Who really goes to Hell?

[ttcmacro]

I agree--I think the Western Church took a wrong turn when they accepted Augustine's notion of Original Sin. Augustine spent most of his life as a pagan and I believe his theology was tainted with pagan fatalism. Because so many babies and young children died in Augustine's day, it necessitated another erroneous doctrine--infant baptism--in a departure from the Bible. Part of Augustine's problem was that he did not know Greek and relied on an inferior Latin text for the formation of his theology.

In contrast to Augustine (and the much later Calvin who was a great admirer of Augustine), the Bible teaches "believer's baptism". Those who believe in infant baptism, do a lot of theological dancing to try to "prove" that infant baptism is necessary. The truth is that reciting words over an infant does NOT effect salvation--it amounts to a superstitious incantation and pagan incantations are not effectual for anything. Infant dedication may be called for, as it commits the parents (and the wider congregation of the church) to raising a child under the "nurture and admonition of the Lord".

Augustine actually taught that un-baptized infants go to hell--which I consider to be quite dreadful--a doctrine of demons. Jesus taught that the "angels" of young children "are constantly before the throne of God". Does this sound like He thought that their deaths would bring them unending punishment in hell? The unofficial doctrine of "limbo" for infants who died, was a much later fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church. There is NOTHING in Scripture which would indicate that there is anything called "limbo" (a place that is neither heaven nor hell) for un-baptized infants.

I agree with your critique of Augustine. This still has a huge negative impact on Christianity today, and is much of the reason that people worry about unbaptized babies going to hell. And Limbo is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I will say that although Augustine's ideas certainly provide a rationale for infant baptism, but they are not the only rationale. Eastern Orthodox baptize infants, even though we don't think they are doomed if they die before baptism (and we don't believe in limbo either).

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Only the Greatest of all can make Himself small enough to enter Hell. For the higher a thing is, the lower it can descend - a man can sympathize with a horse but a horse cannot sympathize with a rat. Only One has descended into Hell. ... There is no spirit in prison to whom He did not preach.
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

I agree with your critique of Augustine. This still has a huge negative impact on Christianity today, and is much of the reason that people worry about unbaptized babies going to hell. And Limbo is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I will say that although Augustine's ideas certainly provide a rationale for infant baptism, but they are not the only rationale. Eastern Orthodox baptize infants, even though we don't think they are doomed if they die before baptism (and we don't believe in limbo either).

My question would be why? Is it something more akin to a blessing? Jesus blessed the little children--He did not baptize them. Baptists dedicate and bless their babies and young children. Baptism is by immersion for believers only.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

It behoved that there should be sin; but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
Julian of Norwich

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Paul anticipates and answers this objection in Romans 9 starting in verse 14:

What shall we say then? but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

In the immediate context Paul is addressing God's partial rejection of Israel and his inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation. However, as fits with the rest of Scripture, Paul is making the critical point that God is sovereign and has the right to choose some and not others. The names of the elect were written in the Book of Life prior to anyone being created. As others have already pointed out, we are born enemies of God due to Adam's sin. If God did nothing we would all deservedly go to hell. He graciously chooses to save some. The question is not "why didn't God save everyone" but rather "why did God save anyone."

Your A and B person were not chosen to receive salvation. The circumstances don't matter. As another writer pointed out, Romans 1 says every single human being is without excuse. We can't plead ignorance and God is quite capable of bringing the Gospel message to anyone, in anytime. If God chooses to pass over whole populations of people in parts of the world (though there are always exceptions) that would be His Sovereign choice. We make the mistake of imposing our thoughts of right and wrong and fairness on God. He alone is absolutely holy and without sin.

Thankfully we have a loving and merciful God. I only know what He has revealed. I'm not the judge but that is what I see in the Scriptures. It might seem harsh but I bow my intellect to God and trust that His will, however hard to understand at times, is absolutely right and loving.

One final thought, in Romans 9 Paul asks the rhetorical question "what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." The implication is that some people were passed over for salvation and used by God to make known His power. Pharaoh, a prime example, is used as an example. It causes me to speculate that perhaps as humans we need contrasts to understand certain things. Could you really understand "hot" if you never experienced "cold?" How about "love" and "hate" or "right" and "wrong?" If everyone in a class got an "A" regardless of their results would getting an "A" have any real meaning? Could we appreciate God's power, His mercy, His forgiveness if everyone was saved? If God had not used Pharaoh to oppose the children of Israel would we have seen His glorious power revealed? Another Scriptural example is Jacob and Esau. We are told Esau did nothing wrong yet was not chosen. Is it possible some people are, like Esau, passed over for salvation so that those who are saved might truly appreciate salvation and see God's glory in it?

Worth consideration. I don't claim to know the mind of God. I trust in his mercy. I wish everyone was saved as Paul wished all of Israel could be saved. God will decide and I trust and know He will be just and merciful.

 

[Samantha Scott]

You must be a born again Christian in order to go to heaven. So in both examples these people would go to hell.

 

[BobRyan]

There's this idea that boggles my mind for quite a while and I'd like to hear your opinions about it:

First off, imagine the situation of a person A: You're born in some poor, remote part of India. You're raised fully in hinduist faith. Your all life you basically know nothing but the hindu gods, which you also worship. One day there's this white guy who comes around and starts preaching something about one God, which is actually a three at once or something, but you don't really understand him, it doesn't really catch you by the heart or anything. Few days later he wanders off. After some years, you get ill and you die.

Now: you stand before the judgement of God. You heard the word of God but you didn't accept it. Are you going to Hell?

Now, alternatively, person B: You're born to atheistic family in a very atheistic western country, let's say Norway. You're raised in a profoundly atheistic way, involving absolutely zero room for spirituality. When you grow in age, you maybe encounter some people who practice the religion, but you're lead to believe they're some kind of lunatics and to stay away from them. Maybe someone from your work tries to talk you into the Christianity, but you're provided with scientific evidence for any question you may have about the world, and since your parents didn't put a seed of the spirituality in you as you were growing up, you never get to question it. You grow old and you die.

Now: you stand before the judgement of God. You heard the word of God but you didn't accept it. Are you going to Hell?

I've been Christian my whole life and I've spent plenty of time reading Bible. Personally, the idea of either of these people going to some kind of 'eternal torment' goes completely against the idea of the righteous and merciful God that Bible preaches. I understand that there's no verse, no simple line to prove this, but both logically and spiritually I wholeheartedly believe in some kind of 'backdoor trick' (as atheists opposing this idea would've called it) of a last-second of your life revelation of Jesus who you get to freely accept and go to Heaven, regardless of where or how you lived.

What do you guys think?

Jame 4:17 "to him that knows to do the right thing and does it not - to him it is sin"
Romans 2:13-16 when the unbelieving non-Bible-aware gentile "instinctively" obeys the Word of God ...
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
...
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

That is how "person A" goes to heaven.

This is how "person B" goes to hell

John 16 - God the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin " not just Christians.

Romans 1 - rank atheists and pagans in wickedness - know they are doing wrong.
14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.....
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
...32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them

 

[Hawkins]

What do you guys think?

If you earn some candies for your daughter, are you a cruel person for not giving them to everyone else?

The bottom line is without Jesus everyone is dead. With Jesus' self sacrifice, He reserves the right to grant God's grace to whoever He wishes to. The fair base is up to human kind to spread the good news as far as possible. However freewill is still respected. The gospel should have reached India and Norway alike long time ago. At some point in history, it is the Indians or Norwegians who chose to reject the gospel.

Now who is to blame?

 

[BobRyan]

You must be a born again Christian in order to go to heaven. So in both examples these people would go to hell.

Yes - you must be born again - but as we seen all the saints in Hebrews 11 were not Christians yet are hold up as the role model for Christians in the NT... it is not necessary that one be a Christian to be in heaven - the circumstances matter.

 

[ClementofA]

Augustine actually taught that un-baptized infants go to hell--which I consider to be quite dreadful--a doctrine of demons.

I think Augustine has done more damage to the church then any other - not only regarding original sin but also the retributive notion of hell. He popularized the idea of eternal punishment based upon his abysmal knowledge of Greek and had to rely on his understanding of Latin instead.

Augustine was a leading man in doctrines of demons.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

There's this idea that boggles my mind for quite a while and I'd like to hear your opinions about it:

First off, imagine the situation of a person A: You're born in some poor, remote part of India. You're raised fully in hinduist faith. Your all life you basically know nothing but the hindu gods, which you also worship. One day there's this white guy who comes around and starts preaching something about one God, which is actually a three at once or something, but you don't really understand him, it doesn't really catch you by the heart or anything. Few days later he wanders off. After some years, you get ill and you die.

Now: you stand before the judgement of God. You heard the word of God but you didn't accept it. Are you going to Hell?

Now, alternatively, person B: You're born to atheistic family in a very atheistic western country, let's say Norway. You're raised in a profoundly atheistic way, involving absolutely zero room for spirituality. When you grow in age, you maybe encounter some people who practice the religion, but you're lead to believe they're some kind of lunatics and to stay away from them. Maybe someone from your work tries to talk you into the Christianity, but you're provided with scientific evidence for any question you may have about the world, and since your parents didn't put a seed of the spirituality in you as you were growing up, you never get to question it. You grow old and you die.

Now: you stand before the judgement of God. You heard the word of God but you didn't accept it. Are you going to Hell?

I've been Christian my whole life and I've spent plenty of time reading Bible. Personally, the idea of either of these people going to some kind of 'eternal torment' goes completely against the idea of the righteous and merciful God that Bible preaches. I understand that there's no verse, no simple line to prove this, but both logically and spiritually I wholeheartedly believe in some kind of 'backdoor trick' (as atheists opposing this idea would've called it) of a last-second of your life revelation of Jesus who you get to freely accept and go to Heaven, regardless of where or how you lived.

What do you guys think?

The problem with your logic here is that it denies the providence of God and the Holy Spirit's power. If Christ didn't rise from the dead, Christianity is false and they won't go to hell for not believing in Him and thus there is nothing to worry about on A and B's behalf. If Christ did rise from the dead (which He did), then what the Scripture says about God's providence and the Holy Spirit's power is also true and there is nothing to worry about on A and B's behalf.

For the atheist, Scripture says God is manifest in creation and His invisible qualities and divine nature are clearly seen in it (Romans 1:19-20). For all unbelievers, Scripture says that the Holy Spirit engages in a threefold ministry regarding sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11) for the purposes of preparing them to receive Christ (1 John 5:9-13).

If you believe anyone rejects Christ because "logic" and "science" or previous religious ties you accept their hard-hearted testimony over God's and make God a liar: "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son." (1 John 5:9-10)

We are put in our times and places according to God's providence for the purpose of receiving Christ (Acts of the Apostles 17:26-27) and receive the threefold ministry of the Holy Spirit declaring to us the truth of the Gospel. So all who reject Christ unto death go to hell because they resist the Holy Spirit, not because of bad timing or geography, upbringing or anything else, regardless of how difficult that is to understand based on our superficial and incredibly limited perception of human hearts.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

We live in a delusion, we live in a prison that we are all born into.

Ephesians 3:1
"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles"

 

[justbyfaith]

Both person A and person B will be judged for the sins that they committed in life. Because they never received Christ, they are not forgiven of those sins and so will be condemned over them. The fact that they actually heard the gospel message actually adds to their level of responsibility. If they had never heard at all, their level of punishment would have been less, but they still would be judged for their sins.

 

[ttcmacro]

My question would be why? Is it something more akin to a blessing? Jesus blessed the little children--He did not baptize them. Baptists dedicate and bless their babies and young children. Baptism is by immersion for believers only.

It is more than a blessing, we believe we receive actual grace during baptism, and believe that grace should be available to children as well as adults (including adults with mental handicaps that would not be a "believer" in an intellectual sense). While I would agree that the NT doesn't give an clear example of children being baptized (there is an example of a household being baptized, which may have included children, but this is not clear), we believe that this was the practice, as it has been passed down within the Church.

 

[JIMINZ]

While I would agree that the NT doesn't give an clear example of children being baptized (there is an example of a household being baptized, which may have included children, but this is not clear),

I live on a street with 18 houses, that's 18 separate family units, take a guess how many children would be in those 18 family units if 9 of those households got saved.

The total would be 0 unless it include mine because mine is the only child on the block, but then again we already believe so we wouldn't be counted at all.

So then when you hear that the whole household was Saved and that would include Baptism of everyone present, it does not necessarily prove there were Infants in the households......That is an assumption just to prove a belief which isn't ever spoken of.

 

[AllIsrael]

But what if they technically met Him before, such as person A, through the missionary? If that was the case, and if they just went to Hell right after, to me it feels like the whole idea of missionary would sound somewhat counterproductive, since realistically the part of people who actually give up their false religion and accept Christ is absolute minority there.

But either way, (John 5:21-23) you've quote definitely does bring some insight in the issue. Perhaps it could be that 'meeting' Christ in this verse means, in fact, accepting Him? And thus the second chance after this short journey 'down' here?

I agree. We don’t and can’t know for sure, but Christ will know.

For two well-thought-out and biblically informed views on such eschatological questions, see gentlegod dot org - a website devoted to exposing the many weaknesses of the so-called ‘doctrine’ of eternal, conscious torment. Also read Gary Cangelosi’s 4-star review of ‘Amillennialism’ by Matt Waymeyer at Amazon - it exposes the biblical truths and untruths found in all three of the main interpretations of Revelation 20, and how a believing reading of all the bible makes sense out of the confusion concerning it that the church has been stuck with for many centuries.

 

[ttcmacro]

I live on a street with 18 houses, that's 18 separate family units, take aguess how many children would be in those 18 family units if 9 of those households got saved.

The total would be 0 unless it include mine because mine is the only child on the block, but then again we already believe so we wouldn't be counted at all.

So then when you hear that the whole household was Saved and that would include Baptism of everyone present, it does not necessarily prove there were Infants in the households......That is an assumption just to prove a belief which isn't ever spoken of.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. I actually agree with you that the NT does not provide a clear example of children being baptized. If I wasn't Eastern Orthodox and believed in Solo Scriptura, I might be skeptical of infant baptism as well.

That being said, it would be very likely (given short lifespans and the large families at the time) that a given "household" mentioned in the NT would include children. But the NT doesn't tell us either way, and that is fine by me, as my belief in infant baptism is not based on a direct NT reference.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

Who really goes to Hell?

Perhaps One should ask themselves... who really came out of it?

Psalms 139:15
"My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth"

So that's where we come from eh?

It's even called the 'Pit'...

Isaiah 51:1
"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged"

Two references to Hell... yet God is telling us we came from there.

Talk about predestination.

Looks like the Church has some explaining to do.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

Ephesians 4:9
"Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?"

Oh... Mary's Womb is the 'Lower Parts of the Earth'.

Now I get it.

Quite the Secret they hide from us eh?

 

[Uncle Mikey]

John 8:23
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world"

Yep... Jesus confirms we come from 'Beneath'... aka... Hell.

So how did we get there?

I know the answer.