Sometimes conditionalists argue that it would be unjust for God to punish someone for an infinite amount of time because of finite sins committed in their lifetime. They base their argument on the limited nature of that sin. They argue that when a person sins, such as stealing a stereo, it occurs in a finite per period of time and is not a continuous act of stealing. Therefore, since the sin is finite, it would not make sense to punish the person infinitely.

“Infinity just seems immediately, and wildly, out of proportion to a finite amount of sin, however large and virulent.”
¹Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, Kindle Locations 128-129. Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition

But the problem with this argument is that it focuses on the temporal instance of the sin instead of on who the sin is committed against; namely, God.  What makes their “finite sin” issue focus legitimate?  Nothing.  Nevertheless, let me illustrate why their focus is misplaced. Let’s say that I got angry with you and slapped you in the face. You might slap me back. Or, you might step back and ask why did that. But let’s say that I slapped the president of the United States. The exact same act would get a radically different consequence because of who it is against; it’s a federal offense. I would be arrested and charged with a serious crime. So you see, the exact same action gets different punishments based on who it’s against.

So, if we were to move up the chain of command to God himself, our sin is a sin against God. Therefore it is not the sin itself that is the issue, but who we have sinned against. Since we sin against an infinite God, the consequence is infinite. If you think about it, the conditionalists agree because they say that eternal nonexistence is the consequence of sin. Nevertheless, this argument has been addressed and dismissed by Edward William Fudge, a well-known conditionalist.

“To sin against God is to offend an infinite Person, Anselm argued, and infinite sin requires an infinite penalty. For finite humans, that means suffering for an infinite period of time. The argument is based on notions of feudalistic law that contradicted Old Testament revelation and that enlightened people reject today.”²Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition (p. 368). Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition, underline added.

His criticism is dismissive and condescending. It says that being punished infinitely for sins committed against the infinite God is feudalistic. Feudalistic? Really? Feudalism was a kind of governmental system in Medieval Europe in which the nobility owned lands, and the tenants on those lands worked it and were obligated to provide various services to the nobility such as the production of goods and military service. So, how is an infinite consequence due to offending an infinite God feudalistic? Fudge is fudging in his logic.

Furthermore, notice how he says that “enlightened people” reject such a notion today. This is a condescending remark implying that those who don’t agree with him are not enlightened. Such emotional and irrational argumentation has no place in such a serious discussion. Again, Fudge is “fudging” in his argumentation and uses emotionalism, subjective opinion, and false accusation to ridicule the position with which he does not agree. Though in other areas of his book he is far more rational, in this quote he has failed to uphold that level of competence, and he is allowing his emotions to show through. I can’t help but wonder how much his exegesis of Scripture has been affected by such poorly based, emotional reasoning, and twisted to fit his condescending attitude.

Return to Annihilationism Page