This week, we delve into a profound and often troubling question: Why Would a God of love knowingly create individuals destined for hell? It’s a query that resonates deeply, prompting numerous online discussions and attempts at resolution. Many responses, however, tend to skirt the core issue or simply label it an unsolvable mystery. While the infinite nature of God’s wisdom may indeed elude our complete grasp, we can still strive for informed perspectives rather than resigning ourselves to mere ignorance.
The Heart of the Inquiry
The question we’re tackling is straightforward yet complex:
Why would a loving God create a person if he knows that person is going to freely choose to go to hell?
Let’s unpack this question methodically.
Framing the Question with Key Assumptions
To ensure clarity and avoid tangents, let’s focus our discussion with a specific scenario. Imagine an individual, we’ll call him Bob, and consider these premises:
- Divine Foreknowledge: From his eternal, timeless perspective, God knows that if he brings Bob into existence, Bob will ultimately and freely choose hell.
We also operate under these fundamental theological assumptions:
- Divine Freedom: In his eternal perspective, God possesses the free will to choose whether or not to create Bob.
- Divine Justice: God is inherently just in all his actions.
- Divine Love: God is loving and desires salvation for all, not damnation.
Given these assumptions, why would God proceed with creating Bob? Let’s explore several potential answers.
Possibility 1: A Greater Good Justifies Tolerating Evil
Even in human experience, we often accept undesirable outcomes for the sake of a larger, more valuable good. We endure the pain of a medical procedure to achieve the benefit of health. Similarly, God, while not desiring Bob’s damnation, might permit it for the sake of a more significant purpose.
The Role of Free Will and Love
One commonly cited justification is free will. The argument posits that God prioritizes genuine love, which necessitates free choice. Forced or programmed “love” lacks authenticity and the very essence of what God seeks in relationship. Therefore, to enable true love, God must allow the possibility of its rejection, even if it leads to hell for some.
However, this explanation falters when we consider our initial assumption of divine foreknowledge. If God knows definitively that Bob will misuse his free will to choose hell before creation, why would God not simply choose not to create Bob? Preventing Bob’s damnation wouldn’t infringe upon his non-existent free will. The free will defense, in this context, seems inadequate.
The Glory of God
Another proposed reason is God’s glory. This perspective suggests that the existence of individuals like Bob, who freely reject salvation, serves to illustrate God’s justice and character. Bob becomes a living testament to both God’s offer of salvation and humanity’s capacity to freely reject it, thereby bringing glory to God.
This answer often feels morally unsettling to human sensibilities. If a person were to knowingly allow another to suffer eternally for their own glory, we would condemn them as egotistical. However, God is not bound by human limitations. His value is infinite, surpassing human worth immeasurably. Therefore, the glorification of God could potentially justify tolerating Bob’s eternal loss in a way that human self-glorification could never justify causing harm to another.
Unforeseen Cosmic Goods
It’s also conceivable that God’s decision to create Bob is intertwined with a complex tapestry of cosmic purposes beyond our comprehension. The universe, with its billions of interconnected choices, might necessitate the possibility of some misusing free will so that others can exercise it for good and choose heaven. Perhaps Bob’s existence, despite his tragic end, is a necessary element in a grand design that ultimately maximizes good in ways we cannot fully grasp.
Alternatively, there might be entirely unknown goods, beyond our current conceptual framework, that justify God’s allowance of Bob’s fate. While these possibilities exist, their speculative nature leaves many feeling unsatisfied.
Possibility 2: Divine Justice is Not Compromised
Let’s shift our focus to another initial assumption: God’s justice. In this context, divine justice implies that God is not acting unjustly by permitting Bob’s free choice to reject salvation.
The argument here is that God genuinely offers Bob salvation. Bob, endowed with free will, autonomously chooses to reject this offer. God, in respecting Bob’s freedom, is not being unjust. Bob, if rational, could not legitimately accuse God of unfairness.
While acknowledging God’s justice is crucial, it doesn’t fully resolve the dilemma. Our initial assumptions also included God’s love and his desire to prevent damnation. If no greater competing good necessitates Bob’s creation and subsequent damnation, why would a loving God not simply refrain from creating him, thus preventing his suffering? This question remains challenging to answer fully.
Possibility 3: Creation as a Benefit, Even in Hell
Perhaps, counterintuitively, God is actually benefiting Bob by creating him, even knowing his eternal destiny. This perspective argues that existence itself, even in hell, is preferable to non-existence.
If existence, in any form, is inherently good, then God’s act of creation is a gift to Bob, regardless of the suffering Bob will endure. The “competing good” in this scenario becomes Bob’s very existence. Why would God create Bob? Because existence, even in hell, is a benefit to Bob.
The plausibility of this solution hinges on one’s perception of hell and the inherent value of existence. Scriptural descriptions of hell as a lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15) lead many to believe non-existence would be preferable. However, scriptural imagery of the afterlife is necessarily limited by our earthly understanding and should be interpreted cautiously. It’s possible that from an eternal perspective, even the damned might recognize the gift of existence, even in their state.
Possibility 4: The Hope for an Empty Hell?
Conversely, if non-existence is indeed preferable to eternal damnation, and no overriding good compels God to create Bob, then why would God create Bob at all? Extending this logic, why would God create anyone he foreknows will reject salvation?
This line of reasoning leads to the idea of an empty hell. This concept, explored by theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar, suggests that we might dare to hope (though not definitively assert) that hell is ultimately empty. This perspective acknowledges the Church’s teaching on the possibility of hell while holding onto the hope of universal salvation.
However, New Testament passages appear to indicate that some will indeed face damnation (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23; Luke 13:23-28). The reality of hell’s population remains a complex theological question.
Possibility 5: Re-evaluating Divine Knowledge – Challenging the Initial Assumption
If none of the preceding possibilities fully satisfy, perhaps we should re-examine our initial assumption about God’s knowledge of Bob:
- Initial Assumption: In his eternal perspective outside of time, God knows that—if he creates Bob—then Bob will freely choose to go to hell.
This assumption presumes God knows what Bob would freely choose if he were created. But is this type of knowledge logically possible?
Theology traditionally distinguishes between two types of divine knowledge:
- Knowledge of Simple Intelligence: God’s knowledge of all possibilities, conceivable through intellect alone. Like knowing all possible dice roll combinations.
- Knowledge of Vision: God’s knowledge of all actualities, analogous to sensory perception. Like seeing the actual dice roll.
Both encompass past, present, and future from God’s timeless perspective. If God creates Bob, Bob becomes actual, and God knows Bob’s actual choice to reject salvation.
However, if God does not create Bob, what does God know? He knows all possibilities, including Bob’s potential to accept or reject salvation. But this doesn’t reveal Bob’s actual choice because Bob doesn’t exist to make one.
The Enigma of Middle Knowledge
To know what Bob would choose if created, God would require a third type of knowledge: “middle knowledge.” This concept, developed in the last 500 years, posits that God knows what individuals would freely choose in hypothetical circumstances.
While the Church affirms God’s knowledge of all possibilities and actualities as dogma, middle knowledge remains a matter of theological debate. Scriptural passages (1 Samuel 23:1-13, Wisdom 4:11, Matthew 11:21) are sometimes cited in support, but their interpretation is debated.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Logical Limits
While God is omnipotent and omniscient, even these attributes have logical boundaries. Omnipotence means God can do everything logically possible, not create logical contradictions like square circles. Omniscience means God knows everything knowable, not logically impossible concepts.
The Undecidability of Unmade Choices
If Bob never exists, he never makes a free choice. “The outcome of a free will decision that is never made” resembles a logical contradiction like a “square circle.” Free will decisions are inherently unpredictable with absolute certainty before they are made. Their essence is genuine possibility of multiple outcomes at the moment of choice. If the moment of choice never arrives, there is no outcome to know.
Therefore, “knowing the outcome of a free will choice that is never made” might be logically contradictory. If so, God would not possess middle knowledge. He wouldn’t know Bob’s choice unless he creates Bob.
The Return of the Free Will Defense
If middle knowledge is logically flawed, then our initial assumption crumbles. God cannot foreknow Bob’s free choice before creating him. To know Bob’s choice, God must create him and observe it.
In this scenario, the free will defense regains its validity! Why would God create Bob, knowing the risk? Because God prioritizes free will, offering Bob the genuine opportunity to choose love. God takes a risk, creates Bob, observes his choice, and respects it. The toleration of Bob’s potential damnation is justified by the greater good of enabling authentic free will and love.
Mystery Persists, Hope Remains
Personally, the solution rejecting middle knowledge resonates most. God possesses complete knowledge of possibilities and actualities, but the concept of knowing unmade free choices might be inherently contradictory. God, therefore, takes a risk in creation, offering genuine freedom.
While definitive answers about God’s infinite mind remain elusive, and mystery endures, we have explored potential pathways toward understanding. Why would God create someone knowing they might choose hell? We’ve examined various theological perspectives, each offering a partial glimpse into this profound question.
Ultimately, which explanation you find most compelling depends on your own theological framework. However, we can find solace in the assurance that solutions exist, that divine justice prevails, and that the offer of salvation remains genuinely open to all.
If you found this exploration valuable, please consider sharing this discussion and engaging further with similar theological inquiries. Thank you for joining this exploration, and may you continue to seek deeper understanding.
