I recently had a cluster of thoughts. Most of it isn’t terribly original, but I’ve never encountered the illustration before. Anyway, God, as we know, is love, and that means that God acts in ways that are ultimately loving toward all of His creatures all of the time. After all, if God acts loving toward some of His creatures all of the time (Calvinism), He is not love. If He acts loving toward all of His creatures some of the time (some forms of Arminianism), He is not love. The only way He can BE love is to act loving toward all of His creatures all of the time. A God declared not only to be loving but to be love must, by definition, be loving toward all creatures at all times.
Now, we can at this point suggest that John was wrong in his description, or that I’m trying to “tell God what to do.” I’m not; I’m only suggesting the radical idea that words have meanings, and that if we take these words in the Bible to mean what they say, then this is the conclusion that must necessarily follow. And that’s what it says. What intrigues me is that there are at least some who, at this point, agree completely with my assessment of God’s character yet still hold to the idea of eternal, retributive punishment. They insist that the two are somehow compatible, and their compatibility, then, is worth inquiring after.
One of the most common views is that, upon death, God simply ceases to love the damned. This makes sense, albeit a Pagan kind of sense, where the love of God is a fickle thing, something He can choose to just turn off, while His power is paramount. The problem, as we’ve already seen, is that John’s description of God AS love simply will not allow that to be true. Any theology that posits that God at any time begins to hate the sinner has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. We, along with many who believe in eternal torment, can write that right off.
The second is the view that has become popular since C. S. Lewis (though it’s debatable whether he actually held it or not). This is the view that, although God would very much like to reconcile the sinners, after death such reconciliation becomes impossible. His almighty hands are bound by an even more almighty chain, typically some kind of “cementing” process happens at and through death, fixing the rebel’s heart in its state of rebellion. God, therefore, has no choice in the matter but to let them continue eternally languishing in their own sin (or, in some versions, to continue actively punishing them; His “justice” compels Him to betray His love).
These constitute the only two real options for a Hell of eternal torment. Either it is something that God voluntarily does to the sinner or it is something that God must allow the sinner to endure because the sinner is now beyond hope and help. The first is very obviously incompatible with any sort of love. One does not voluntarily punish eternally, with no hope of restoration, those whom one loves, or “love” is a meaningless word. The second one, though, where God is bound quite against His will to punish forever or to shut out forever and allow the sinner to continuously languish in agony forever and ever because the sinner is, himself, beyond the ability to repent, I find tragically fascinating.
It reminds me a bit of the movie Old Yeller. In the movie (which is 54 years old; I don’t think I’m spoiling it for anyone, right?), Yeller is a beloved family pet who becomes infected with rabies. Forever, he is incurably doomed to rage against his masters who love him. They lock him up to keep him away from the family while they agonize over the inevitable decision. I say “inevitable” because there is only one loving thing, one horrible, tragic, loving thing that this family can do: they finally kill Old Yeller and put him out of his misery.
Now, what if the family had decided that they loved the dog “too much” to kill him? What if they’d opted, instead, to leave him locked up, his mind consumed by the disease, and to sustain him with food and water, until he died a natural death? Would that not have been cruel? Would that not have been ultimately unloving? It would have been unjustifiable, unworthy even of consideration! If the dog is incurably rabid, he must be put down. That’s the only loving thing to do, and that’s why the ending is so tragic: the family’s hand has been forced here. They have no other option if they are to be loving toward Yeller.
If God is truly in the same position, the sinner truly beyond any hope of redemption even from the Almighty, then annihilation is the only loving thing He can do at that point. It would be a great tragedy. It would be an affront to His sovereignty and power. But if His hands are truly tied with regard to the state of the sinner’s heart, there is no other action worthy of love. However, what if the family had had it in their power to save Yeller? What if there were some kind of treatment they could give him to cure him of his rabies and restore their beloved dog to perfect health? What if, having that ability, they still chose to lock him up and, ultimately, to kill him? In that case, killing him is no longer an act of love; it, too, becomes an act of unspeakable cruelty.
So it is with God. If the God Who Is Love would not voluntarily punish eternally and cannot cure the hearts of rabid humanity, love would force His hand into annihilation. It would be the only loving option. But the God revealed in Scripture is never in that position. If death itself cannot separate from the love of God, well, then, it can’t, and there is no point at which the sinful and rebellious condition of the heart moves beyond His power to heal. That being the case, the only loving action worthy of a God who is called not only “loving” but “Love,” is to offer that cure until every one of those He loves has accepted it.
Just a thought. 
I heard the plot and I thought it would only make me sad. I’m kind of a wuss about that sort of thing.