Rejecting God Because of Hell Is Illogical

"I could never believe in a God who sends people to hell." This common objection, while sincere, is nevertheless untrue and illogical. How can you say it is "untrue" Dan if someone really means it? This is how. Just walk through the reasoning with me if you will.

First of all, think about what the person is saying. He is saying that if the biblical teaching about heaven and hell is correct, then he would never believe in a God who allows people to spend eternity in a place of suffering. This rationale is both illogical and irrational. His objection is based on a premise that the biblical teaching about hell is correct, which is a premise he already rejects.

It's like saying, "I could never believe in a God who sends people to a place which I am convinced doesn't exist." Huh? How do you know you could never believe such a thing when you do not yet even believe in hell, yet alone believe in Christ?

An unbeliever is someone who does not believe in Jesus as Savior. And I have yet to meet an unbeliever who is convinced that hell as described in the Bible is real. So an unbeliever's lack of faith has to do with a lack of faith in Jesus, rather than a lack of faith in hell. He is first an unbeliever in Jesus, and only later an unbeliever in hell.

We can all agree that the following statement is true: "The biblical description regarding hell and those who go there is either true or false." So the objection is that the person would never believe in God if the biblical description is true. I disagree, and I think you will too in a couple minutes. Here is why.

The biblical teaching, as well as the personal experience of Christians, is that a believer is given a new heart and begins to love God because of what Christ has done to save his soul. Millions of Christians believe in God while also believing the difficult doctrine that God sends people to hell. It is not only possible to hold these two positions, but many Christians accept both of them simultaneously.

So it is possible. It does happen. I, for one, believe in Christ as my Savior, and also in the reality of hell as described in the Bible.

It is irrational to say, "I could never believe in a God who sends people to hell." It's like saying, "Even if millions of others claim to believe in both Christ and hell, I could never believe such a thing myself." That is untrue. You could believe it.

Let's say you were convinced that both heaven and hell are real places where people spend eternity. If you were convinced of that fact, it would be absurd for you to say, "I would rather go to hell than believe in God." No you wouldn't. You don't really mean it. Five minutes in hell would convince you otherwise. If you truly believed you were going to spend eternity in the same place of misery and agony where you spent the previous five minutes, you wouldn't stick to your unbelief and your rejection of Christ. You would know at that point that hell is real, and you would want any way out.

There is no way you would choose to stay in hell "just to prove a point." It wouldn't happen. You would become a believer very quickly. And you would see that you can indeed believe in a God who sends people to hell. There is no one who despises his soul so much that he would choose eternal punishment in hell over eternal pleasure with God in heaven.

And there is no one, except Satan, who hates God so much that he would spend five minutes in hell only to say, "I still don't want that new heart, and that new life, and that peace in paradise." It simply isn't logical or rational to say that a person would stick to this flawed position "just to make a point." In that situation, you would swallow your pride, bow your knee to your Creator, and accept Christ as your Savior and your only path to paradise.

If you are going to reject God's love for you as demonstrated in the death of His Son on the cross, it is because you are choosing to reject Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. But it is not because of what the Bible teaches about hell. People only think that is one reason they don't believe in God, but it isn't. It is not a logical position to claim such a thing. It is completely unreasonable. Man loves his personal comfort way too much to stick to that position "just to make a point." It wouldn't happen. If he could get it, man would definitely ask God for a lifeline after just five minutes in hell.

But of course the Bible does not offer a shred of hope that such a lifeline will be available to people after they are sent to hell. Once a person enters hell, reality quickly sinks in. People then see that their perception while on earth was terribly wrong. They see that they could indeed have previously believed in a God who sends people to hell, even though at the time they may have sincerely said they "could never believe in such a God."

Do you know why Jesus spoke at least as much about hell as He did about heaven? Because heaven and hell are actual places where people do exist forever. The biblical teaching about hell is probably the second toughest thing in Scripture to grasp. So what's the first? Here it is: God loved you enough to send His only Son to die in your place on the cross. Seriously, who does that? God did.

The Lord wants you in heaven forever and not in hell. If you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Savior, you will be saved and safe forever, period. (see Mark 1:15, John 3:16, John 1:12, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, & 1 John 5:13)

At the same time, if you continue to reject Christ, that's on you. But either way, it is nonsensical for someone to make the illogical statement, "I could never believe in a God who sends people to hell." And I suspect you now see why that premise, albeit sincere, is false and illogical.

Everything just makes more sense when you are trusting Jesus to forgive your sins.

-- Dan Delzell is the pastor of Wellspring Lutheran Church in Papillion, Neb. He is a regular contributor to The Christian Post.

Good word study, and I can conceed the point. However, this then implies that the Devil’s angels will be annihilated as well, which the scripture does not address ast all, either way, to my knowldge, other than Jesus stating that the “eternal fire” was prepared for “...the Devil and his angels...”. Matt 25:41.

QUOTE: "The above indicates to me that men cast into the lake of fire will have varying punishments according to their works..."

A careful reading reveals it indicates no such thing. It simply says they were judged acording to what was written. It says nothing about degree of punishment.

QUOTE:"Just as the first death wasn’t the end, neither will the second death, unfortunately for them, be the end."

The first death is the body only, the second death is the body and the soul. See:
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Destroy in no way implies eternal life withoud God in a constant state of torment. It means destroy, just like death menas death, perish means perish, etc.

QUOTE: "I know hell is a hard doctrine."

Because the idea of eternal torment is hard to reconcile with the plain reading of scripture. Everlasting and Eternal mean a permanent state, that is, they will not be released for the final destination. You think it means tormented forever, where it really means irreversible annihilation.

Do you not see that you are twisting the plain meaning to fit a doctrine?

The "outside" argument does not mention the Lake of Fire, so it suggest there exist those on earth, excluded from the city, who do those sins. If they are in the Lake, they can't escape (I guess?) so why the gates?

Better yet, why need access to the Tree of Life if we already have eternal life? And why exclude others from it? And if we don't eat of it, will we die? Do those in the Lake have the "Tree of...

never mind.

This proof verse raises more questions than it answers, if one is willing to ponder it. Or maybe it just means that only those written in the boo of life are left alive, and thus have access to the city. There aint no one else.

Why should the second death be final if the first death isn’t final?

The first death WOULD BE FINAL were it not for the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The answer to your question is The Resurrection. That is our hope as Christians and Jesus said our reward is WITH HIM when He returns.

Revelation 22:12

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work."

There is no resurrection from the Second Death. It is final - permanent: eternal.

Metaphor for simple human minds to comprehend about those who practice wickedness that want to enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus told us that there would be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' in reference to those wicked who will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom, right before they are cast into the lake of fire.

Better yet, why need access to the Tree of Life if we already have eternal life? And why exclude others from it? And if we don't eat of it, will we die? Do those in the Lake have the "Tree of…

You hit the tradition square in it's weak spot. Atheists are very keen to nail this 'contradiction' that they assume proves the bible nothing but a fairy tale.

We have no access to Eternal Life due our sins that have cut us off and condemned us to eternal death, except through Christ who paid that penalty in His own blood that we might be saved from that death.

For even Jesus after death, awaited The Father to resurrect Him to Life after 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb. Jesus showed us our future if we would be but faithful, by His own resurrection.

Without a resurrection, there is no life - only the Second Death - permanent death; cessation of existence with no consciousness.

QUOTE: Why should the second death be final if the first death isn’t final?

But, without the ressurection of the dead, the first death would be final. Since we are appointed once to die, and after this, the judgement everyone's physical body must give up the life that is in it. The second death, however, is everlasting, eternal, permanent. Those who suffer it have no chance for a resurrection, for they will have nothing to recurrect.

The "Eternal Torment" misinterpretation of the scripture makes God a pernicious, vindictive being.

the existence of God does not imply the existence of Satan.

Proof? God pre-existed Satan and created him.

Further proof? Further proof, other beings exist besides God and Satan. One doesn’t have to be one or the other. One does have to follow one or the other, if both exist.

which brings up the primary binary question: God either exists, or he doesn’t. There is no in-between. There are lots of things between God and Satan.

the existence of God does not imply the existence of Satan

A given. The point is that for a Christian to believe in God, yet reject His Word regarding Satan (e.g. "And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord: and Satan stood on his right hand to be his adversary. And the Lord said to Satan: The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan: and the Lord that chose Jerusalem rebuke thee: Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? ") is a contradiction.

well, you can believe in a God who is NOT the God of the Bible. It won’t do you much good in the long run, but it is possible.

My point is that God/Satan in NOT a binary. If something is true of false, a true binary, it is either true or false. It can’t be both, and it can’t be neither.

This does not apply to God/Satan. It can be neither, it can be both, it can even be either, or depending on how you define things it can be God but not Satan, but not Satan but not God.

the point being that there are at least 3 possibilites, not two.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.