Does God Punish Sin, or Does It Punish Itself?

The question of whether God destroys the lost has generated much debate. In the pre-social media age, I joined one such debate via email. One debater printed out all the comments, exclaiming that the discussion filled inches of stacked paper. Everyone had an opinion.

In this blog, I offer mine.

My Rub with COG


The First Great Awakening, led by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, marked the beginning of modern “fire and brimstone” style preaching. Forgetting that, “The goodness of God leads . . . to repentance,” (Romans 2:4), this movement’s preachers purposely instilled terror of hell to motivate listeners to turn from sin. Audiences would react viscerally, some people weeping and fainting from sheer horror. In his most famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Edwards preached: “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked.” (https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Sinners-in-the-Hands-of-an-Angry-God/quotes/)

The Penal Substitution Theory of the atonement began with reformers such as Martin Luther and focused on salvation from the wrath of God as the great achievement of the Cross. Jesus became “sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This great exchange makes it possible for us to walk free from condemnation, a truth which naturally highlights the reality of hell as the consequence of rejection of the Cross.

But this truth, when combined with the teaching that hell burns forever, ironically creates a hellish picture of a capricious and vindictive god who would inflict eternal torture for the sins of one lifetime. Attempting to correct for this, some contemporary voices have presented what has historically been called the Moral Influence Theory (MI) but is now called the Character of God message (COG).

Christendom largely and Adventism in specific have given rise to many MI and COG ideologs. These figures have created powerful arguments, often delivered with skill and flourish. The pushback against it has been strong but varied in persuasiveness. I remember a pastor preaching a sermon red-faced and angry that the local heretic thought God never got angry. If polish could settle an argument, the MI/COG crowd would have won long ago.

The most romantic of the proponents of MI may be Peter Abelard, a Medieval French philosopher. A fierce logician, he taught in Paris, where he met and impregnated the brilliant young Heloise. Her family subsequently hired a hit man to attack and castrate Abelard, a tragedy which catapulted them both into monastic life. Now applying his intellectual gifts to religion, he argued against the biblical teaching on divine retributive justice. Did the castration feminize his brain? I’ll leave that question alone.

One of the most prominent contemporary proponents of the modern iterations of this idea is author Rob Bell. Bell began his journey away from Penal Substitution Theory by questioning the teaching of eternal hell, called eternal conscious torment (ECT). So far so good. But in his bestselling book Love Wins, Bell rejects any divine retributive judgment at all, essentially aligning himself with the COG crowd.

Adventism has had several champions of COG. A few decades back, pastor Fred Wright promoted an extreme version of it, claiming that Satan, not God, caused all Bible annihilations, including the flood. Graham Maxwell modified this stance with the position that God did, in fact, annihilate sinners during Old Testament times, but that in the final judgment, He will not, instead giving the lost up to the consequences of sin. Arguably the most popular current Adventist proponent of the Character of God message is psychiatrist Tim Jennings, who rejects traditional Adventist teaching on divine retributive justice in favor of the “design law” model, which rejects the legal aspects of salvation and omits any direct intervention on God’s part in the final judgment. Essentially, Jennings sees sin as pathological versus legal, when it is both.

My Rub with COG


While differing in some things, these teachers share an aversion to two basic ideas.

Jesus died to satisfy God’s justice.

God actively punishes and destroys sin.

In my mind, these two ideas boil down to one basic question:

Does God punish sin, or does it punish itself?

And therein lies my rub with COG. From what I have gathered, the majority of proponents of these ideas see sin as ultimately destroying itself. In other words, they see sin as a self-limiting virus. But I see it as a parasite. Self-limiting viruses clear without exogenous agents, but parasites can live forever off the life of the host. I say this having once acquired giardia lamblia, a water-borne pathogen, from a mountain stream. Unlike the scores of colds I’ve suffered, giardia did not clear up on its own. Parasites require medicine; for me, it was quinine. Similarly, to cure the parasite of sin demands a divine interposition.

Whether one sees sin as a sickness to be cured or a crime to be punished (There is biblical support for both), we all look forward to its eradication. In my mind, without an external, eradicating force, sin will continue to siphon off life from the human beings giving it a home. Without divine intervention, this enabling would never end.

In addition, the stability of the universe hinges on humanity’s ability to trust and obey God. When a person or people group suffers inhumane treatment, God promises to one day punish evildoers. And this is a comfort to those whose sense of justice has been violated. I find it easier to trust a Father who will personally show up to confront the harm done to me and others. I want Him to face down Hitler eyeball to eyeball. Him further distancing Himself from evil only makes Him seem more detached.

The idea that sin can punish itself doesn’t make sense to me. Sin punishes sin like thieves and murderers put themselves in jail. The fact that sin doesn’t regulate itself is why we have a criminal justice system. The Greek word for iniquity, anomia, is also translated lawlessness, as in a- (without) and nomos (law). Sin is anarchic, chaotic, hapless, and random. It parasites onto conscious, sensate beings and makes them anarchic, chaotic, hapless, and random. For God to put sin in charge of judging itself would be about the most irresponsible and stupid thing a Sovereign could do.

Does this rule out cause-and-effect judgment where God steps aside, allowing consequences to freely fall without his interposition? No. (See the study below.) But remember that God sustains creation. In Him all things consist. More to the point, He upholds the laws of cause and effect. Natural consequences come from nature, which God orders according to natural law. He participates indirectly in every cause-and-effect reaction. So saying He simply allows natural consequences to play out hardly exempts the Sustainer of all things from involvement.

But why do we need to exempt Him anyway? The entire COG argument hinges on a moral presupposition. Dig down into the layers and you’ll find it—it is this:

For God to destroy would be morally wrong.

All the feverish efforts to clear God of involvement in divine retributive justice stem back to this flawed idea. I counter this easily. Not only is death necessary for life (Think: A seed dying in the ground to bring for a plant; the Cross of Christ giving life to all humanity), but more specifically, the taking of life is justified for the purpose of saving life even for mere humans. In destroying the wicked, the authoritative King of all Creation, is saving the universe. I humbly suggest we not judge Him for that.

But God Condemns No Man


Proponents of COG rightly point out that the responsibility for our eternal destiny falls upon us. “God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest.” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 85)

Some presentations of God’s justice make God look arbitrary, as if the judgment is His chance to carry out personal grudges. This distorts His love into partiality toward the privileged, and His justice into a vendetta for despised enemies. This petty God is making a list and checking it twice, sneering at outsiders. What a horrifying lie in contrast to the generosity of the Cross, where Jesus gave His life for His enemies.

This arbitrary God ideology also removes moral responsibility from humans for their ultimate destruction. Given that Jesus gave “poured out His soul unto death” (Isaiah 53), dying “even the death of the Cross” (Philippians 2), and all this for transgressors, rebels, and enemies, not loaning or renting or merely offering, but giving salvation to the undeserving, can we place the blame for losing our salvation anywhere but squarely upon ourselves?

But dismissing God entirely from regulating the process of punishment for sin falls to the opposite extreme of making God seem impersonal and uninvolved. Speaking for myself, I’d much rather have a just God punish me than a lawless, unhinged parasite. He who suffered unspeakable anguish to save me would not make me suffer any more than justice requires. Sin, on the other hand, is the author of torture and delights in suffering. Given the power, sin and Satan would keep me alive forever just for the pleasure of inflicting endless pain. (Oh, wait, that’s what eternal conscious torment teaches!)

A Consuming Fire 


The Bible presents God as the divine Hero, the cosmic Adult in the room who finally, when every lost soul has fully, irrevocably wedded himself to the enemy, stops the insanity by His own mighty interpositional power. Finally, when He knows every case is decided, He comes in glory. But not every person experiences this glory the same. The glory of God simultaneously delights the saved and horrifies the lost. Ultimately, humans who place themselves out of harmony with God’s glory turn themselves into fodder for the flames.

Isaiah expresses this perfectly:

The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless? “Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning? Those who walk righteously and speak what is right, who reject gain from extortion and keep their hands from accepting bribes, who stop their ears against plots of murder and shut their eyes against contemplating evil. (33:14-15)

The godless rightly tremble in anticipation of the consuming fire, but the prophet says the righteous will thrive amidst the flames. When the fire of God’s love burns within, the fire of God’s love burning without causes no pain. All the dross is gone. There is nothing left to burn.

But those who serve as hosts for the dross, who identify with and take delight in the unholy, those the fire consumes. While God does own the process of punishment and annihilation, the one who ultimately chooses death is the individual who clings to that which is bound for the flames. Like hugging a can of gas as a bush fire approaches, our love for flammable agents dooms us more than the fire itself.

God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (Desire of Ages, p. 764)

The problem with much of COG ideology is that proponents veer away from scripture into philosophy. Now, philosophy can be grounded in scripture. God reveals Himself through the Word, bidding humans to “reason together” with Him. Understanding truth comes through a teaming up of faith and reason. But untethered philosophy detaches from scripture, floating off into unaided human reason. Adrift on a sea of ideas, the anchor of inspiration is lost. I have tried in this piece to present a philosophy of divine retributive justice grounded in inspiration. I hold my views lightly but somewhat confidently, having studied deeply into this.

For more, check out A Deep but Dazzling Darkness a book I co-authored with Leslie Kay. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1580191770?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback)

Also, I below find the work of a theologian, Dr. Richard Davidson, who chaired the Old Testament department of the Andrews University seminary for 25 years from 1985 to 2010 and continues to serve as a Senior Research Professor. He has put together a summary of inspired passages on this hotly-debated topic. I spoke to him years ago about the topic and we aligned fully in our thoughts. Dr. Davidson has been a gift to our denomination for many years and continues to be. Enjoy!

---

Davidson Divine Retributive Justice .docx

Download DOCX • 27KB