If God wanted to forgive sin, He's all-powerful — He could just forgive it. Instead He sent His Son to be killed. That's evil.

The objection has a real target: a God who stages a killing to satisfy himself is monstrous. But that is not the Christian claim, and the distance between the two is the whole argument.

1. Forgiveness is not amnesty. A judge who waves away a murder because he feels kindly is not merciful; he is corrupt, and the victim's family knows it. “Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other” (Psalm 85:10). Mercy that tramples justice is indifference wearing a kind face.

2. The objection assumes sin is only a feeling. If sin were merely guilt-feelings, forgiveness could be mere reassurance. Scripture treats it as real guilt before a holy God and real damage done to neighbours: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23); “against you, you only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4).

3. You already believe forgiveness costs something. When you forgive someone who hurt you, you absorb the cost instead of passing it on; you give up the right to repayment. Nobody calls that unnecessary or cruel. The objection is not that forgiveness should be free of cost, but that this particular cost is unacceptable.

4. God does not punish an innocent third party. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The judge does not step aside and sentence a bystander; he steps down and pays what he is owed. Any account that has an angry Father punishing a reluctant Son has already left the text.

5. The cross is where justice and mercy meet. God put Christ forward “so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25–26). Both attributes are satisfied at once. Bare amnesty satisfies mercy and destroys justice; bare punishment satisfies justice and destroys mercy.

6. The Son gives himself willingly. “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). The Father “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” (Romans 8:32). This is not divine violence among the persons; it is the triune God absorbing the cost of human sin.

7. Turn it around: the SHAZAM God is unjust. Picture a God who forgave genocide with a shrug and no cost at all. That is the God the same objector usually says he cannot believe in — a deity indifferent to evil. The objection demands mercy without justice, then objects when justice is paid rather than skipped.

8. The apparent excess is the point. If the price looks disproportionate, that is a claim about the seriousness of sin, not about God's appetite for blood. The crucifixion is not God demanding a pound of flesh; it is God refusing to lie about what evil costs while still offering pardon.

9. Christians differ on the model, not the fact. Scripture uses several pictures: penal substitution, Christ's victory over the powers, recapitulation, moral influence. Believers weight them differently and argue about them. Every orthodox account agrees on the fact: God himself bore the cost rather than overlooking the wrong.

10. What about people who never hear of it?. Scripture says God judges by the light a person had (Romans 2:14–15; Luke 12:47–48) and that he takes no pleasure in death (Ezekiel 33:11). Christians differ on how that works out, and honesty requires saying so. It does not change the shape of the answer: the cross is where the cost is paid, not where an angry Father is talked down.

The objection is not asking for too much mercy; it is asking for mercy that costs nothing, which is the same thing as saying the wrong did not matter. The Christian claim is that God refused that option and paid it himself. You can reject the payment, but the charge of cruelty does not fit a God who absorbs the loss rather than inflicting it.

Sources: Leon Morris; The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross; John Stott; The Cross of Christ; R.C. Sproul; William Lane Craig.

Related challenges:
• I hear a lot about “intelligent design.” Has this now proven God and falsified evolution?
• How would you respond to Victor Stenger’s stinging assertion that religious argument leads universally to dismal failure and untold suffering?
• Can we really be certain that God exists? If there is one thing that’s obvious, it is that the existence of God is NOT obvious.