Why Eternal Conscious Hell Diminishes God’s Holy Hatred Of Sin

It has long been a common argument against evangelical conditionalism (i.e. annihilationism), and for eternal conscious hell, that the former diminishes God’s holiness by making sin less serious. This has come up all the more since Kirk Cameron first publicly announced his sympathies for the annihilationist view.

This argument for eternal torment is not only ineffective, but counterproductive. It backfires. Not only is it an extrabiblical argument, the kind of argument that is often called out as inappropriate when made by conditionalists (including Kirk Cameron), but it also highlights a major weakness of the traditional view:

Eternal conscious hell is the only view of hell in which God keeps sin as part of his creation for all eternity.

This point is not original with me at all. Fellow contributor Chris Date makes it all the time. Others have made it as well, along with variations of it. It’s nothing new, but it is worth highlighting and expanding upon.

The Infinite Difference Between Eternal Conscious Hell vs. Annihilationism (And Universalism)

Because evangelical conditionalism teaches that the finally unrepentant are destroyed, they therefore cannot continue sinning in either thought or deed. There is nothing left of sin, other than memories and contempt for its past existence. In God’s eternal kingdom, there is neither sin nor sinner.

The traditional view, on the other hand, entails that wicked, God-hating sinners, remain alive yet never regenerated, nor ever purified, throughout all eternity. Even if all they can do all day is scream and feel pain, even if they cannot do any meaningful actions anymore, nevertheless they hate God in their hearts as much as ever. After all, they hated him even when they were here on earth and were given some level of blessings and happiness. They rebelled against him even then.

Why would such a person, if not regenerated by the Holy Spirit, suddenly love God when they are being tormented in fire and his immeasurable wrath towards them? ¹ For those new here, understand just how unseriously I and many annihilationists take any form of eternal conscious hell that is not full of fire (or some equivalent) and pain and divine fury. Think the view of C.S. Lewis and many other modern Christian apologists. Such a view is a cop-out and has no leg to stand on whatsoever. For more on this, see “The Many and Varied Problems with the Modern, Metaphorical View of Eternal Conscious Hell“. See also “The Cop-Out of Calling Eternal, Fiery Torture a “Caricature” of Eternal Conscious Hell“. Why would sinners suddenly want to obey a God they hate when it would not benefit their own self-interests? The rebellion in their hearts will still be there. Even if all they can do is curse God in their hearts, this will go on for ever and ever.

If there are sinners forever, then there is sin forever. That would seem to be pretty straightforward. In fact, many traditionalists (though not all) explicitly argue that sinners will continue to actively sin in hell, and this is even used as evidence for the traditional view of hell. ² For examples of this, and rebuttal against it, see Chris Date, “Ningún Penitente en el Infierno: Una Respuesta [Reformada] a D. A. Carson“. You certainly cannot argue for eternal conscious hell from the premise that sinners will sin for eternity and then also deny that sinners will sin for eternity (or they would, if they were not annihilated).

When it comes to the amount of sin in God’s creation under the traditional view versus annihilationism, the difference is literally infinite. According to annihilationism – and universalism, to its credit – the amount of sin and evil and rebellion against God to ever happen is finite. Even if our sins stretch to the highest heavens, even to the end of the furthest galaxy and back, that quantity of sin is still ultimately finite. Once the wicked are eliminated, neither the acts not the thoughts behind them ever exist again.

The eternal conscious hell doctrine, however, means that sin is infinite. Even if there is only one sin, one thought against God, one tiny drop of rebellion happening in one single sinner’s heart once every billion years, there would still be infinite sin because this process goes on for ever and ever.

And what is the difference between infinity and literally any number that is not infinity? Infinity.

In annihilationism (and universalism), sin is something that God, in his infinite wisdom and ways higher than our own, tolerates for a finite amount of time in order to accomplish his good purposes. Eternity past and eternity forward are free of it. There will be infinite time, life, and existence with which there is no sin. Sin will only be a tiny blip on the eternity of creation, one that will forever shrink as eternity goes on.

Under the traditional view, however, God chooses to keep sin endless and everlasting. It is the same concept as the line from the great hymn “Amazing Grace,” only on the other side of things:

When we’ve been there, 10,000 years, bright shining as the sun. We’ve no less days, to sing God’s praise, than when we’d first begun. ³ John Newton, “Amazing Grace”.

After 10,000 years, no matter how much sin has been committed, no matter how much the wicked have rebelled against God in their hearts (if not in action too), there will be no less days of it than when it started – if hell is an eternal conscious experience.

What If There Is No Time In Heaven/Hell?

Some people believe that there is no more time in the eternal state. I have encountered a few who have said this in discussions online since the Kirk Cameron announcement.

As to why they believe this, the answer they provide is usually silence. Or if not silence, then it is because heaven and hell are spiritual places for spiritual beings – never mind that humans will be resurrected and therefore not disembodied spirits in eternity. Or because (according to some), timelessness is what the English word “eternal” really means. Never mind the fact that most people don’t use the English word that way, and that the underlying Greek and Hebrew words (olam in Hebrew and aionios in Greek) don’t mean that…⁴ For more on olam, see “5769. olam,” Bible Hub, n.d. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5769.htm (accessed March 5, 2026). For more on aionios, see “166. aiónios,” Bible Hub, n.d. https://biblehub.com/greek/166.htm (accessed March 5, 2026).

Honestly, I think a lot of people who do say this are just parroting what they heard others say because it sounds very spiritual to abandon something earthly and physical like time.

But it certainly isn’t based on the Bible. Not only is there no affirmative biblical basis for this claim, but we see parallels in scripture between the old and new creation. The exact mechanics of the way there will be a “new heavens and earth” (2 Peter 3:13) are speculative, but a new heavens and earth means there will be a heavens and earth, as there is now. And the heavens and earth have always involved time.

We even see this play out in Revelation 22:2, where in the new heavens and earth (cf. 21:1), it shows us the tree of life. Not only was the tree of life first seen in the physical, timebound garden of Eden in Genesis 3, but we are told that it bears fruit every month. While Revelation is full of symbolism, and it is not impossible that time element is entirely symbolic, on its face this is evidence of time existing in the eternal state – in contrast to the zero biblical evidence that time ends in the eternal state. ⁵ The only passage that even comes up, as far as I am aware, is Revelation 10:6. In the King James Version, it says “there should be time no longer.” It just means that there will be no more delay to the events in view. The biblical argument that time as an entity will cease to be is based entirely on the fact that a 400 year-old translation worded things in a way that was normal to its time but different from how we would phrase it today (thus more modern translations do not render it that way).

Time ceasing to exist in the eternal state also isn’t obvious from any other standpoint. After all, humans (like the earth) are physical, space-bound, time-bound creations. It isn’t exactly a given that physical, resurrected humans in a new earth that is capable of servicing physical humans would suddenly not be tied to time despite still being bound by space. Why would only this one thing (time) change when nothing in either special or general revelation indicates that it would? And certainly nothing about hell indicates that it would be timeless for the physically resurrected humans there while the righteous live in time in God’s kingdom.

But even if somehow it were true that there is no time in the eternal state to come, it doesn’t really change the point that the eternal conscious hell view ensures that there is infinite sin in God’s creation. While there would not technically be infinite time in the age to come, it still is an infinite state of affairs. Things are essentially equivalent to there being infinite time and infinite occurrences. After all, not even traditionalists who believe time ends argue that the experience of the wicked in this timeless state is not endless in the same way it would be if time were infinite. The supposed timelessness of hell is brought up as a defense of eternal conscious hell and against annihilationism. The distinction between time versus no time in the eternal state is largely one of theory and abstract mechanics, not a practical one.

And therefore, sin is still infinite.

Of course, I also admit that if we are to try to envision humans existing in a world forever without time, it eventually becomes tricky to argue anything with any real certainly because such an existence is entirely different from anything humans have any frame of reference to. But that cuts both ways, because any point that a traditionalist might try to make, when they believe that there is no time in eternity, becomes equally speculative.

Does Hell Really Count As God’s Creation?

Yes. I can’t believe I even have to address this, but it has come up in discussions with lay Christians at least.

Hell is part of God’s creation. Christianity 101 includes the doctrine that God is the one and only uncreated entity to ever exist. Everything other than God himself – and, of course, abstract concepts tied to God’s existence – was created by God.

If not God, who else would be the one prepare “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41)? Do these people think that for all eternity past, before God created the universe around us, there was also this lake of fire and sulfur that is uncreated like God himself? Is sulfur an uncreated element now? Or even if hellfire really is just a metaphor for separation from God, was there some eternal, uncreated cave that could hold physical, spatial beings like resurrected humans – despite space and physical matter not yet existing – for them to one day be placed and quarantined forever?

Things fall apart quickly if you try to seriously argue that hell is not part of God’s creation.

What is usually meant is that it doesn’t *really* count as creation because it’s cut off from God’s presence and the kingdom.

But once you admit that, then this whole defense of the traditional view is moot. Because it still is creation. It still is part of God’s world that he created. And God, of course, is omnipresent. Maybe we as finite humans can continue on with our party in the gated community of heaven and not think about the riff raff outside, but God can’t do that.

If there is an eternal hell full of unrepentant and immortal sinners, then it is our Father’s world as much as the the heavens and the earth.

The Image of God and Traditionalism Putting Sinful Men on A Pedestal

Ironically, an argument that many traditionalists make against annihilationism is ultimately based on the idea that annihilationists take sin too seriously.

It is not unheard for traditionalists to argue that annihilationism is false because humans are made in God’s image and are therefore too valuable to destroy. For example, Robert Morey, in his infamous volume Death and the Afterlife, writes:

In light of the dignity and worth of a man as the unique image-bearer of God, we cannot, therefore, accept the idea of conditional immortalists that man’s death can be reduced to the death of brute beasts. ⁶ Robert Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Bethany House, 1984), 37-38.

Similarly, Hank Hanegraaff says the following in opposition to annihilationism: “First, common sense dictates that a God of love and justice does not arbitrarily annihilate the crowning jewels of His cre- ation [sic]” ⁷ Hank Hanegraaff, “Is annihilationism biblical?” Christian Research Institute, last modified May 8, 2024, https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-annihilationism-biblical/ (accessed March 3, 2026). ⁸ Hanegraaff doesn’t explicitly say that we are the crown jewel of God’s creation because we are in God’s image, but it is implied – especially by later comments in the same article about being in God’s image. For more on why man being made in God’s image is not good evidence for eternal conscious hell, see “Evangelical Conditionalism and the Image of God“.

Traditionalists who make this argument believe that human worth is greater than even the permanent stain of sin. Annihilationists say the opposite. Annihilationists believe that God’s holiness, and the purity of his eternal creation, are so sacrosanct that God will even destroy his image bearers rather than let sin mar what is his. Or, to think of it another way, annihilationism means that God would rather destroy those in his image than allow them to forever deface and misrepresent his image.

God Sustaining Sinners Forever For Their Just Punishment

In the traditional view of hell, God hates sin so much that he chooses to keep it as part of his creation for ever and ever…

As to this point, there really is no response to that. That just is what traditionalism requires. God keeps sinners, and therefore sin, part of creation for ever and ever.

The only other option would be that the wicked in hell are regenerated and made no longer sinful and no longer in opposition to God, yet are also not then saved. Perhaps a day may come when a serious rebuttal to such an absurd and baseless idea will be warranted, but at this point, such an idea is so fringe that it can be left at that.

The more serious justification for God keeping sinners alive forever is this: God eternally inflicting his active wrath and fury on the wicked is their just desserts, and so the cost of keeping sin alive forever is outweighed by the justice of eternal torment.

As the hell debate ramps up in the aftermath of Kirk Cameron entering the fray, I expect that this argument will probably be made more frequently by more thoughtful and serious defenders of the traditional view.

This argument is that the traditional view takes sin seriously in a different way. Because eternal torment is a worse fate than annihilation – something that not all but most would agree with – keeping the wicked alive to torment them in hell forever is a more severe punishment. And a more severe punishment shows that the underlying crime is seen as more serious.

Of course, one needs to actually make a convincing argument that whatever is the most severe punishment must be what is true. I certainly have not come across one. The main version of this is the argument that because God is infinitely good and holy, any sin against him deserves infinite punishment and, therefore, eternal torment. Such an argument causes more problems than it solves, and has been addressed here before (see “Pecados Finitos Contra un Dios Infinito“).

The fact that most traditionalists believe in degrees of suffering in hell, and even use this as an argument against annihilationism, further negates this idea that hell must be the worst punishment possible. Of course, balancing infinite suffering with there also being less or more suffering in hell gets quite tricky to navigate. But at the very least, any traditionalist who appeals to degrees of punishment is not being consistent with the idea that God’s justice demands the most severe punishment possible, since their whole point in appealing to degrees of punishment is that most people don’t suffer the most severe punishment possible. ⁹ For more on why degrees of punishment are not good evidence for eternal conscious hell, see “Evangelical Conditionalism and Degrees of Punishment in Hell” Part 1 and Part 2.

The claim that God tormenting sinners in hell demonstrates his holiness better than eliminating sin is the more serious rebuttal, but it still runs into the fundamental problem that the thing God is supposed to hate so vehemently is something that he also actively chooses to preserve. As creator and sustainer of life, who alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:15-16), if sin and its source live forever, then it is only because God sustains them. God may view sin as deserving punishment beyond any imagination, but he still does not view sin as something so offensive to his holiness that he would choose to get rid of it, despite having that power as God.

Conclusión

Is this a dealbreaker against eternal conscious hell? I wouldn’t go that far. The Bible is what is authoritative – not that the Bible doesn’t also help annihilationist case on this issue, because it does. ¹⁰ For more on the biblical picture of creation in the eternal state, one free from sin and wickedness, see “The Biblical Vision of Eternity“.

That said, this discussion usually comes up in the first place because traditionalists make an extrabiblical argument for their view. God’s holiness and hatred of sin was supposed to be a strong and compelling argument for eternal torment and against annihilationism. With a little thought and analysis, however, the tables have turned and traditionalists are the ones on the defensive because they must give a good justification for why they think God chooses to keep sin and evil eternally part of his creation when he has the power to make his creation pure and free from sin forever. What started as an argument for eternal conscious hell ultimately backfires against it.

The more you look into the case for evangelical conditionalism and against eternal conscious hell, the less that cases like this will surprise you.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!