Argument

Argument for Heaven and Hell

Intro

Is there anything after death? And if there is, why would it split into two places, heaven and hell?

Most people have felt the question before they could put it into words. A murderer dies rich and never pays. A good mother dies young and is never thanked. Deep down we sense that the story can't just stop there.

Four simple lines of thought point the same way.

First, justice. If God is perfectly fair, He can't leave every wrong in history unanswered. Many wrongs are never put right in this life, so there has to be a judgment after it. A real judgment has two outcomes, not one.

Second, freedom and love. Love can't be forced. God lets people say no to Him. Heaven is life in God's full presence, and someone who wants nothing to do with God would not want to be there. So in the end there are two ways to go.

Third, desire. People long for something that nothing on earth fully satisfies. Hunger points to food and thirst points to water. That deep longing points to something beyond this world.

Fourth, the resurrection. Jesus rose from the dead, and He is the One who told us most plainly about heaven and hell. If someone has come back from death, He is the best person to ask about what lies on the other side.

None of these four needs the others to make its point. Together they give a strong reason to believe that this life is not all there is, and that how we answer God matters forever.

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

In full

The argument is a cumulative case for two final destinies after death. It joins four independent arguments, each established elsewhere in the codex, and asks what they jointly imply about the afterlife.

1. From justice (Argument from Justice): a perfectly just God will not leave injustice permanently unanswered; since much injustice goes unanswered in this life, there is a judgment beyond it (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Romans 2:5-6). A judgment that can only acquit is not a judgment, so the same premise that yields final vindication yields final condemnation. This is why hell follows from justice as a necessity, not as an optional severity.
2. From freedom and love (Free Will Argument from Love; Free Will Defense): love requires freedom; God respects a creature's settled refusal; heaven is the full presence of God, which a person who refuses God would not want and could not enjoy; therefore there are two final states (2 Thessalonians 1:9; John 14:2-3).
3. From desire (Argument from Desire): natural innate desires correspond to real objects; humans have a longing that no earthly object satisfies (Ecclesiastes 3:11); so it is reasonable to believe something beyond this world satisfies it. This line points beyond death but says nothing about the details.
4. From the resurrection (Argument from the Resurrection; Minimal Facts Argument): if Jesus rose, His teaching carries divine vindication; He rose; He taught both destinies (Matthew 25:46; John 11:25); therefore heaven and hell exist.

The first three are arguments of natural reason and establish plausibility: a judgment, two outcomes, and a destiny beyond this world. The fourth is the decisive one, because it moves from what reason expects to what the only person known to have returned from death actually said. The argument establishes that there are two final destinies; it does not by itself settle the debate among Christians between eternal conscious punishment and conditional immortality, which is set out neutrally below and in full at Hell and Eternal Punishment.

Argument structure

Form

Cumulative, with one decisive strand. A1 and A2 are deductive. A3 is analogical and abductive, and is the weakest strand on its own. A4 is historical-evidential and abductive in its second premise (the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts) and deductive from there. The strands are independent: a person can reject A3 and still be bound by A1, or doubt A1 and still face A4. Each one that stands adds weight; none has to carry the whole conclusion.

Soundness is contested. Every strand has serious critics, answered below. The overall shape mirrors the method of the Cumulative Case for Christian Theism.

The cumulative case in brief

• Justice says there must be a verdict. If God is just, history does not end with the books unbalanced.
• Freedom says there must be two destinations. If love is not forced, some will finally refuse it, and God will let them.
• Desire says we were made for more. The longing nothing here satisfies is evidence of a home beyond here.
• The resurrection says it is true. The One who came back from death described both destinies in His own words.

The first three tell you what to expect if God exists. The fourth tells you what the One who returned actually reported. A skeptic who rejects one strand still has to answer the others.

A1, The argument from justice

Syllogism:

1. God is perfectly just.
2. Justice is often not done in this life: many wrongs go unpunished and many innocent sufferers die unvindicated.
3. A perfectly just God will not leave injustice unanswered forever.
4. Therefore there is a judgment beyond this life.
5. A real judgment can end in condemnation as well as acquittal.
6. Therefore there is a final destiny of condemnation as well as one of vindication.

Affirmative case

1. Scripture states the conclusion plainly. "For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14). Paul describes the impenitent heart that "treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works" (Romans 2:5-6).
2. The gap in this life is obvious. Athenagoras made the point in the second century: "the award according to merit finds no place in the present existence" (On the Resurrection of the Dead XVIII, Schaff ANF 2, PDF p. 126). From that gap he argued that a judgment after death must come. The full development of this premise, including Kant's argument from the highest good, is at Argument from Justice.
3. Judgment comes after death, not instead of it. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
4. The Judge is just in character, not only in office. Abraham's question assumes it: "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25).

Why this makes hell necessary, not merely harsh

The common picture treats hell as an extra cruelty God could have left out. The argument from justice shows otherwise.

1. A verdict that can only acquit is not a verdict. If the final judgment could end only in vindication, the murderer and his victim would end in the same place, which is exactly the injustice the argument began by refusing to accept. Abraham objected to that outcome by name: "to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked" (Genesis 18:25).
2. The victims are owed it. Final justice is not first about the wrongdoer's suffering. It is about the truth being told and the wronged being honored. A God who simply waved every unrepented evil into the same eternity as its victims would be telling them that what was done to them did not matter.
3. Heaven itself requires it. The promise that God "shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more" (Revelation 21:4) cannot be kept if unrepented evil is carried into the new creation unchanged. Of the city, Revelation 21:27 says "there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean." A world with no more tears is a world from which evil has been removed.
4. The verdict is proportioned. Jesus taught degrees: the servant who knew his lord's will and disobeyed "shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes" (Luke 12:47-48). Justin Martyr wrote that "every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God" (First Apology 17, Schaff ANF 1, PDF p. 117). Hell is not one undifferentiated sentence; it is justice, and justice weighs.

Anticipated objections

1. "Maybe there is no justice, only what happens. The universe doesn't owe anyone anything."
2. "Even if justice demands a judgment, it could be a purely corrective one that ends with everyone restored."
3. "Wanting justice after death doesn't make it real."

Rebuttals

1. Then nothing that happened to any victim was really wrong. The objector may hold that, but cannot also complain that the world, or God, is unjust. Most people keep the judgment that some things are truly wrong and drop the theory. See Moral Argument.
2. That is a real Christian minority view, and it still concedes the judgment. Universalists accept that there is a judgment beyond death; they dispute its final outcome. The question becomes what Jesus taught about that outcome, which is A4's territory. See Universalism and MO5 below.
3. The argument does not run from a wish but from a judgment. The person who says "that murderer got away with it" is asserting that a debt is owed. The argument asks what must be true for that assertion to be true.

A2, The argument from freedom and love

Syllogism:

1. Love requires freedom; a love that is forced is not love.
2. God respects the free choice of persons to live without Him.
3. Heaven is the full, unveiled presence of God.
4. A person who has finally rejected God would not want, and could not enjoy, His full presence.
5. Therefore not everyone will be in heaven, and there are two final states: life with God and existence without Him.

Affirmative case

1. Jesus describes heaven as being with Him. "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (John 14:2-3). The heart of heaven is not the place but the Person: "they shall see his face" (Revelation 22:4).
2. Paul describes hell as being without Him. The lost "shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9). The defining loss is the face of the Lord.
3. Jesus wept over refusal. "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37). God's will is that "all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9), and He still lets "ye would not" stand.
4. The verdict ratifies a choice already made. "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil" (John 3:19).
5. The early church said the same. Irenaeus wrote that God grants communion with Himself to those who continue in love toward Him, and that "communion with God is life and light"; on those who depart from Him by their own choice, "He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness" (Against Heresies V.27.2, Schaff ANF 1, PDF p. 451).
6. Lewis's two kinds of people. C.S. Lewis put the point in a line Frank Turek quotes in Stealing from God: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it" (Turek, Stealing from God, PDF p. 231). The same idea drives Lewis's The Great Divorce.

Anticipated objections

1. "Nobody would freely choose hell. If people saw it clearly, they would all choose heaven."
2. "If God is all-powerful, He could change their hearts and save everyone."
3. "Hell in the Bible is fire and punishment, not just a choice. You're softening it."

Rebuttals

1. People do not choose hell as a destination; they choose themselves over God, and hell is what that choice becomes. Many people who know the gospel well decline it, not because they want torment but because they do not want God to be God. The argument needs only that some persons finally prefer life on their own terms to life on His, which is ordinary human experience.
2. He could override them, but then they would not be loving Him. A heart that is rewired against its will has been replaced, not won. That is the core of the Free Will Defense, and it applies to final destinies as much as to present evil. God's patience exists precisely so that people may turn (2 Peter 3:9).
3. Both are true, and the argument does not soften either. The Bible's images of fire and darkness describe a real punishment (Matthew 25:46). A2 explains who ends up there and why God permits it; A1 explains why it is just. Irenaeus held both together: the separation is chosen, and it is also the punishment. See Hell as Eternal Torment Objection Defeater.

A3, The argument from desire

Syllogism:

1. Every natural, innate desire corresponds to some real object that can satisfy it.
2. Human beings have a natural longing that nothing in this world fully satisfies.
3. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that something beyond this world exists to satisfy it.

Affirmative case

1. Scripture names the longing. God "hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end" (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The Preacher had tried pleasure, work, wealth and wisdom, and found that none of them filled the space.
2. The pattern of natural desires. Hunger corresponds to food, thirst to water, loneliness to friendship, curiosity to knowable truth. The full defense of the premise, including the difference between natural desires and fantasies, is at Argument from Desire.
3. Augustine's restless heart. "Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee" (Confessions I.1, Schaff NPNF1 1, PDF p. 4). See Argument from Restlessness.
4. The object of the longing is a Person. "In thy presence is fulness of joy; In thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Psalm 16:11). The desire argument fits heaven exactly as Scripture describes it: not more of earth's goods, but God Himself.

Anticipated objections

1. "Some desires have no real object. People want to fly, or live forever on earth."
2. "The longing is just evolution keeping us restless so we keep striving."
3. "Even granting a transcendent object, this says nothing about hell."

Rebuttals

1. Those are fantasies, not natural desires. Lewis's premise concerns desires that are universal, present without cultural cue, and persistent; the desire to fly without wings is learned from stories and birds. See the rebuttals on Argument from Desire.
2. An explanation of how the desire arose does not show it has no object. Evolution also explains hunger, and food is real. The question is whether the longing points to something, not how it came to be felt.
3. Correct, and the argument should say so. A3 supports a destiny beyond this world, not two destinies. It contributes "we were made for more" to the case; A1 and A2 supply the two outcomes.

The honest limit of this strand

A3 points beyond this life; it does not describe what lies there. It cannot tell you whether the longing will be met in a renewed creation, a disembodied state or something else, and it says nothing about judgment. Its first premise, that every natural desire has a real object, is disputed by serious philosophers, and the argument is better presented as a pointer than a proof. It earns its place in the case because it is the strand people feel before they argue: most people already sense that this world is not the whole story.

A4, The argument from the resurrection (decisive)

Syllogism:

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, God vindicated Him, and His claims about the afterlife are trustworthy.
2. Jesus rose from the dead.
3. Jesus taught that there are two final destinies, eternal life and eternal punishment.
4. Therefore heaven and hell exist.

Affirmative case

1. Premise 1: resurrection is God's endorsement. God does not raise a false prophet from the dead in confirmation of his teaching. Paul ties the coming judgment to exactly this: God "hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). See Resurrection Implies Christian Theism.
2. Premise 2: the historical case. The Minimal Facts Argument builds from facts that most scholars, including skeptics, grant: Jesus died by crucifixion; His followers sincerely believed they saw Him alive afterward; Paul, a persecutor, and James, a skeptic, were turned around by what they took to be appearances of the risen Jesus; and His tomb was found empty, a fact widely though less universally granted. No naturalistic theory explains all of them together. The full case is at Argument from the Resurrection.
3. Premise 3: Jesus taught both destinies, in His own words. "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46). "All that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). Daniel had said the same: "some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2).
4. He tied life after death to Himself. "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live" (John 11:25). He said this before Easter; the empty tomb is the evidence that He could keep the promise.
5. Paul staked everything on it. "And if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). The Christian hope of heaven is not a separate belief from the resurrection; it stands or falls with it.

Anticipated objections

1. "The Gospels put those words in Jesus's mouth."
2. "Even if He rose, that doesn't make everything He said true."
3. "Resurrection is impossible, so premise 2 fails."

Rebuttals

1. The two-destinies teaching is not confined to one Gospel or one layer. It appears in Matthew, John, Paul and Revelation, and it inherits Daniel 12:2. A Jesus who taught nothing about final judgment is harder to fit into first-century Judaism than the Jesus the sources give us. See Hell and Eternal Punishment on Christ as the New Testament's main teacher on hell.
2. It makes His own claims about God and judgment trustworthy, which is all premise 1 needs. A man who predicted His death and resurrection and then rose has the strongest possible credential on the subject of what lies beyond death.
3. Impossible by what standard? If God exists (and the other arguments in the Cumulative Case for Christian Theism give reason to think so), raising the dead is not impossible, only unusual. Ruling it out in advance assumes the conclusion. See Argument from the Resurrection.

How the four fit together

Read in order, the strands answer four questions. Will there be a reckoning? Justice says yes. Why does it have two outcomes? Freedom says love is not forced. Why do we care? Desire says we were made for it. How do we know? The resurrection says Someone came back and told us. The last strand is the hinge: the first three make heaven and hell reasonable to expect, and the fourth makes them reasonable to believe.

Master objections to the whole argument

MO1: "Eternal punishment for finite sins is unjust."

• Proportion is measured by the one wronged, not only by the time taken. A minute's betrayal of a friend is graver than a minute's rudeness to a stranger. On the classical view (Anselm's), sin against an infinitely holy God carries a gravity no finite measure captures. A second classical answer (Jonathan Edwards's) is that the lost do not stop rebelling, so the punishment matches an ongoing refusal, not a finished one. Both are set out at Hell and Eternal Punishment.
• The objection uses the standard A1 defends. To call a punishment disproportionate is to say it exceeds what is deserved, which grants that desert is real and that a just judge must honor it.
• Scripture insists on degrees. Luke 12:47-48 and Justin's "according to the merit of his deed" mean no one receives more than is due.
• Where Christians differ. Christians who hold conditional immortality answer the objection differently: the punishment is eternal in its result, a destruction that is never reversed, rather than unending conscious suffering. See MO5.

MO2: "A loving God would not send anyone to hell."

• A loving God does not force anyone into heaven either. On A2, the question is whether God will override a settled refusal. Jesus's "ye would not" (Matthew 23:37) shows a love that pleads and still lets the answer stand.
• Love and justice are not rivals. A God who loved victims would not treat their abusers' unrepented evil as nothing. Frank Turek puts the conclusion simply: "No one who lands in heaven or hell will have any grounds to complain about being treated unfairly" (Stealing from God, PDF p. 231).
• God has done the most a lover can do. He bore the judgment Himself and offers "the free gift of God," which "is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). See The Ought-Owe Argument and Becoming a Christian.

MO3: "Heaven would be boring. Forever is too long for anything."

• The objection imagines heaven as the cartoon: clouds, harps and an endless church service. The biblical picture is resurrected, embodied life in a renewed creation, with work, relationships and discovery, and God Himself present. See Heaven and New Heavens and New Earth.
• Boredom comes from finite goods running out. The object of heaven is an infinite Person, "In thy presence is fulness of joy" (Psalm 16:11). Augustine wrote that in seeing God "thou shalt be always satisfied, and yet never satisfied," and "Do not fear that thine enjoyment will fail through satiety" (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Schaff NPNF1 7, PDF p. 18).
• The objection is itself evidence for A3. The fear that every earthly good would eventually bore us is exactly the observation that nothing in this world fully satisfies.

MO4: "Near-death experiences prove (or disprove) the afterlife."

• This argument does not rest on them. None of the four strands appeals to near-death experiences.
• They prove less than believers hope. As NDEs (Near Death Experiences) sets out, their evidential weight depends on the small set of cases with verified perceptions, not on the vivid reports alone; the reports are shaped by the experiencer's culture; and the hidden-target results of the AWARE II study have so far been negative or inconclusive. They are at most a supporting strand for the existence of the soul.
• They disprove less than skeptics claim. A brain-based explanation of some reports does not show that no person survives death, and the theological case for the soul (Soul; Substance Dualism) does not stand or fall with them.
• Scripture puts the weight elsewhere. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). The decisive return from death in this argument is Jesus's, not a patient's.

MO5: "Annihilationism is true, so there is no eternal hell."

• Where Christians differ, stated neutrally. Christians hold three main views of the final state of the lost:
  • Eternal conscious punishment, the historic majority view: the lost exist forever under judgment. It leans on Matthew 25:46, where the same Greek adjective, aiōnios (G0166 - aionios), describes both the punishment and the life, so that if one is unending, so is the other.
  • Conditional immortality (annihilationism), a minority view with serious evangelical defenders: immortality is God's gift in Christ, and the lost are finally destroyed. It leans on texts such as "destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28), "eternal destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9) and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), and reads "eternal punishment" as eternal in its result. The case is set out at Conditional Immortality and Conditional Immortality from Text-First Method.
  • Universalism, rejected by most of the church: all are finally reconciled. See Universalism.
• This argument does not depend on settling that debate. Both eternal conscious punishment and conditional immortality affirm a final judgment, two final destinies, and a loss that is never reversed. A1 to A4 establish exactly that much. Which view best reads the texts is a question for exegesis, taken up at Hell and Eternal Punishment.
• Annihilationism is not the denial of hell. A skeptic who appeals to it has granted the judgment and the second destiny, and is arguing about its nature.

MO6: "This is just a way to scare people into belief."

• The argument persuades by reasons, not threats. Each strand can be examined on its merits, and A4 rests on public history.
• Jesus is the one who taught it. If the teaching on hell were manipulation, its main source would be the same Jesus whose teaching on love the objector usually admires. See Hell and Eternal Punishment on this point and Hell as Eternal Torment Objection Defeater.

Honest limits

The details come from revelation, not philosophy. Natural reason can show that a judgment beyond death is fitting (A1), that love implies two outcomes (A2), and that we are made for more than this world (A3). It cannot tell you what heaven is like, how long punishment lasts, or who will be where. Those come from what Jesus taught (A4) and the rest of Scripture.

The three philosophical strands show plausibility, not proof. Each has defensible premises that thoughtful people deny: moral realism in A1, libertarian freedom in A2, the "every natural desire has an object" premise in A3. A Reformed reader will frame A2 through God's permissive decree rather than libertarian freedom, and can still use A1, A3 and A4 unchanged.

The case leans on A4. If the resurrection did not happen, the argument falls back to "a reckoning is likely and we were made for more," which is far short of heaven and hell as Scripture describes them. That is as it should be: Paul said the same (1 Corinthians 15:17).

The nature of hell is debated among Christians. This page establishes two final destinies; it does not settle eternal conscious punishment versus conditional immortality, and it should not be used as if it did.

Hard cases remain hard. The argument does not resolve the fate of those who never heard the gospel or who die in infancy. See Salvation of the Unevangelized. Scripture's assurance there is the character of the Judge (Genesis 18:25), not a formula.

Cross-examination

Three rounds, asked in order. The aim is clarity, not a trap.

Round 1, Is anything really unjust?

1. Question: "Can you think of someone who did real evil and died without ever paying for it?"
2. Expected answer: "Sure. Plenty of dictators died in bed."
3. Follow-up: "Was that just unfortunate, or was it actually wrong that they got away with it?"
4. Expected answer: "It was wrong."
5. Follow-up: "Then something was owed that was never paid. If God is real and just, does that debt just disappear at the grave?"

Round 2, What would you want God to do?

1. Question: "Suppose someone wants nothing to do with God, all their life and to the end. What should God do with them forever?"
2. Expected answer: "Let them into heaven anyway. Or just leave them alone."
3. Follow-up: "Heaven is being with God face to face. Would that be heaven for someone who doesn't want Him? And if God leaves them alone, isn't that exactly what Christians mean by separation from Him?"

Round 3, Who would know?

1. Question: "If someone actually came back from the dead, would you take what He said about death seriously?"
2. Expected answer: "If it really happened. But it didn't."
3. Follow-up: "Then that's the question that settles this. Would you be willing to look at the evidence for the resurrection with me, and if it holds up, take His words about heaven and hell seriously?"

Dodge table

Tactical notes

1. Start with justice, not hell. Almost everyone agrees that some evil goes unpunished. Get agreement on that before using the word "hell."
2. Let the objector describe heaven. Most objections to heaven are objections to a cartoon. Ask what they picture, then show what Scripture says.
3. Separate the existence of hell from its nature. If the objection is to unending torment, note that some Christians hold conditional immortality, and that the argument here concerns two destinies and a final judgment.
4. Use desire as a bridge, not a hammer. A3 is the gentlest strand. It works best as an honest question: "Have you ever wanted something nothing here could give you?"
5. Always land on the resurrection. The first three strands make the conclusion reasonable; the fourth is what makes it believable, and it brings the conversation to Jesus.
6. End with the offer, not the threat. The point of the doctrine is that the door is open now. See Becoming a Christian.

Opening. "Most people sense that death isn't the end of the story, and that some things in this life have to be set right. I want to show you four reasons that sense is pointing to something real."

Closing. "If justice is real, there is a reckoning. If love is real, God won't force anyone into His presence. If our longing means anything, we were made for more than this. And if Jesus rose, He told us plainly what's on the other side. He also said, 'I am the resurrection, and the life.' That's an offer, and it's open to you today."

Live-cite kit

Scripture:

• Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life." (ASV)
• John 11:25, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live" (ASV)
• Ecclesiastes 12:14, "For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (ASV)
• Romans 2:5-6, "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works" (ASV)
• 2 Thessalonians 1:9, "who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (ASV)
• John 14:2-3, "I go to prepare a place for you... that where I am, there ye may be also." (ASV)
• Ecclesiastes 3:11, "he hath set eternity in their heart" (ASV)
• Revelation 21:4, "he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more" (ASV)
• Acts 17:31, "whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (ASV)
• Hebrews 9:27, "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment" (ASV)

Patristic:

• Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead XVIII (Schaff ANF 2, PDF p. 126): "the award according to merit finds no place in the present existence."
• Justin Martyr, First Apology 17 (Schaff ANF 1, PDF p. 117): "every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed."
• Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies V.27.2 (Schaff ANF 1, PDF p. 451): "separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness."
• Augustine, Confessions I.1 (Schaff NPNF1 1, PDF p. 4): "our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee."
• Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John (Schaff NPNF1 7, PDF p. 18): "thou shalt be always satisfied, and yet never satisfied."

Modern:

• C.S. Lewis, quoted in Frank Turek, Stealing from God (PDF p. 231): "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"

Aphorisms:

• "A judgment that can only acquit isn't a judgment."
• "Hell is God taking our 'no' seriously. Heaven is God giving Himself to those who said yes."
• "If someone came back from the dead, ask Him what's on the other side."

Connection to Scripture

• Genesis 18:25, the Judge of all the earth does right
• Ecclesiastes 3:11, eternity set in the heart
• Ecclesiastes 12:14, every hidden thing brought into judgment
• Daniel 12:2, everlasting life and everlasting contempt
• Matthew 10:28, fear Him who can destroy soul and body
• Matthew 23:37, "and ye would not"
• Matthew 25:46, eternal punishment and eternal life
• Luke 12:47-48, degrees of punishment
• Luke 16:31, not persuaded though one rise from the dead
• John 3:19, men loved the darkness
• John 5:28-29, the resurrection of life and of judgment
• John 11:25, the resurrection and the life
• John 14:2-3, a place prepared
• Acts 17:31, the judgment assured by the resurrection
• Romans 2:5-6, judgment according to works
• Romans 6:23, the wages of sin and the free gift
• 1 Corinthians 15:17, if Christ is not raised
• 2 Thessalonians 1:9, eternal destruction from the face of the Lord
• Hebrews 9:27, once to die, then judgment
• Revelation 21:4, no more tears
• Revelation 22:4, they shall see His face

See also

• Argument from Justice, the full development of A1
• Free Will Argument from Love and Free Will Defense, the background to A2
• Argument from Desire and Argument from Restlessness, the full development of A3
• Argument from the Resurrection and Minimal Facts Argument, the historical case behind A4
• Resurrection Implies Christian Theism, why the resurrection vindicates Jesus's teaching
• Moral Argument, the ground of objective justice
• Heaven and New Heavens and New Earth, what Scripture says the final home is like
• Hell and Eternal Punishment, the biblical vocabulary and the three views
• Hell as Eternal Torment Objection Defeater, the answer to the moral objection to hell
• Conditional Immortality, the minority view set out on its own terms
• Universalism, the view that all are finally reconciled
• NDEs (Near Death Experiences), what near-death research does and does not show
• Problem of Evil, the objection A1 turns into evidence for a final judgment
• The Ought-Owe Argument, how a just Judge can also show mercy
• Argument from the Fear of Death, the universal dread of death and the hope of resurrection
• Cumulative Case for Christian Theism, the method this page follows
• Becoming a Christian, what to do with the conclusion
• Arguments, master index