinnock observed: “Of all the articles of theology that have troubled the human conscience over the centuries, I suppose few can have caused any greater anxiety than the received interpretation of hell as everlasting conscious punishment in body and soul.”

Moral Implications

Why, then, are many troubled about the scenes of an inferno that are presented in Christendom? (See box.) Professor Pinnock points out: “The idea that a conscious creature should have to undergo physical and mental torture through unending time is profoundly disturbing, and the thought that this is inflicted upon them by divine decree offends my conviction about God’s love.”

Yes, the teaching of eternal torment presents a moral problem. For instance, sincere Christians reflect on the questions raised by Catholic theologian Hans Küng: “Should the God of love . . . watch for all eternity this endless, hopeless, pitiless, loveless, cruel physical-psychological torture of his creatures?” Küng continues: “Is he such a hardhearted creditor? . . . What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?”a Indeed, how can the God who tells us in the Bible that we are to love our enemies wish to torture his enemies for eternity? (1 John 4:8-10) Not surprisingly, some people conclude that the nature of hell simply is not compatible with the nature of God, that this doctrine does not make moral sense.

Many other believers attempt to silence their conscience by shying away from these questions. Looking the other way, though, does not make these perplexities disappear. So let us face the issue. What are the moral implications attached to this doctrine? In the Criswell Theological Review, Professor Pinnock writes: “Everlasting torment is intolerable from a moral point of view because it makes God into a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die.” He asks: “How can anyone with the milk of human kindness in him remain calm contemplating such an idea [the traditional doctrine of hell]? . . . How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness?”

Showing the evil influence this doctrine may have had on man’s behavior, Pinnock comments: “I even wonder what atrocities have been committed by those who have believed in a God who tortures his enemies?” He concludes: “Is this not a most disturbing concept which needs some second thoughts?” Yes, if such cruelty is attributed to God, it is no wonder that sensitive churchgoers are taking a second look at hellfire. And what do they see? Another problem confronting the idea of eternal torment.

Hell and Justice

Many who give thought to the traditional doctrine of hell find that it seems to depict God as acting unjustly, so it offends their natural sense of justice. In what way?

You find one answer by comparing the doctrine of eternal torment with a standard of justice given by God: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” (Exodus 21:24) For the sake of argument, apply to the doctrine of hellfire that divine law given to ancient Israel, a law of exact retribution. What conclusion will you likely reach? That only those sinners who have caused eternal torment deserve equal eternal torment in turn​—eternal torment for eternal torment. But since humans (no matter how evil) can cause only finite torment, sentencing them to eternal torment creates a disproportion between their crimes and the infinite penalty of hellfire.

Simply stated, the sentence would be too heavy. It would go far beyond “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Considering that Jesus’ teachings moderated the idea of retaliation, you may admit that true Christians would be hard-pressed to see justness in eternal torment.​—Matthew 5:38, 39; Romans 12:17.

Justifying the Doctrine

Nonetheless, many believers keep trying to justify the doctrine. How? British author Clive S. Lewis speaks for most defenders in his book The Problem of Pain: “There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words.” Thus, supporters confess that eternal torment is appalling, but in the same breath, they hold that the doctrine is mandatory because they feel that the Bible teaches it. Notes theologian Pinnock: “By admitting its unpleasantness, they hope to prove their unswerving fidelity to the Bible and a certain heroism in their believing such an awful truth just because scripture teaches it. They make it sound like the infallibility of the Bible were at stake. But is it really?”

You too may wonder whether fidelity to the Bible leaves you no choice but to accept this doctrine. What does the Bible really say?

[Footnotes]

[Box on page 5]

THREE LIKE-MINDED IMAGES

The Westminster Confession of Faith, accepted by many Protestants, states that the nonelect “shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction.” “In Roman Catholic Christianity,” explains The Encyclopedia of Religion, “hell is deemed to be a state of unending punishment . . . characterized . . . by the suffering of fire and other tortures.” This encyclopedia adds that “Eastern Orthodox Christianity” shares “the teaching that hell is a destiny of eternal fire and punishment awaiting the cursed.”​—Volume 6, pages 238-9.