In a recent interview with Sally Quinn of The Washington Post, Rob Bell again muddied the waters over the question of the fate of those who’ve never heard about Jesus. In doing so he also greatly misrepresented the evangelical answer to this question. Here are his words:
“If, billions and billions and billions of people, God is going to torture them in hell forever – people who never heard about Jesus are going to suffer in eternal agony because they didn’t believe in the Jesus they never heard of – then at that point we will have far bigger problems than a book from a pastor from Grand Rapids.”
Bell is responding to evangelicals who purportedly believe that people “are going to suffer in eternal agony because they didn’t believe in the Jesus they never heard of.” Let me say this as clearly as I can: No one will ever suffer for any length of time in hell or anywhere else for not believing in the Jesus they never heard of. Should I say that again or is it enough to ask that you go back and read it again?
Bell and others who make this sort of outrageous claim have evidently failed to look closely at Romans 1:18ff. Here we read that the wrath of God revealed from heaven is grounded in the persistent repudiation by mankind of the revelation God has made of himself in the created order. In other words, there is a reason for God’s wrath. It is not capricious. God’s wrath has been deliberately and persistently provoked by man’s willful rejection of God as he has revealed himself.
The revelation is both from God and about God. Therefore, in this case if the pupil does not learn it is not because the teacher did not teach. The phrase “evident to them” (v. 19, NASB), is better rendered either in or among them, probably the latter; i.e., God has made himself known among people (and thus, in a manner of speaking, to them, in their minds and hearts) in his works of creation and providence.
Observe Paul’s paradoxical language in v. 20: he refers to God’s invisible attributes (1 Tim. 1:17) as clearly seen (oxymoron). Paul’s point is that the invisible is made visible via creation or nature. Divine wisdom, power, eternity and goodness, for example, are not in themselves visible, but their reality is undeniably affirmed and apprehended by the effects they produce in nature. That there is a God, supreme, eternal, infinite in power, personal, wise, independent, worthy of glory and gratitude, is clearly evident in the creation.
How are these truths about God made known and where may we see them? Paul’s answer is, “through what has been made” (v. 20). God has left the indelible mark of his fingerprints all across the vast face of the universe.
Theologian Robert Dabney put it this way: “They who have no Bible may still look up to the moon walking in brightness and the stars watching in obedient order; they may see in the joyous sunbeams the smile of God, and in the fruitful shower the manifestation of his bounty; they hear the rending thunder utter his wrath, and the jubilee of the birds sing his praise; the green hills are swelled with his goodness; the trees of the wood rejoice before him with every quiver of their foliage in the summer air.” Herman Bavinck put it succinctly in declaring that “there is not an atom of the universe in which God’s power and divinity are not revealed.”
Paul’s point here in Romans 1 is that this revelation is sufficiently clear and inescapable that it renders all without excuse (see Rom. 1:20). Consequently, there is no such thing as “an innocent native in Africa” any more than there is “an innocent pagan in America.”
What does Paul mean when he says that all humanity is without excuse? “The excuse that is banished,” notes R. C. Sproul, “the excuse every pagan hopes in vain to use, the excuse that is exploded by God’s self-revelation in nature is the pretended, vacuous, dishonest appeal to ignorance. No one will be able to approach the judgment seat of God justly pleading, ‘If only I had known you existed, I would surely have served you.’ That excuse is annihilated. No one can lightly claim ‘insufficient’ evidence for not believing in God” (Classical Apologetics, 46).
The problem is not a lack of evidence. The problem is the innate, natural, moral antipathy of mankind to God. The problem is not that the evidence is not open to mankind. The problem is that mankind is not open to the evidence.
Note well Paul’s words: “For even though they knew God” (v. 21a). Again, “that which is known about God is evident within them” (not hidden, obscure, uncertain, but disclosed, clear, and inescapable). There is no such thing as an honest atheist! All people know God. There is a distinction, of course, between, on the one hand, a cognitive apprehension of God, i.e., knowing that there is a God and that he is worthy of obedience, worship, gratitude, and, on the other, a saving or redemptive knowledge of God. All people experience the former whereas only the redeemed experience the latter. Thus the problem, again, “is not a failure to honor what was not known, but a refusal to honor what was clearly known” (Sproul, 51).
Paul believed the unbeliever’s knowledge of God was “real” though not “saving”. They have more than an “awareness” of God. They know both that he exists and that he is of a certain moral character and that they themselves are accountable to him. In other words, their knowledge of God brings “subjective” understanding, but not “saving” understanding. The God they truly and “really” know, they hate and refuse to honor. Their response, however, is not borne of ignorance but of willful rebellion and self-centered sinfulness.
But Paul is equally clear that all persistently suppress this knowledge (see vv. 21-32). He does not say they began in darkness and futility and are slowly but surely groping their way toward the light. Rather, they began with the clear, inescapable light of the knowledge of God and regressed into darkness. More on this below.
The reference to them as “futile” and “fools” (vv. 21-22) does not mean all pagans are stupid. It is not man’s intelligence that is in view but his disposition. The problem with the unsaved isn’t that he can’t think with his head. The problem is that he refuses to believe with his heart. The unsaved man is a fool not because he is of questionable intelligence. He is a fool because of his immoral refusal to acknowledge and bow to what he knows is true.
What is the response of the human heart to this revelatory activity of God? Paul describes it in vv. 21-23. What he has in mind involves a distortion or deliberate mutation when one substitutes something artificial or counterfeit for that which is genuine. Clearly, then, when man rejects God he does not cease to be religious. Indeed, he becomes religious in order to reject God. He substitutes for God a deity of his own making, often himself.
This leads to three important conclusions.
First, the revelation of God in creation and conscience is sufficient to render all men without excuse, sufficient to lead to their condemnation if they repudiate it, but not sufficient to save. No one will be saved solely because of their acknowledgment of God in nature, but many will be lost because of their refusal of him as revealed there. In other words, general revelation lacks redemptive content. It is epistemically adequate but soteriologically inadequate. It makes known that there is a God who punishes sin but not that he pardons it.
Second, and please note this well, the so-called heathen are not condemned for rejecting Jesus, about whom they have heard nothing, but for rejecting the Father, about whom they have heard and seen much. Whatever about God is included in Paul’s words, “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20), the knowledge of such is universal and inescapable and renders all mankind without an excuse for their unbelief, without an excuse for their failure to honor God, without an excuse for their refusal to thank God, and without an excuse for turning from the one true God to the worship of idols.
Third, general revelation is the essential prerequisite to special revelation. And special revelation is that which redemptively supplements and interprets general revelation. Therefore, if by God’s gracious and sovereign enablement and enlightenment, any unbeliever responds positively to the revelation of God in nature (and conscience), God will take the necessary steps to reach him or her with the good news of Christ whereby they may be saved.
What we have seen from this brief look at Romans 1 is that God has made his existence and attributes known to all mankind in every age: people of every religion in every nation on earth. These people may never hear the name of Jesus. They may never hear the gospel proclaimed. They may never hear of the cross or the resurrection. They may never hold in their hands a Bible in their own language. But they are totally and justly and righteously “without excuse” before God for their failure to honor him as God and their subsequent idolatrous turn to created things as a substitute for the Creator.
They will not be judged for their rejection of Jesus, of whom they have heard nothing. For Rob Bell or anyone else to suggest that we believe people will suffer eternally in hell for not believing in a Jesus of whom they know nothing is a distortion of what we affirm, and worse still is a distortion of what Paul clearly taught. People will be held accountable and judged on the basis of the revelation that God has made of himself to them. And this revelation is unmistakable, unavoidable, and sufficiently pervasive and clear that the failure to respond as well as the turn to idolatry renders them “without excuse.” They will be righteously judged for rejecting the Father, not for rejecting the Son.
162 replies to "Bell’s Hell and the Destiny of Those Who’ve Never Heard of Jesus"
[…] Sam Storms, “Bell’s Hell and the Destiny of Those Who’ve Never Heard of Jesus“ […]
@Jim, Let me give you an analogy to explain how all are truly invited and responsable for not coming:
Suppose you went and entered a house that was filled with junkies and addicks to crack cocain. Every man there due to his own choice is now heavely addicted to crack. You announce to them that outside the house is a bus ready to take them all to the nearest hospital where they will be administered a state-of-the-art treatment which will break and remove their addiction. on top of that you tell them that if they come with you they will each revieve a fortune. As you walk about the
house you turn the ligths on as you go calling out to them. None want to leave. They intuativly know the shamefulness of their condition and berate you for being there and try to turn the lights back off. Some even throw things at you. So after genuinly inviting them all you decide to take some of these men and simply put them on your bus anyway. How then was your general invitation incincere?
Jeremy,
I am assuming that in your analogy the treatment that will remove the addiction and give these men a fortune is the Gospel as given in Jesus–not just the general revelation of God in nature? Sam Storms made it very clear that the general revelation will save no one–that a person has to have the Gospel to save them.
And please remember when you make your analogy here, that Calvinists–at least the ones we have talked to here–pretty much insist that a person has to be regenerated by God before he can respond to the Gospel.
So again our question is–how can a person that is born with a condition that makes him sin so that he can not escape sin on his own–a condition that even makes it impossible to respond to the Gospel on his own, justly be held responsible for not responding?
(Key points: this person can’t stop sinning on his own and he can’t respond on his own. But yet he is justly(?) punished for this?)
Jeremy’s story / analogy might be more akin to the proposed Calvinist view if the residents of the crack house were born as crack babies and raised by crackheads and pushers who gave them crack throughout their lives. So then we’d have a situation where the crackheads not only don’t want to leave now, but never would have wanted to leave at any point in their lives.
J.
But importantly, John I., it would also include the fact that the rescuer was the pusher responsible for hooking the current victims’ parents and grandparents.
@ Jeremy- I’m late because of our 18 hour time difference.
If this was a pre-election political debate, I’d say you were trying to set me up. What you affirm is great but it’s what you don’t say that’s the problem.
In response to your points, unless I misunderstand the TULIPian belief….
1. No, they can only choose to sin and rebel because they are totally depraved.
2. No one wants to come to Jesus unless they are regenerated, given the gift of faith/saving grace/elect.
3. Yes, ALL men are bid, but ONLY the elect are permitted to come. “if they so desire” No one desires unless desire is divinely enabled.
4. No one “desires and thirsts for the righteousness of God” unless they are regenerated, granted saving faith etc…
“So after genuinely inviting them all you decide to take some of these men and simply put them on your bus anyway”. That makes their election conditional which is inconsistent with the 2nd point of TULIP no?
Very simply, Jeremy and his friends have a God who knowingly keeps on creating new human beings, objects of his profound love (we would all agree!), born into total depravity, utterly without hope of changing their spiritual condition; this God goes on for centuries, for millennia, creating more and more and more of these hapless creatures. Billions of them! He does this knowing that, in his justice, he will have no choice but to condemn these objects of his love to an endless, horrifying existence in hell, for ever and ever, because they did not do what Jeremy and his friends claim they CANNOT do.
Jeremy and his friends insist this is the only way to read the Bible. I hope with every ounce of my being this tortured logic is WRONG! Because if it is right, I can no longer in good conscience worship, or submit to such a monstrous God.
There MUST be a better way to understand God’s character and dealings with his creation! There simply must be.
Guys,
See I told you your real struggle was with Pelagianism.
You clearly reject the notion that man is truly repsonsable and culpable and guilty for Adam’s sin. All you sarcastic comments make this clear. So let’s just be honest about the fact that your real problem (as I have already contended) is with the doctrine of Origional Sin as taught by Paul and recieved by the historic church.
Look, if all men truly sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12ff) then they are truly and really responsable for their “addiction” to sin. It is their/our fault that we are the way we are. We are to blame just as much as Adam. Nothing outside of ourselves makes us sin. And we are truly free to do as we please. The problem is our pleasure lies purely in sin and rebellion because we have all willfully made ourselves slaves to sin. No one made us do this. Our wills, our desires, our choice made it happen. We were not constrained or forced against our will to become what we are.
So, since it is as you say, Jeremy, why does God keep creating such hopelessly lost people? Does he get some kind of perverse pleasure, or glory, from making billions more little Adams, just so he can save a few lucky ones, and condemn the vast majority to hell? What is the point? Is there a point? Or are we just obliged to sit back and rest in the knowledge that we are the elect, and God is wonderful, and it just had to be this way?
@Cliff,
As I have said from the beginning all I am hear to do is to try and understand and discuss what the Scripture teaches.
I don’t say this in any way to be rude, but how you feal about what the Bible teaches is irrelivant to its truthfulness. It matters nothing that you find His ways to differ form yours. If you truly are a valid epistimological source then you don’t really need the Bible to tell you truth. You would then be a source of truth. But if we are corrupt and fallen and finite then let God be found true though every man strongly dissagree (my paraphrase of Rom. 3:5).
My point in all this is that you simply cannot reason TO the text form your own emotions, desires and fealings. Rather you need to start at the text (which is what Sam has done and I am tryin got do) and from the text inform my mind and fealings. If we are mishandling the text show us.
So far not one single challenge has arisen to the actual exegesis presented here. Start there first!!!
Cliff, you know I had to go there:
“[I] would only say in passing, that the notion that a creature born imperfect, nay, born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned, is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain. There is but one thing lower than deliberately to believe such a lie, and that is to worship the God of whom it is believed.” (George MacDonald)
Jeremy: You said “Every man there due to his own choice is now heavely addicted to crack ” Are you meaning that crack=sin, in which case we are not there due to our own choice but instead inhereted sin. I really don’t understand your analogy or the point so I will give you my analogy of what I see you saying.
You and I are at the bottom of a set of stairs, behind us is a great fall(Hell) ahead of us (up) is the promised land. We are in complete darkness due to our sin and rebellion against God. Jesus comes to us with a light enablling not US but only you to see your way to the top and eternity with him. At judgment God tells me that I am doomed because I am without excuse even though the light didn’t shine upon me. Now if that light shines for both of us(enabling) me to see my way forward and I choose not to follow then I would be without excuse. Christ died for all, not all choose Christ
Jeremy, do you mean to tell me that there is absolutely nothing that one passage or other of Scripture could teach you about God’s character, be it ever so atrocious, that wouldn’t prompt you to reevaluate your implicit trust in it? I don’t think it’s a matter of “trust what God said” or “trust our own emotions, desires, and feelings”: we all use our world and experience to interpret, judge, and elevate/subordinate Scriptural teaching. I’m just not seeing you being honest about that.
You have made a decision to adopt whatever that text says (or you think it says) no matter the implications, and I think that’s a rash and by no means entirely rational decision. We must not believe the worst things about our God and call them beautiful, and if we think we’ve found testimony in favor of the former in Scripture, we are obligated as moral agents taught by the Holy Spirit to reject such interpretations and wait for more light, not embrace those dreadful readings and blame them on God!
Jeremy,
The problem is that the challenge we are giving you here is not just based on this verse, it is based on the context of other parts of the Bible and the character of God that we see revealed in the Bible. Are we to throw over what we understand as God’s self revelation elsewhere, to the understanding of one verse? Do we not need to have a theology that makes sense as a whole, not just take a verse here or there and say, “This is clearly what it says,” when it seems that “clearly” contradicts what it says in other places? Or when it makes seeming nonsense out of the meaning of the words that are used in the Bible to describe what God is like?
Jeremy –
You’re obviously an intelligent guy. How can you not understand that our problem (certainly mine) is NOT with God judging unrepentant sinners per se. We believe that sinners CAN repent once confronted with the gospel but if they CHOOSE to continue in their rebellion then their judgment is fully deserved.
You believe that sinners CANNOT repent (unless God elects them), and they are locked into a perpetual sinning rampage. Yet, despite that they can’t help themselves nor have a choice in the matter, they are condemned nonetheless for something they have no ability to change, while the elect on the other hand get a free pass.
Can you not see, that the problem is not with Romans 1, but with how you guys hold people accountable who cannot repent no matter what? It’s not rocket science my brother.
@Steve: “born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having”
I fundamentally dissagree with this representation of my view. How many times do I have to repeat myself on this. You are arguing pure Pelagianism. The key to the doctrine of Original Sin is that it holds that we really, really,really are guilty, we really sinned in Adam, really!
Now reject that if you will as Pelagius did, but please do not misrepresent me on that point. Don’t make a strawman of my view. I have avoided doing it to the Arminians haven’t I?
@Cheryl: But unless the Bible is errant then there must be some error in Sam and my exegesis of this text. Where is it?
Why does innabillity to change negate guilt or punnishment? If you gave a worker a car in order to come to and form work for you and he sold it for the money. Would that excuse him from his obligation to show up for work? Would you really accept him saying to you:
“Leave me alone, you have no right to be mad with me for not showing up to work since I can’t possibly make it to work without your car. I am helpless here so you can’t blame me for what I now have no power over!”
What if this happened to ten men working for you? What if in your good pleasure you purchased replacement cars for three of them. Would that make the other seven less culpable? I am pretty sure Jesus told a parable to express this exact point. If the owner chooses to be more gracious to some how is that an injustice to the others?
@Jim (and the rest of you guys)
I am not trying to be a jerk here when I keep on insisting that we are really dissagreeing on the issue of original sin. I appreciate you showing me how you are looking at things. Here would be my approach:
1. In Adam’s free act of sin all of us sinned (Rom 5:12ff)
2. Thus all men everywhere become sinners and this by their own volition and fault.
3. Since all who serve sin are slaves to it all men are born hating the light and loving the darkness because their deeds are evil. (John 3:19)
4. Man’s own free will and ability to choose in accord with his desires makes him unable to trust Christ because he could never want to. This and this alone is what prevents him from coming to Christ.
5. Thus man’s innabillity to chooce Christ is rooted in his slavery to sin which in turn is rooted in his sinning in Adam which as I have already maintained is his own fault.
6. Thus they have no legitimate excuse for not comming to Christ.
CONTINUATION OF ABOVE:
So for clarity’s sake please indentify which points of my above thought process you dissagree with. Let us first agree on our dissagreement before going further.
Do you see how from my perspective given my beleifs your charge that man cannot be justly held responsable does nto hold up?
Please, before you disagree with my view, understand it first. There has been a lot of misrepresentation of my and Sam’s view going on, but I feal it safe to say that there has been none taking place in the other direction.
Is that fair of me to say?
Jeremy, your Statement of the Reformed doctrine Original Sin is incomplete. Believing, as you do, in the sovereignty of God in creation, you must believe that God made Adam (and every human being) predisposed to rebel against him. Yes? A Calvinist friend of mine, in a rare moment of transparent candidness, admitted that God could have tweaked his creation of Satan just a little, and ensured thereby that Satan would have never fallen. He told me (do you agree?) that God created Satan to fall! And so, it would follow, that God has created billions of human beings to sin and be condemned. This logic is so preposterous it would be funny, if it did not horrendously vilify the God we all love. How can you believe such a thing of Him? That he intentionally created beings in a precise manner that would result in their utter condemnation and eternal suffering. Surely you must at least grant us the option of doubting such a thing could be true.
Jeremy,
Point # 2 is the sticking place for me. Someone not yet born does not freely chose to sin of their own volition and fault because someone else does. That seems to me to be an incorrect understanding of Romans 5:12. I have no argument that we all inherited a sin nature from Adam. However, I honestly don’t see how I could be said to have chosen by my own self to be a sinner because Adam chose that. That makes no sense to me at all. It doesn’t make any more sense to me then saying that the grandaughter of a murderer chose to be a murderer too by her own free will when her grandfather became a murderer. Maybe I am missing something here, but that doesn’t make sense to me.
I can see that once Adam became a sinner all of his descendants would become sinners too. But I simply can not see how him becoming a sinner caused me at that time to have decided to be one too by my own choice because of what he did. I simply don’t see my choice and will at work in what he did.
[…] Sam Storms, “Bell’s Hell and the Destiny of Those Who’ve Never Heard of Jesus“ […]
@Cliff, so then you agree the issue is in fact over the doctrine of Original Sin vs. Palagianism.
so far so good.
Before I answer your question about God predisposing Satan to fall, I would very much like to see how you solve the problem yourself. Could you answer the following questions for me:
1. Did God know before he created the Satan, Adam and Eve and all the rest of mankind would fall.
2. Did he know just how many more people billion would not belive than those who would?
3. If he went ahead and created anyway, how does not not at least tacitly approve of their rebellion.
4. Why would He choose to go ahead and create anyway knowing how it owuld turn out?
You see, unless you go all the way to open theism the arminian fails to escape this supposed dilema either.
My answer is the one Paul gives in Romans 9:22-23. At least it is honest and Biblical. You only sidestep the problem but fail to ultimatelly escape it.
@Cheryl, then why have you denied that this is really a discussion over Pelagianism as you clearly reject Original Sin?
Again you cannot have it both ways. Death is a judgment that God levies against sinners. How is it then in your scema that babies can suffer this punishemnt if they cannot be blamed for their state? Is it not then unjust for God to allow them to die and suffer part of the punishment for sin?
Jeremy,
As I seem to be finding out, there are different understandings of original sin out there and how it actually played out. The way you understand it is one I had honestly never heard of until you brought it up. This is an area that I plan on doing some more reading in when I get time.
Jeremy, why do you find it so easy just to throw out the word “Pelagianism”? Laying aside the fact that my belief that we all are born with a predisposition toward sinning is not Pelagianism, I really don’t care if you call my belief “Noodlism”! And gesturing towards Romans 5:12 as a proof-text doesn’t cut it, as any number of interpreters would and have pointed out.
Point me to the verse that states unequivocally that all sinned, consciously and willingly and at the same time that “Adam” did. My quote above could be tailored to fit your theology nonetheless:
“…born with [a nature of sin unconsciously and unavoidably acquired at the same time as an ancestor eons ago], and which he could not help having”
And please don’t tell me you believe I was conscious of or could have avoided sinning in Adam by some bizarre miracle — still less that God could be excused for ordaining that such a miracle occur in people He ostensibly loves!
I believe Jeremy asked a while back if he had misrepresented us? Yes Jeremy, you have. We are not Pelagians or agreeing with Pelagius here. We all seem to believe in original sin even if our understanding of it is not identical to yours.
Now quite with it already, ok?? 🙂
Here’s the contradiction I see, certainly with most Calvinists and often with most Christians.
I have yet to meet anyone who believes that a 3 month old baby who dies will go to Hell. At the same time, there are tons of Christians who believe that the people from the untouched jungle tribe in Paupa New Guinea will go to Hell. I would like for someone here to try and explain how you can believe in two different fates for those two groups of people.
Again let me ask how it is that babies can justly suffer the punishment of sin by dying if they are not guilty of sin?
Also I would like to hear how the arminian view deals with my questions about theodicy.
Jeremy, I do lean toward open-theism, or something close to it. It is the only way I can make sense of many scriptures (which, using your literalist proof-text approach, leave no doubt that the future is unknown to God) and the data that is streaming in from natural revelation! In short, my view is that open theism creates far fewer problems than is solves, certainly is not ridden with the God-Slander inherent in five-point Calvinism, and makes our life with God more dynamic meaningful, and just plain interesting!
Jeremy,
I don’t know if I haven’t made myself clear here or what.
I never said we didn’t inherit guilt from Adam. We inherited a sin nature and evidently the guilt of that was imputed to us also. I have always believed that from child hood on. What I said I don’t get is how we could of said to have chosen freely of our own will to sin in Adam. And how then since these things were imputed to us so that we can’t help but sin because of our nature (and we already have guilt in Adam too) is it fair to condemn us for not being able to do differently? If we have a choice, that would seem to be fair. But if we don’t–(if we haven’t made a choice on our own to be a sinner thousands of years before we were born) how is it fair to punish us for being what we can’t help but be? And by the way, physical death is a result of sin, however many people would believe that a baby that dies will be with the Lord–not be punished eternally for sins they of themselves chose…
Cheryl raises a good series of questions, and these are questions I have asked ever since I repented of backsliding when I was 22 in 1994 (just in time to miss Harold Camping’s first failed predication of judgment day. He’s giving it “another go” this May, the 21st. Save the date!). Anyway, the question of original sin and the eternal state of those who have never heard has always plagued me. It plagued me even more after working in a slum in Ethiopia (capital city of Addis Ababa) this past summer. Ask Jeremy–he’ll tell you how shattered I was.
Cheryl’s concern is not just theological, but pastoral. These are not questions for intellectual exercise, but they affect our thoughts and dreams and even our plans for “normal life.” Even more, it affects (effects?) our view of God, Even the question of children and babies of the heathen is not mere pin-pricking, but has everything thing to do with the justice, mercy, and goodness of God.
We should ask what we can know *with certainty* about those who’ve never heard. Jesus says, “I am sending you (Paul) to them (the Gentiles) to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17-18).
From this passage, Jesus is clear about the following–and not that I’m not asserting anything about Hell here. But here is what Jesus says, okay?
Those who haven’t heard are
1) blind–their eyes need to be opened.
2) to turn from darkness to light through missionary effort.
3) under the power of Satan
4) to turn to God and receive
5) the forgiveness of sins and
6) be sanctified by faith in Jesus. This results
7) in being placed among those who have 5 & 6.
In Ephesians 2:12, Gentiles are
1) separate from Christ,
2) have no hope
3) without God
in verse 3, they are Objects of Wrath.
Go and preach the gospel to all nations.
@Cherylu, What exactly do you think impute means if not real culpabillity? If we have real culpabillity then we have no excuse.
Jeremy –
I hold to total depravity (therefore not a Pelagian). Up to this point you and I are holding hands but from here on we let go.
I also hold to the Ariminian view of prevenient grace (but see no need to wear an Arminian badge). Prevenient grace as you know does not save you, but makes you saveable by enabling you to respond to the call of the gospel. From there on, people like me believe that the sinner has to ‘decide’ whether he/she wants to follow Christ or reject Him. If he rejects Christ his final destination in hell is wholly deserved.
So, we have NO issue with someone ending up in hell because they consciously reject Christ INSTEAD of receiving Him. The word ‘instead’ does not factor into your equation because ALL one can do is reject Christ.
So (once again) while it is fair to be judged for rejecting Christ while you could have repented of your sins, it is does NOT seem fair to be judged when you can not repent of their sins.
@John,
Then as far as I can tell we pretty much agree as far as this discussion goes. Aside from my recent posts dealing with the analogy of a crack house I have not really tried to address the issue of man’s ability/inability to respond to the gospel. I know Sam goes into that a bit, but the biggest issue I have been trying to address is the fact that all men everywhere abide under God’s wrath and unless they repent and believe the gospel they will justly perish.
You recognize that with original sin comes real guilt yes? Thus all men really are guilty in the eyes of the law even if they never received a gospel witness. That is the main issue Sam was dealing with and which has seemed to come under attack in this discussion. I am fine going no further in this discussion. Would you say we are in agreement as far as I have just gone?
Say I teach middle school algebra. Say I teach middle school algebra but my class is a bunch of stray cats that I got from the shelter. At the end of the semester, when I punish all of these cats for failng algebra, is it really going to appease the state psychiatrist when I tell her that the cats had every opportunity to learn the subject if only they had turned from napping and catching mice and sought mathematical insight? That the room was full of algebra textbooks and worked examples on the board and all these cats had to do was call out to me to teach them the subject and I’d have done so?
Now compare this to the situation where I teach a group of eleven-year-olds, who are capable by nature of learning and of wanting to learn, who could never possbly hope to learn on their own, and who apart from my efforts would not learn, and yet are capable of choosing to pay attention and yet mostly choose to completely ignore and despise math in general. Won’t even their parents…
Jeremy I don’t speak for others here, these are my own views, though I think most of the others will be close.
” …the biggest issue I have been trying to address is the fact that all men everywhere abide under God’s wrath…
Of course, hence John 3:36
”You recognize that with original sin comes real guilt yes?”
Of course, hence “by nature children of wrath” Ephesians 2:3 & also Romans 5:12 fits
”Thus all men really are guilty in the eyes of the law…”
Of course, hence “the record of debt that stood against us” Colossians 2:14, Isaiah 53:6 & Romans 3:23. Also I’m not sure but “he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” Hebrews 9:15 could possibly extend beyond the Jewish nation given the Scripture’s global view of sin “But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin” Galatians 3:22
JFDU
We appear to be in the same camp. I think a enabled choice must take place which is offered to all persons. I know there are problems with this doctrine as well but cannot go to where Jeremy is with EVERYONE not having a chance. I agree with Steve and Cherylu that this is not the God I love and serve. He can correct me when I meet him sometime in the future and I am sure there is alot I haven’t believed in correctly or maybe he’ll be more interested in my love for other human beings evident in all the Love commands in his holy word. You are correct Jeremey that my view of original sin and imputed sin are different than yours. God Bless you in your walk.
In him
[…] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/04/bell%E2%80%99s-hell-and-the-destiny-of-those-who%E2%80… […]
No worries Jim.
Btw, do you know how to confuse a Calvinist? Offer them three cakes and say it’s up to them to ‘choose’. And you must have heard by now that Calvinists never return a faulty light bulb to the store because they accept that the bulb was predestined to fail! 😉
John from Down Under,
I needed a laugh this morning!
But I bet there will be some zingers coming back the other way now too.
I actually come from a conservative Baptist background. P&P serves a valid and important part as it does make accessible theology of all types. I sincerely believe that discussion is good but realize we may all end up with a slightly different stroll but the same path. Thanks for the pitch of humor JFDU , do you guys not realize that only us baptists will be in heaven (LOL)
Jim,
Sorry, but I’ll bet you’ll be surprised at all the non Baptists you find there! 🙂
re Jeremy K @ 123: That another argument may fail does not prove that your argument is either correct or better.
re JK @ 136, “You recognize that with original sin comes real guilt yes? Thus all men really are guilty in the eyes of the law even if they never received a gospel witness. That is the main issue Sam was dealing with and which has seemed to come under attack in this discussion. I am fine going no further in this discussion.”
The Bible is quite clear (Ezekiel, for example) that children are not morally culpable (i.e., guilty) for any sins their fathers do. That does not mean, however, that we are not born damaged and cursed or that it is possible for a person to life a life without sin. We are indeed all born cursed to sin and die (once).
So, yes we are all affected by original sin, but no we are not guilty of it. Imputation of original guilt may be a reformed doctrine, but it is not a doctrine that all Chrsitians subscribe to.
J.
@ John I.
Thanks for pointing out that distinction. I never gave this a lot of thought but you certainly make a good point.
If you examine the text a bit more microscopically (Rom 5:12), it doesn’t say that we are imputed with Adam’s guilt, but with his sinfulness (the propensity to sin). Eventually we begin to sin (in practice) and that’s what makes us guilty. It would seem so from the text “death spread to all men because all sinned”. That’s why (perhaps) “the dead were judged by what was written in the books according to what they had done” Rev 20:20
And the “by nature children of wrath” in Eph 2:3 is perhaps alluding to our nature rather than our guilt. Otherwise a newborn with the umbilical cord still attached is condemned to hell (some Lutherans believe this and it’s a very troublesome thought)
John I and John fDU,
I have been doing some rethinking of that whole issue too.
Do you know if there are other verses that teach we actually are given Adam’s guilt?
I was raised in a Lutheran Church and that is certainly what we were taught. Although exceptions were generally made for babies.
I haven’t quite finished reading the comments, so I apologize if this has been mentioned already…
In the interest of understanding what people are talking about, I re-read Romans 1.
It seems to me that this passage is saying those who suppress the truth that is revealed to them through nature are given over to their sinful desires, and thus are deserving of death. What it does not say, as far as I can see, is whether God will choose to show mercy on these folks and spare them (us?) their justly due punishment.
This passage says those who suppress the truth DESERVE punishment – which I think most of us would agree with. But it seems that the “wrath of God” here is the handing-over of people to their sinful natures – not NECESSARILY eternal punishment in hell. In fact, I’m pretty sure eternal punishment in hell isn’t actually addressed in this passage at all.
@Lizard,
You need to keep on reading 1:18 through to 3:19-20 which serves and the summary for the entire first section of Romans. Then in 3:21 Paul transitions to show that the remedy to this sittuation is apart form works of law and is in fact the gospel.
If there were other avenues of escape Paul’s question later in 10:13-14 asking how they will call on Christ if they have not heard of him makes no sense and lacks all force for his call to missions that he goes on to make if the following verse based on it.
@Cherylu
The following texts (ESV) seem pretty clear to me:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned–
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
So when Adam sinned we learn that “All sinned” and that we were “MAde sinners” and that we all suffered sin’s penalty and “died” (because we are deserving of the punishment)
But let me point your attention to the second passage. The verb is passive. We were MADE sinners. And Paul says that this happened in the exact same way were are made rightous in Christ, which is by imputation. In Christ the Law treats us as rightious just as in Adam the law treats us as guilty. Do you see my point and why I have been saying I think…