by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH. D.
The classical argument for the eternity of hell, articulated most influentially by Anselm of Canterbury in Cur Deus Homo, proposes that because God possesses infinite majesty, any sin committed against Him represents an infinitely grievous offense, and therefore warrants an infinite (i.e., eternal) punishment. This reasoning has shaped Latin soteriology and Western penal theories for centuries. Yet upon close theological and philosophical scrutiny, the argument proves conceptually unstable, internally inconsistent, and ultimately corrosive to the very divine attributes it seeks to defend. Rather than safeguarding God’s holiness and justice, the appeal to infinite majesty undermines God’s perfection, immutability, and goodness, relying upon metaphysical categories foreign to Scripture and the apostolic tradition.
I. The Argument from Infinite Majesty
Anselm’s logic is structured as follows:
-
God is infinitely majestic.
-
The severity of sin is measured by the dignity of the one offended.
-
Therefore, sin against God is infinitely severe.
-
Punishment must be proportionate to offense.
-
Therefore, the punishment for sin must be infinite in severity and duration.
This argument depends not only on the premise of infinite divine majesty, but also on the hidden assumption that justice is satisfied through retributive equivalence expressed in temporal endlessness. Both premises are theologically questionable.
II. The Problem of “Infinity” in Theological Attribution
Scripture affirms that God is perfect in holiness, goodness, and wisdom—complete, lacking nothing (Ps. 18:30; Jas. 1:17). But perfection and infinity are not equivalent metaphysical concepts.
To call God “infinite” in a quantitative sense implies that God’s attributes admit of more or less, and therefore can increase or decrease. But an attribute that admits increase is not perfect, for perfection excludes deficiency. Moreover, as Hegel observed, a concept driven to infinity becomes indeterminate and collapses into its opposite. An “infinite love,” if understood quantitatively, would include even love for evil, making divine love morally self-contradictory. Similarly, an “infinite majesty” that must be defended through endless punishment implies majesty that can be insulted, diminished, or restored—contrary to divine self-sufficiency.
The biblical and patristic tradition speaks instead of God’s perfection—fullness, constancy, and unchanging goodness—not mathematical boundlessness.
III. The Contradiction of Divine Immutability
If God’s majesty is infinite in the Anselmian sense, then sin must be capable of damaging divine honor. But to say that God requires satisfaction to restore injured dignity is to imply that God’s being is affected, lessened, or threatened by creaturely action. This contradicts the classical doctrine of divine immutability, which holds that God does not undergo change in being or perfection (Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17).
Thus, the very premise of Anselm’s argument negates the doctrine of God it is intended to defend.
IV. Proportionality, Justice, and the Finite Nature of Creaturely Action
Human sin is committed by finite agents within finite time. To assign endless punishment to finite acts is a category mistake. Biblical proportionality (e.g., Luke 12:47–48; Matt. 7:2) indicates measured judgment calibrated to moral knowledge and intent, not an undifferentiated eternity of suffering. A punishment that never ends is by definition never satisfied, and therefore never just.
V. The Philosophical and Moral Collapse of Anselm’s Framework
The argument from infinite majesty leads to the following contradictions:
-
If God’s honor can be damaged, God is not immutable.
-
If God requires eternal suffering for satisfaction, God is not perfect.
-
If God sustains evil forever, God is not victorious.
-
If justice consists of eternal retribution, mercy is annihilated.
In attempting to elevate divine majesty, the argument diminishes God.
VI. The Scriptural Witness Against the Idea of Infinite Punishment
1) Punishment can be completed: “Double for all her sins” (Isa 40:2)
Jerusalem “hath received of the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.” The Hebrew idiom kiflayim denotes full satisfaction, not excess or perpetuity. Punishment is portrayed as finite, completed, and followed by pardon.
2) God does not cast off forever (Lam 3:31–33)
“For the Lord will not cast off for ever… he will have compassion.” Divine wrath is explicitly not eternal, but subordinate to compassion.
3) God’s anger is not everlasting (Ps 103:9; Isa 57:16; Ps 30:5)
Scripture repeatedly and directly denies the perpetuity of divine wrath. Eternal torment contradicts these statements.
4) Punishment is measured, not infinite (Luke 12:47–48; Matt. 7:2)
Jesus teaches proportional, not eternal, retribution.
5) The telos of judgment is reconciliation (Mic 7:18–19; Rom 11:32; Col 1:20; 1 Cor 15:28)
Biblical judgment is penultimate, ordered toward healing and restoration. Eternal punishment would establish an eternal dualism—a creation divided forever—which the apostolic vision explicitly rejects.
Conclusion
The doctrine of eternal torment grounded in God’s supposed “infinite majesty” rests upon metaphysical assumptions foreign to Scripture, contradicts divine perfection and immutability, violates biblical proportional justice, and opposes the Scriptural testimony that God’s anger is not forever and that judgment aims at restoration. A coherent Christian doctrine of God affirms not an infinite (endless) wrath, but a perfect justice that heals, reconciles, and completes the divine purpose when God is all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
No comments:
Post a Comment