which these days tends to be the question of whether a free, rational agent, in order to be truly free, or truly capable of a relation of love with God, must have the power justly to condemn himself or herself to everlasting dereliction, and whether then God will allow him or her to do so out of regard for the high dignity of this absolutely indispensable autonomy.
“Will allow” is an interesting use of words. As if God would allow the injustice of hell even if voluntarily entered into. The problem is that in order for God to be good He must deal with injustice. As a leader of soldiers, specifically in a command position, it would be an injustice to ignore the injustice committed against one soldier by another. If a soldier steals from another soldier and it comes to the attention of the commander that commander would not be considered good if he or she were to ignore the theft. In order to remain a good commander he must deal justly with both soldiers. Can God remain good if ignores injustice? If the answer is no then the following question is what is required of an injustice of one man against another? This is where most go wrong. An injustice against man is viewed as a finite thing in which an infinite and eternal judgment appears to be too harsh. However, this is understood from an improper understanding of the injustice. Any injustice against the creation, ie against man, is an injustice against the creator or God. Seen this way it becomes an eternal and infinite injustice that requires an eternal and infinite justice. Where this really fascinates me isn’t in regards to offenses against God, obviously an eternal offense, and offenses against my fellow man, an eternal offense offended against the creator by means of His creation, but rather what this means for offenses against myself. I am a creation offending against the creator in an offense against myself. In the eternal scheme there are no victimless crimes.
