‘A loving God would not send anyone to hell.’
This question appeared on the 2018 GCSE Christianity paper (in ‘Christian Beliefs’). Somewhat surprisingly, it has not yet been used again (which makes it an excellent choice for revision). Moreover, it could also appear on the AS exam, and versions of it could appear on the A-Level Christianity exam in the ‘Self, Death and Afterlife’ topic. The version of the essay presented here is aimed specifically at the GCSE, but if you want a version that more directly addresses the A-Level specification, just let us know and we will prioritise that.
Key words: what is ‘Hell’ anyways?
Nearly all Christians believe that after a person dies, they continue to exist in either Heaven or Hell. (The Catholic Church argues that there is a third possibility, purgatory; but we will not address that here.) How a person ends up in Heaven or Hell, and what exactly Heaven is like, are questions that we will leave for another day. At the moment, our concern is with the nature of Hell.
Jesus consistently describes Hell as a place of fire and eternal suffering. For example, in ‘The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats’ Jesus explains that on the Day of Judgement He will say to the people who did not follow His teachings, ‘Go away from me. You will be punished. Go into the fire that burns forever that was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matthew 25. 41). Elsewhere, he gives a whole list of commands about following God’s teachings exactly, and the consequences if you do not. Perhaps the most famous of these is, ‘If your eye causes you to sin, take it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell. In hell the worm does not die; the fire is never put out’ (Mark 9. 47–48). Finally, in the story of ‘The Rich Man and Lazarus’, Jesus describes a wealthy man who does ignore God’s teachings (by neglecting the needs of a poor man, Lazarus). After they both die, Lazarus finds himself in Heaven and the Rich Man finds himself in Hell. The Rich Man says, ‘have mercy on me! Send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am suffering in this fire!’ But he is told in reply ‘Child, remember when you were alive you had the good things in life, but bad things happened to Lazarus. Now he is comforted here, and you are suffering. Besides, there is a big pit between you and us, so no one can cross over to you, and no one can leave there and come here’ (Luke 16. 24–26).
There are many other teachings, but these illustrate the traditional understanding: Hell is a place of eternal fire, where the people who did not follow God’s teachings will be sent to suffer forever.
The central problem
However, this understanding creates a problem for Christians. Much of the Bible emphasises God’s love for people. Moreover, God’s love is far beyond our love — God is said to be all-loving (omnibenevolent; for details, see Donoho 2025). Indeed, nearly all Christians (and many non-Christians) are familiar with the claim that ‘God is love’ (I John 4. 8; emphasis mine).
Now, we may not be able to understand exactly what it is like to be all-loving, but most people have loved ones in their lives. And few (if any) would wish to send their loved ones to a place where ‘the worm does not die; the fire is never put out’, and from which they could never return. This is not to say that our loved ones never disappoint us or hurt us — or that there are no people in the world whom we would cast into ‘the fire that burns forever’ — but it is hard to imagine wishing eternal torment on someone that we love. And if we can recognise such an act as un-loving, it seems absurd to claim that God, who is meant to be all-loving, would do this to people. The question addresses this problem by claiming ‘a loving God would not send anyone to Hell’.
This is an example of a ‘dilemma’: two statements that cannot both be true. We can lay the dilemma out like this:
God is loving.
God sends people to Hell.
Either claim can be true, but (the question implies) they cannot both be true at the same time.
There are three responses to this dilemma:
1. God is not loving.
2. God does not send people to Hell
3. God can be loving and still send people to Hell.
The third response can be broken down further into at least two types:
3a. God sends people to Hell temporarily, because He wants to improve them (and this is loving).
3b. God sends people to Hell if they want to go, because He respects their free will (and this is loving).
We will address these four responses in order.
1. God is not loving
This argument says that God does exist, but that God is not loving. This works from a logical standpoint, but it is a very difficult argument to make from a theological standpoint. The reason is that the Bible comes down overwhelmingly on the side of God being loving. To make this argument, you would have to either radically re-interpret all the biblical references to God’s love so that they mean something else, or argue that some non-Christian source (which depicts God as not-loving) describes God more accurately than the Bible does. You could potentially make this argument at A-Level, but I would avoid it for GCSE.
2. God does not send people to Hell
This argument is an example of ‘universalism’, the claim that everyone will eventually end up in Heaven and/or the Kingdom of God (they are not the same thing, but we will address that another day). This claim has been around since the beginning of Christianity. Famously, the theologian Origen of Alexandria was said to have taught that everyone (even Satan!) would eventually be reunited with God (Hill 2003: 52–54). Whether he actually did teach this is still debated, but the Church was concerned enough that they declared universalism to be a heresy (i.e. a false teaching; see ‘Fifteen Canons’ n.d.: art. 12). Technically, any Christian who accepts the teachings of that Council still has to accept that it is possible to never be reconciled with God (and so to spend forever in Hell).
However, many modern Christians are not comfortable basing their beliefs on the decision of a meeting held over 1,400 years ago. And so universalism has made something of a comeback. Its proponents almost always take a theologically liberal approach to interpreting the Bible. That is, they identify its overarching themes, and treat anything that does not match these themes as a metaphor, or simply unimportant. These universalists claim that the overarching theme of the Bible is ‘God is love’, and so any verses which depict God as un-loving (such as all the references to Hell) can be re-interpreted or ignored. The trouble with this approach to interpreting the Bible is that (as we have seen), many of the teachings about Hell as a place of eternal torment come from Jesus Himself. And for many Christians, treating Jesus’s teachings as metaphorical or unimportant undermines the central claim of Christianity — that He taught with the authority of God.
3a. God sends people to Hell temporarily.
This is another approach to universalism, which reinterprets rather than ignores all the references to Hell as a place of eternal fire. These universalists point out that fire has many uses, one of which is refining metals. Basically, in nature gold and silver are often found blended with other metals, like lead. To get pure gold or silver, you heat them to a very high temperature, and then separate out the undesirable metals. (This process is called ‘cupellation’; for an explanation see Singh 2025). This process was known in biblical times, and the Hebrew scriptures even include references to God ‘purifying’ people with fire, for example, ‘I will test with fire | purifying them like silver | testing them like gold’ (Zechariah 13. 9). Some universalists argue that Jesus was using a similar metaphor when he described Hell: the purpose of Hell’s fire is to purify people, and they only remain in Hell until this process is complete. This interpretation works for many of the descriptions of Hell, but not all of them, and especially not the story of ‘The Rich Man and Lazarus’, where it is explicitly stated that ‘no one can cross over to you, and no one can leave there and come here’.
3b. God sends people to Hell, but only if they want to go.
At first glance, this seems counterintuitive: surely no one wants to go to Hell? But proponents of this argument point out that freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequence. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, ‘To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice’ (2020: par. 1033; emphasis mine). In other words, God gave us free will and a set of directions to follow, but God allows us to use that free will however we like, including in ways that are not good for us. To give a crude analogy, you can put your hand into a pot of boiling water if you want — God will not intervene to stop you — but you will have to deal with the consequences of this choice: a burned hand. Hell is just an extreme version of this principle: God has given us the means of being reunited with Him in Heaven (though, again, Christians disagree on exactly what these means are); but God has also given us the freedom to not do this. God hopes that people will use these means, but God respects their freedom to do otherwise, even if this means they choose to spend an eternity in Hell.
Structuring your essay
We are now in a position to construct our essay. I advise using 3b (‘God does send people to Hell, but only if they want to go’) as your Point-of-View, and the two universalist arguments as the opposing side. Here, we will follow the Quaestio Disputata structure, so we will first give the two universalist arguments (2 and 3a), then our own Point-of-View, and finally two responses to the universalists. (However, if you prefer the simpler structure, keep an eye on TikTok; it will go live within the week.) Let us now see what the essay would look like:
Some Christian universalists argue that a loving God would not send anyone to Hell. They point out that the Bible tells us ‘God is love’ (I John 4. 8). Love means wanting people to be happy and not to suffer. But Hell is described in the Bible as a place where ‘the worm does not die; the fire is never put out’ (Mark 9. 48). This means that in Hell, a person suffers forever. Since God is love, and letting people suffer forever is not loving, it is not possible that God sends anyone to Hell.
Other universalists argue that God does send some people to Hell, but that they do not stay there forever. They point out that fire can be used to destroy, but also to purify. The Bible often describes fire in this way, for example, when God says of the Israelites, ‘I will test with fire | purifying them like silver | testing them like gold’ (Zechariah 13. 9). So a loving God would send some people to Hell, but only until they have been cleansed of their sins. Eventually, everyone will be reunited in Heaven.
However, I argue that a loving God would send some people to Hell forever. I agree that ‘God is love’, but love means respecting other people’s free will. From the story of Adam and Eve we learn that God gives us the freedom to follow Him or not (Genesis 3). When Adam and Eve reject God, He respects that choice and lets them live with the consequences. And if people today reject God, then God will respect that choice and allow them to be separated from Him in Hell. He will not force them into Heaven. So, a loving God would send people to Hell, but only if that is where they want to go.
To the people who think everyone goes to Heaven, I point out that God is also just. God even says, ‘I, the Lord, love justice’ (Isaiah 61. 8). This means God treats everyone equally. If God simply sends everyone to Heaven, then murderers will be there alongside their victims. But God’s Ten Commandments include, ‘You must not murder anyone’ (Exodus 20. 13). It is not just for someone who knowingly broke God’s law to be treated the same as someone who did not. So a loving God cannot allow everyone into Heaven, because then He would not be just.
To the people who think that Hell is only temporary, I point out that Jesus himself says it is permanent. In the parable ‘The Rich Man and Lazarus’, Lazarus is in Hell and asks to be let out. But he is told, ‘no one can leave there and come here’ (Luke 16. 26). This is important, because as Jesus tells us, ‘the Father and I are one’ (John 10. 30). This means that Jesus speaks with the authority of God. If He says that there is no way to leave Hell, then Hell must be forever.
I conclude that it is possible for a loving God to send people to Hell.
Some notes on the above:
As usual, I have given the scripture references in brackets, but you would not need to do this. However, you must introduce every quote with ‘Jesus says . . . ‘, ‘God says . . . ‘, ‘The Bible says . . . ‘ or some variation of these. It is worth noting, however, that the third option (‘The Bible says . . . ’) is the safest, because you could lose marks if you mix up something said by Jesus (God the Son) and ‘God’ (God the Father).
I have used the story of Adam and Eve to support the idea that God gave us free will and respects our ability to use it, even when we do not use it well. I presume the story of Adam and Eve is familiar to most of you. But do not worry if it is not, it will be the subject of a more detailed discussion in the near future.
You could reply to both universalist arguments by pointing out their incompatibility with Jesus’s teaching, but this would be a bit repetitive. So, I have introduced a reply to Argument 1 (‘God does not send anyone to Hell’) which uses another of God’s qualities, ‘just’. I trust it is simple enough to follow, but if you need a more detailed explanation, do not hesitate to reach out.
I hope the above makes sense. If it does not (or if you have a suggestion for a future topic), we would love to hear from you!
Until next time.
References
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. 2020. Libreria Editrice Vaticana <https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_12/iv_hell.html> [accessed 16 December 2025]
Donoho, Stephen. 2025. ‘For Christians, it is impossible to understand the nature of God’, Eductor <https://www.eductor.org/blog/for-christians-it-is-impossible-to-understand-the-nature-of-god> [accessed 16 December 2025]
‘The Fifteen Canons against Origenism’. n.d. Eclectic Orthodoxy <https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/fifteen-canons-against-origenism.pdf> [accessed 16 December 2025]
Hill, Jonathan. 2003. The History of Christian Thought (Lion Publishing plc)
Singh, Bispendra. 2025. ‘Cupellation and the Birth of Precious Metal Refining’, Medium <https://medium.com/@bispendra2.jewels/cupellation-and-the-birth-of-precious-metal-refining-67157fe618b8> [accessed 16 December 2025]