Repost from the great crash 0f 08
I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. Their theology goes something like this:
All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the sight of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.
I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.
First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:
Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity
The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?
Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?
You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.
I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.
The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).
This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.
This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.
It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.
Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.
462 replies to ""One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity" . . . and other stupid statments"
I have not read all the comments but I thought condemnation came by one man, Adam. In Adam we all die. White liars, murders, gossips from the smallest of sinners to the greatest we are who we are because of Adam’s sin even if we do not commit the same sin Adam committed. I think I agree it is not the white lie that sends us to hell for all eternity but that we are dead in sin and, as you said,we are at enmity with God. This is why we need to be born again. On top of this I think that men are now condemned by their rejection of Christ, which is just a continuation of their hatred of God. This is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light.
Michael, I wonder what you would think about Kalomiros’ essay The River of Fire. He is Eastern Orthodox, and far FAR to strident in his denunciation of Western theology, but I think he makes some really interesting points.
Take this section:
Now if anyone is perplexed and does not understand how it is possible for God’s love to render anyone pitifully wretched and miserable and even burning as it were in flames, let him consider the elder brother of the prodigal son. Was he not in his father’s estate? Did not everything in it belong to him? Did he not have his father’s love? Did his father not come himself to entreat and beseech him to come and take part in the joyous banquet? What rendered him miserable and burned him with inner bitterness and hate? Who refused him anything? Why was he not joyous at his brother’s return? Why did he not have love either toward his father or toward his brother? Was it not because of his wicked, inner disposition? Did he not remain in hell because of that? And what was this hell? Was it any separate place? Were there any instruments of torture? Did he not continue to live in his father’s house? What separated him from all the joyous people in the house if not his own hate and his own bitterness? Did his father, or even his brother, stop loving him? Was it not precisely this very love which hardened his heart more and more? Was it not the joy that made him sad? Was not hatred burning in his heart, hatred for his father and his brother, hatred for the love of his father toward his brother and for the love of his brother toward his father? This is hell: the negation of love; the return of hate for love; bitterness at seeing innocent joy; to be surrounded by love and to have hate in one’s heart. This is the eternal condition of all the damned. They are all dearly loved. They are all invited to the joyous banquet. They are all living in God’s Kingdom, in the New Earth and the New Heavens. No one expels them. Even if they wanted to go away they could not flee from God’s New Creation, nor hide from God’s tenderly loving omnipresence. Their only alternative would be, perhaps, to go away from their brothers and search for a bitter isolation from them, but they could never depart from God and His love.
Yes, Cadis, I agree.
Also, I do want to make it clear that I am not saying that God’s wrath only comes because of the one sin of unbelief. God’s wrath comes because of our sins (plural).
5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
6 He will render to each one according to his works:
(Rom 2:5-6 ESV)
But the eternal punishment is present because of our nature and eternal rebellion, even if all the sins we committed on earth are at some point “paid” for in a penal sort of way.
CMP,
I think I understand better what you mean. Still not sure I really agree with you, however.
“CMP,
I think I understand better what you mean. Still not sure I really agree with you, however.”
Cheryl, I actually do that that this is a sin that just might send you to hell for all eternity. 🙂
Wonders, not bad.
Micahel,
The only thing I might push back on (besides the whole Calvinism thing) is this idea of a little white lie, etc. Not because of the evangelical “not quite perfect != perfect” thing, but rather because we are more than what we know. There are no insignificant moments or choices – for all we know with modern science, the only real meaning in the entire universe lies within them. And what a universe is man! Somehow I know that there truly is a sense in which the slightest impiety to God or callousness to a neighbor from such a magnificent creature must merit everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. There is an ironic dignity to Hell – that the heart of man really is infinite, and thus accomplishes heights of good and depths of evil beyond the tepid expectations of modern culture. I revere humanity too much to be a universalist.
So, while I think I agree with you, I also think there is truth hidden in the stupidity. Not that God wills anything but our salvation (there I go being non-Calvinist again), but more of Lewis in the Weight of Glory – if only we knew what we really were, and what our choices really DID!
Wonders,
You said that any impiety towards God or callousness towards a neighbor must merit everlasting punishment. That is what I have always been taught and have believed. Not, however because humans are such a magnificent creature, but because God is so utterly holy Himself.
And the verses stating that the wages of sin is death and the soul that sins shall surely die are ones that have been used to back up that belief.
Death is, of course, in this understanding, eternal death.
If the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement is correct and Christ paid the exact penalty for sin, then we are only to conclude that sin doesn’t condemn one to hell for eternity or else Christ would still be in hell.
13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
Since he remains faithful even if we are faithless and cannot deny himself it would seem that if anything would keep us in hell for all eternity it would be unbelief. Salvation is by grace through faith so the converse would be condemnation due to disbelief.
Wonders, you are always much too profound for me my friend. I could not really understand what you said, but I bet it is truly good 🙂
However, I would back YOU up a bit and say that I as a Calvinist DO believe God will the salvation of all people…I just don’t think he makes it so for all people for some mysterious reason hidden in the deep council of the Godhead.
I think explicit rebellion is the result of our sinfulness; but “our sinfulness” is precisely our implicit rebellion. Not all of us shake our fists at the sky and curse God; but we all place ourselves above God in our own hearts.
When we give money to the poor while God isn’t first in our hearts, our righteousness of sacrificial giving is sin — because our giving money is the result of our rebellion and idolatry (putting something before God).
-Wm
One of the most sobering thoughts I have about judgement is that there will be many people who think they are going to heaven but find out different.
“Many will say to me, Lord did I not do good works?”
Exceedingly sad.
Also, seems that we will be permited to give a defense before the Lord.
I already know what I am going to say if permitted to speak: “Lord, you died for me.”
I think that will be enough.
Stan,
Good thoughts.
I do believe that the Lord wanted to give us something tangible (from outside of ourselves) to give us the assurance of our salvation.
I believe that is why he instituted the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion. In these things, he gives us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.,..totally apart from anything we do, say, feel, or think.
To think I have been a believer for 30 years and have never heard such a clear explanation.
PS
Michael, this is rapidly becomming one of my favorite blogs. The pastor/elders and web minister of our church love it too.
You’ve pulled a very minor point out of my text, but I’ll address it briefly.
I was talking about fatalism, which is the false belief that God dooms us without regard to anything we do and against our will. Calvinism rejects this utterly and uniformly.
The problem with the quotes you pulled is that they mistake compatibilism for fatalism. Compatibilism is the observation that free choice is completely compatible with determinism (in general); specifically, that our free choice is completely compatible with God’s ability to know our choices before we make them (even from eternity past). Fatalism differs from this crucially in that it would allow God to set our behavior without having to set our will — we would therefore wind up doing something without actually intending to do it.
To use your terms, God decreed that some men be reprobate, and doomed to an eternity in hell, BUT they could “do something about it” simply by repenting; but they will not because they are in rebellion against God.
To tie this back to the subject of the original post: when a person is condemned to hell, the only possible reason God has to condemn them forever is that God knows that they will never repent.
Therefore, we reach two things:
1. The everlasting condemnation proves that they were condemned for an ongoing sin, not for a past, never-repeatable sin.
2. The everlasting condemnation proves that God knows that they will never stop doing that ongoing sin — if they were to repent, God would forgive them (He loves doing that).
-Wm
That’s beautiful. It’s also completely and utterly without possibility of salvation, though — isn’t it? If hell is eternal after death, why should repentance before death change your eternal destiny? It would seem that one single sin against a human would condemn you forever.
It also seems to suffer from a lack of need for God — sin is defined only in the context of man, and even a perfect relationship with God wouldn’t allow God to forgive sin against man.
-Wm
I think this fallacy is simply a logical outgrowth of having only two destinations in the afterlife. You’re either blissfully saved, or horribly damned.
One or the other.
Therefore, it’s only logical to trivialize the differences in degree of damned-ness. If you’re damned already, then who really cares how big or little the sins were?
I mean, I agree with what you’re trying to do here Michael. But the problem is the underlying worldview more than anything else.
That’s a tough problem. The Bible doesn’t address it in any way, and every denomination seems to have their own answer. They include:
1. Covenantal membership: children in the New Covenant are covered by the New Covenant until they rebel against it.
2. All babies go to hell. Ouch.
3. All babies go to heaven. Okay, but why?
4. We don’t know, but we’ll find out later that God’s been just.
I don’t know enough to back any of them. The last one looks nice, but I do like the definiteness of #1 (but that’s an awful reason to believe something).
I don’t think anything in the Bible requires asserting any proposition in order to be condemned.
the Bible is very clear that God loves to accept repentance and turn from His promised wrath. He’s used promises of judgment many times in order to cause people to repent. (Remember how annoyed Jonah was by that?)
The problem is that God hasn’t simply promised “wrath” or “judgment”; He’s promised that it’s everlasting. So it seems necessary that there be no repentance.
Are you implying that you believe that people will repent in hell, and thereby have their sentences “commuted”? If so, can you support it by some means other than simply thinking that it would be nice if it were true?
I’m not sure you’re claiming this — I truly can’t tell.
Where’s that in the Bible?
This doesn’t work well for me — I’ve previously tried telling someone that I don’t hold the doctrine he thinks I hold; people usually aren’t willing to believe it without proof. So if many Christians believe that hell is everlasting and there’s no escape, simply claiming that it isn’t won’t be enough; you have to show that the Bible requires that hell be otherwise.
What do you mean?
-Wm
North American christianity often reifies sin. At a popular level, many fail to observe the use of literary technique in the Bible’s discussion of sin, and so talk of sin as if it really were some kind of substance. But sin is not a substance; sin is what people do. Once done, it is gone and no longer observable; the historical moment has past.
However, sin proceeds from, is indulged in, is performed by, actual people. What the “white lie” is indicative of, when it occurs, is the person who tells it and her nature. It is the person who goes to hell, not the sin, because of the kind of person that she is.
The little white lie is irrelevant because everyone is going to hell unless God intervenes. Augustine had no problem with unelect infants going to hell, and Calvin had no problem with God predestining the fall of all humankind and their consequent initial sinful state.
“Again they object: were they not previously predestined by God’s ordinance to that corruption which is now claimed as the cause of condemnation? When, therefore, they perish in their corruption, they but pay the penalties of that misery in which Adam fell by the predestination of God, and dragged his posterity headlong after him. Is he not, then, unjust who so cruelly deludes his creatures? Of course, I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will. And this is what I said to begin with, that we must always at last return to the sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in him.” (Calvin’s Institutes, 3:23.4)
“Yet predestination, whether they [the objectors] will [admit it] or not, manifests itself in Adam’s posterity. For it did not take place by reason of nature that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation…. Scripture proclaims that all mortals were bound over to eternal death in the person of one man [Adam] (cf. Rom. 5:12 ff.). Since this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the wonderful plan of God . . . Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?… The decree is horrible indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree . . .” (3:23.7)
“Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! . . . For the first man fell because the Lord had judged it to be expedient; why he so judged is hidden from us. Yet it is certain that he so judged because he saw that thereby the glory of his name is duly revealed.” (3:23.8)
In light of Calvin’s statements (in my above post), CMP’s following statements make no sense: “It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. . . . They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Um, no. According to Calvin, people are in hell because that is where God has, before time, determined and ordained that they will be. According to Calvin, it is as false, to state that they are in hell because that is where they want to be, as it is to say that people are in heaven because that is where they want to be. People are in heaven because God ordains them to be there, and in hell because God ordains that too. In the face of the real horror of such a conclusion, Calvin is satisfied with saying, “I don’t get it either, but God said it, so shut up”.
“The reprobate wish to be considered excusable in sinning, on the
ground that they cannot avoid the necessity of sinning, especially
since this sort of necessity is cast upon them by God’s ordaining. But
we deny that they are duly excused, because the ordinance of God, by
which they complain that they are destined to destruction, has its own
equity [or justice]—unknown, indeed, to us but very sure.” (Calvin’s Institutes, 3:23:9)
“Then after starting the objection, Is God unjust? instead of employing what would have been the surest and plainest defense of his justice—viz. that God had recompensed Esau according to his wickedness, he is contented with a different solution—viz. that the reprobate are expressly raised up, in order that the glory of God may thereby be displayed. At last, he concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.” (3:22:11)
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” (3:21:5)
John, not so much cutting and pasting please.
Calvinism allows for tension in human responsibility and divine sovereignty. Just because there is some sense that God willed people to hell, this does not mean that the instrumental and responsible cause is not their own will.
However, let’s not get off the subject of the original post.
Will one lie send someone to hell for all eternity. I don’t think so. There is no biblical or theological basis for saying such in my opinion. People are in hell for all eternity because they are eternally antagonistic to God. Why? Because it is their nature to be such. Why didn’t Christ spend eternity in hell? He did not have the condemned nature.
Michael, I am also a Calvinist, but we know there is no homogeneity even among Calvinists. 🙂
I don’t have a problem with God monergistically saving some babies, but my point was that He does not. Just as not everyone is saved because they are not a member of the elect, neither are all babies elected. Why would we apply sovereign election to adults who were born in sin and not to babies who were also born in sin. This is just a theological pet peeve of mine. 😀
I cannot help in all rational and biblical honesty but reject the evangelical theology that all sins are eternally damning and that
Christ bore the punishment for these sins. No matter how you look at it, it makes a mockery of justice and God to be a monster.
Christ’s death is best understood as a symbolic sacrifice to end all sacrifice and not as the “wages of sin” in any penal substitutionary sense.
The metaphors which make penal substitution look loving all have in mind a mediator (Christ) protecting us from a great unavoidable Evil (Hell). This is to miss out on the fact that the great unavoidable evil in the penal model is God the “loving” Father who just cannot bring himself to forgive us without seeing some punishment.
Why have evangelicals missed out on all the forgiveness in the Bible which occurred pre-Cross, apart from sacrifice, dependant necessarily and sufficiently on repentance (ala Ezek 18). Moreover why, if Christ’s blood is sufficient for Christians, do they need to repent or stop sinning?
Nay, only God is absolute, and He can forgvie at his discretion apart from any word, principle or law – even his own. God is constantly changing his mind and repealing punishments and it’s His personal Truth and Justice which rule not any formulation thereof.
Wm
First, I do not believe that personal sins have any relationship to condemnation. No sin is imputed to the individual committing the sin. Here is 2 Cor 5:19… In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them…
Remember, God has condemned all so that he can have mercy on all (Rom 11.32).
On babies going to heaven
Here’s two verses that illustrate this…
2 Sam. 12:23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Am I able to bring him back? I will go to him, but he cannot return to me!’”
David states that his son will be in heaven. Why? Because there was no basis for his condemnation.
“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud wailing, Rachel weeping for her children, and she did not want to be comforted, because they were gone.”
But notice how this vs is concluded in Jer 31
31:16 The Lord says to her,
“Stop crying! Do not shed any more tears!
For your heartfelt repentance will be rewarded.
Your children WILL RETURN from the land of the enemy.
I, the Lord, affirm it.
The children were murdered, but ALL will return. Again, there is no basis for their condemnation. Why? People are condemned BY THEIR WORDS… Matt 12.37!!
What is also critical to note – we now have TWO condemnations to deal with, one at birth, and one upon asserting something.
I don’t think anything in the Bible requires asserting any proposition in order to be condemned.
See previous comment
Are you implying that you believe that people will repent in hell, and thereby have their sentences “commuted”?
Yes. God so loved the world… and wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. This love and desire for all to be saved is not given a time limit (but, I don’t believe in the Calvinistic system, not at all). The reason anyone is in hell is because they believe not (Matt 12.37: this is an assertion) on the Jesus Christ. [This is the eternal sin… for as long as one rejects God’s offer of salvation, they will remain in hell. This was my point when I quoted Wm. Craig. I think this really does settle the issue by reconciling all factors.
Also… John 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, BECAUSE he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.
Finally, what did I mean by this… No, the eternal nature of being in hell is not put back on the unbelievers!!!
The ‘not’ should be ‘now.’ And the point is that people in hell remain there FOR AS LONG AS they maintain their rejection of God’s offer of salvation.
All Calvinists should read the book Who Can Be Saved, by Tiessen. Here is a Calvinist trying to think this issue through. His conclusions are startling, and yet he doesn’t go far enough.
Bottom line… I do not associate personal sins with eternal condemnation. As stated above, personal sins were imputed to Christ on the…
Eddie,
Many will stand before Him and say Lord, Lord, we have done such ans such in your name, and He will say to them, “depart from me, I never knew you.”
What’s that all about then?
What a way to start a morning! Reading this post and all the responses! For what it’s worth, all references to C.S. Lewis’ theology on the afterlife should take into account that C.S. Lewis followed faithfully in the steps of George MacDonald, who allowed for salvation even from hell if only the sinner would repent. This I have trouble with, because it really does seem from Scripure that the only ‘chance’ one has is in this lifetime. However, it seems to me that both Calvinists and Arminians and all shades on both sides and in between sooner or later come up against the mystery that all the logic and reason in the world cannot go beyond, for if it could than we would be equal to Him and that we can never be, even in eternity. It therefore becomes us to get down on our knees in humble adoration and then get up and preach the everlasting gospel. I hope to do this on Sunday but for today, there are beans in the garden and blueberries on the hill that need to be picked. Was it on this site Michael that I read something about the theology of the mundane? Blessings everyone!
Michael. I enjoy your posts, but I just really disagree with this one.
I think you’re making an assumption that all people in Hell suffer the same punishment. I don’t. I think there are degrees of suffering and how much you suffer will be in proportion to the effect of sin in your life. (And I don’t believe all sins are equal either. I think Jesus made it clear when he told Pilate that the one who handed you over to me is guilty of a greater sin.) Yet I think we need to see what sin is. Here is a starter list I put together. What does sin deny of God?
It denies his omnipotence in saying he can’t force his law.
His omniscience in saying he knows not what is best.
His omnipresence in saying he sees not.
His omnibenevolence in saying he isn’t truly giving us our good.
His truth in denying that he is being honest about what is good for us.
His holiness in that we think we can live differently than we ought and be okay.
His justice in saying he won’t do right.
His wisdom in saying his way is not right.
His sovereignty in saying he has no right to rule.
We could go on.
Now you say one lie won’t send someone to Hell. What will it do for them? Will they be allowed to enter into Heaven with one unforgiven sin? If supposedly Christ forgave all sins except one, could we enter into Heaven?
I don’t see how and in conclusion, I ultimately see all sin as to a different degree wanting to make the same claim. It’s divine treason and the sinner seeking to make himself God.
Nick,
Thanks for the comments. I agree that there are degrees of suffering, but my point in the post is that the worst part of the suffering of hell cannot be its intensity (however one were to qualify that), but its longevity. Therefore, even the least amout of “lashes” in hell is unimaginable because it is eternal!
No one who goes to hell will ever get out…therefore we must explain this. Why is hell eternal? What I am saying is that the answer “Even the smallest sin is deserving of infinite punishment” is unbiblical and, in my opinion, greatly misrepresents the character of God. The better explaination is that everyone who goes to hell goes their as sinners and as rebellious. Therefore, they never get out. It is not because of the infinite offense of going 36 in a 35, but because of the infinite offense of their perpetual rejection of God. They are in hell for all eternity precisely because they are children of the first Adam and choose to remain such.
Thanks Michael. I think we are probably looking at infinite and eternal as the same. I think the punishment of Hell would be eternal even for one sin. I do not think it would be the same however as that of several sins. (Assuming one little sin rather than say one mass murder over a dozen little white lies.)
Yes. Everyone who goes there is rebellious and in fact, prove their sinfulness because then, they are not guilty of one sin. They are guilty of that sin and guilty of the sin of rejecting forgiveness. They would rather cling to that sin than cling to the one who can forgive them. It is loving that sin more than God and then ultimately, loving self more than God.
As I ponder it then, there cannot be just one sin in this sense. If one dies without repentance, one is not guilty of one sin but a multitude of sins.
Why are we assuming “eternal” means a never-ending time period on a progressive timeline? Why assume that someone in hell is going to be their for the rest of their endless existence?
I would think that modern advances in cosmology and quantum physics would make us a little more careful about assuming a linear afterlife.
Marc, your comments are awfully dismissive of a very strong community of exegetes who would disagree. The ease of your dissuasion makes it hard to engage with you too seriously (without being dismissive of your comments!!)
However, I don’t want the thread to go this way, but I will say that your opinions really could not be squared with Pauline thinking on the subject. Paul was very particular about this very point that the cross was a satisfaction (in some way) of his own righteousness.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Rom 3:21-26 ESV)
Notice, the cross includes those who preceded it. God’s forbearance was only possible because the cross was a part of the decree to life for all people. Paul’s point is that without the cross God would not be righteous in saving anyone.
Therefore, God can’t just decided to save people without a satisfaction of his righteousness through the cross any more than he could just decide to cease to be God.
Sorry about the length of the copy and pastes, but I thought it important to go back to the source documents of Calvinism. Calvin had no need for any “intermediate” causes but was comfortable with stating that God sent them to hell for His own reasons, which He is not inclined to tell us.
The quotes from Calvin, as well as the rest of my posts were to the effect that the “little white lie” posting by CMP is both irrelevant and illogical (?and therefore stupider than the proposition that a single white lie will send one to hell?).
According to Calvin, someone’s presence in hell is founded on God’s ordaining and not on lies, whether they be white or black or grey.
Furthermore, one would not utter a white lie unless one had the sort of nature that would put one into hell in the first place. Everyone is born with and has the type of nature that will result in white, gray, and black lies. Everyone is destined for hell prior to the telling of a white lie. Only those who are ordained for heaven get to skip hell.
So, (apparently contrary to) CMP, a person who sins only once by telling one white lie will be sent to hell forever. The caveat being that one is not sent to hell “because of” the lie but because of the ordination of God. The white lie is merely an external evidence of the sin nature and sinful heart. One is never sent to hell for any sin, nor for any accumulation of sin. Everyone is either destined for hell by the ordaining of God, or destined for heaven by His ordaining. Both classes of people sin, and their ultimate destiny is not dependent on how many sins they commit, nor on how bad those sins are. Moreover, according to Calvin everyone from birth possesses the type of nature that results in hell unless God pulls one out of the fire. So CMP turns out to be correct, but not because of the “white lie” issue, but because there is no single sin of any kind that will send one to hell.
So, hypothetical person “A” who sins only once in her entire life, by telling a white lie, is going to hell–but going to hell because that is where God has ordained her to go. Hypothetical person “A” has a doppleganger “B” who also only sins once in her entire life by telling a white lie–but “B” is going to heaven because that is where God has ordained her to go.
[my quotes from Calvin’s Institutes are in my posts 69 and 70]
CMP’s response in his post 71 (“this does not mean that the instrumental and responsible cause is not their own will”) is a red herring and not relevant. The so-called instrumental causes are also ordained by God and occur because of His ordaining them. The occurance of the so-called instrumental causes merely reveal what God has ordained, and they “belong” to the individual only because they occur through the individual’s material and non-material components.
Lutheran theology states (what the Bible states) that “God died for and fagives the whole world.”
And that He desires ALL to come to faith.
Some do come to faith, and many do not.
When we are saved, we give all the credit to God.
When we are lost, WE take all the blame…not God.
Different than Calvinism…but we believe it is Biblical.
Steve, that is not different than Calvinism, only a particular form of Calvinism…not mine.
John, you are still only critiquing a particular interpretation of the Calvinistic system including a particular interpretation of Calvin.
What you seem to have a problem with is Supralapsarianism. That is the only way your critique will apply. Does not mean you have accomplished anything with regard to this thread since even supralapsarian would allow for the human perspective of the instrumental cause and deem theological discussion about such necessary and appropriate.
I, however, and not a supralapsarian, so it is very easy for me to be a Calvinist and hold to the position of this blog. In fact, most Evangelical-Calvinists are not supralapsarian, but either sub- or infra-.
Lapsarianism (when and whom God predestined in relation to the fall / lapse) is irrelevant to my comments, because neither my comments nor the original post are concerned with whether God chose some specific people to be saved before or after he ordained the fall. Infralapsarianism (infra / after the fall; the Fall was planned, but it was not planned with reference to who would be saved). The Synod of Dort (1618) sided with infralapsarianism (Canons of Dort, First Point of Doctrine, Article 7), and the Westminster Confession of Faith also teaches the infralapsarian view.
Hence, according to the infralapsarian view God planned (i.e., logically planned; there is no time dimension) that humankind would fall prior to (i.e., logically prior to) the decision to save or damn any individuals. That is, logically decree of the Fall must precede predestination to salvation or damnation because one must first need to be saved from something.
Thus infralapsarianism precisely fits the argument I made. We are first, logically, all damned and going to hell. The white lie is a red herring. We go to hell whether or not we tell a white lie, and whether or not the only sin we have ever done was a white lie. We are destined to hell when in the womb and prior to any acquired (consciously willed) sin, such as a white lie.
I am supported in what I say by Calvin himself:
“The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb. It was the greatest impudence to deny this. . . . Surely there is no ambiguity in David’s confession, “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Ps. 51:5). ” (Institutes, 2:1:5)
“We thus see that the impurity of parents is transmitted to their children, so that all, without exception, are originally depraved. . . . We must, therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature, Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that, accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly vitiated.” (Institutes, 2:1:6)
“There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed. Thus, from a corrupt root corrupt branches proceeding, transmit their corruption to the saplings which spring from them. The children being vitiated in their parent, conveyed the taint to the grandchildren; in other words, corruption commencing in Adam, is, by perpetual descent, conveyed from those preceding to those coming after them. The cause of the contagion is neither in the substance of the flesh nor the soul, but God was pleased to ordain that those gifts which he had bestowed on the first man, that man should lose as well for his descendants as for himself.” (Institutes, 2:1:7)
Thanks John. We are simply going to have to agree to disagree here…For you are really losing me in your argumentation and I don’t agree that I cannot be the type of Calvinist that I am and not profess what the original post says. Your arguments sound like you don’t know what I was arguing for. This is probably my fault as I may not have been very clear.
Thanks Michael. Originally I though I disagreed with your post. Then I thought I agreed with it, but not for the reasons you gave. Then I realized that underlying your reasons was a more basic understanding of human nature and God’s saving intervention. So, yes, I do agree with you that one white lie will not send us to hell.
My point is that the whole focus on the white lie issue is misplaced and irrelevant (and therefore, as you put it, stupid). We are all destined to hell unless God saves us. Destined from in the womb, and before we acquire any consciously willed sins such as white lies. It is inevitable that we will do the white lie because of the hell sending defect that we have from birth.
CMP,
I have quick observation about your assertion that Evangelical Calvinists are by and large not supralapsarians. Maybe I’m misinterpreting their quotes, but it seems to me that a lot of the big names in Evangelical Calvinism, such as John Piper, are supralapsarians.
Marc,
I have a little trouble following you. You say something like this:
My mind naturally goes to Hebrews, where it discusses the sacrifices of the Old Testament–whether they could ever save, and their relationship to Christ. Particularly Hebrew 10-11. If your idea that sacrifice is powerless is what God is teaching us, why is there no hint of it? Why does it say precisely the opposite, when it explains the sacrifices of the Old Testament vs the sacrifice of Christ?
It says that they could never take away sins; that much agrees with you. But it doesn’t give your explanation for why! It doesn’t say sacrifice is meaningless. On the contrary, it points to the power of Christ’s sacrifice, and how the saints of old actually needed us. They’re linked to the body of Christ.
Ezek. 18 doesn’t leave out sacrifices because sacrifice is unnecessary; it leaves it out because the sacrifice of Christ is what grounded the forgiveness of everyone, for all time!
I’m thinking of 10:12-15
Christ’s single sacrifice is what saves for all time. That seems to be the same thought in chapter 11, where it says,
Taking away sins, being perfected, and being sanctified are all treated together here.
The Bible grounds forgiveness of everyone at all times in Christ’s sacrifice. God acts true to his attribute of justice and his attribute of love and his attribute of mercy, all without compromise of any. He doesn’t set aside justice in order to forgive, he satisfies it.
Not to derail the conversation, but though I still hold to the Penal Substitution model I have as of late questioned this model of the atonement to some extent. I think perhaps the issue for me is it has become in many circles the only way in which the atonement is viewed despite that both the Bible and church history have talked about it from a number of different perspectives. The concept of a substitutionary atonement wasn’t articulated until Anselm in the 11th-12th Century and penal substitution wasn’t articulated until Calvin in the 16th Century. Prior to this the vast majority of the church including those in the Early Church held to a ransom model of the atonement. Now this doesn’t make the Penal Substitution model wrong or anything, but it does give me pause at the idea of thinking this is the only way the atonement should be viewed.
I think I’m slowly coming to the point C.S. Lewis was at in Mere Christianity when he wrote,
“We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.”
Michael, space does not allow a full exposition of my views but I assure you: I’m aware of your perspective and arguments, I really am, they are very widespread, orthodox and well expounded. They’re just not making any sense sense rationally or biblically and it’s no wonder thinking people reject it.
The idea evangelicals offer, and you seem to share, is that there is some sort of overarching LAW which even God is under which demands punishment for crimes making the cross the means by which he can forgive us. This is the “Deep Magic” Aslan refers to in the Narnia books.
Aside from the fact that God obviously forgave and forgives apart from and before the cross Paul does not say in Rom 3:25 “He did this to maintain/legitimate his righteousness in passing over sins” but in order to “show”. This has lead me in the direction of the symbolic cross which shows love and confirms forgiveness but does not necessarily and sufficiently effect it. Simplistically, Christ paying (the Father?) for our sins implies out forgiveness was bought and not granted by Mercy or Grace. Yet Mercy triumphs Grace does it not?
Obviously much more needs to be said but I think we really need to start asking if Jesus death was the necessary and sufficient condition for our and others (particularly OT) forgiveness. Rationally this is hard to maintain, Biblically it’s far from clear and relies on an uneven reading of even Paul, glossing over key passages like Rom 2 which have to be taken ironically or hypothetically (v10 or 13 for example).
Marc,
Since evangelicals emphatically reject the idea that God’s character of justice is somehow “over” him (anymore than his character of love & mercy is “over” him), why would you expect this argument to have any force?
Jugulum, I agree with Hebrews that animal sacrifice could not take away sin. I see animal sacrifice as not the means but the sign of reconciliation in the OT, reparation if you will.
I must take issue with those who quote “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” missing out that the same verse applies this “law” specifically to Torah and not universally to all humans. Caesar sacrificing a goat would achieve and, by the same reasoning, us Gentiles, not being under Torah are not obliged to offer sacrifice making it questionable whether Jesus death had any atoning effect. We would need to take a detailed look at Romans and Galatians and see when Torah is mean and when a general and universal “law” is meant to see the difference.
The main point I want to make is that God does not forgive Israel apart from their repentance on the basis of animal sacrifice alone. The Babylonian exile or the AD70 destruction are spectacular examples of God not desiring blood sacrifice but true repentance and obedience. God always forgives repentant sinners because he is merciful. The cross seems to be a symbolic way of confirming this promise. It is no mercy for a judge to forgive a trespass yet demand payment by another. Calling Jesus God doesn’t solve this dilemma.
Marc,
Perhaps to clarify and agree with what Jugulum said. I don’t think God’s character for love can be emphasized enough, yet at the same time it can’t be emphasized to the exclusion of other characteristics that make God God. The Bible tells us that parts of God’s character are that he is holy and just. Thus the idea that God demands justice for wrongs committed doesn’t come from a law outside of Himself but from His own character as a just being. There certainly are Abelardian Exemplary elements to the atonement, but again to view it solely through this lens I think both cheapens the atonement and misses it’s full glory.
Marc,
Regarding the idea of a law over God, I apologize for my last comment… It was short, and a bit snarky. (I wrestle with a tendency to become snarky any time I’m in a quick exchange of comments. Which gets me into trouble sometimes. I need to be slower in my replies.)
So, I’ll ask for gracious interpretation on your part–please try to read it divorced from its brevity or tone of challenge. I want to be less confrontational, but I’m very earnest about the point.
Michael’s clarification was very helpful.
Marc,
Regarding Hebrews.
It seems like your first paragraph is interacting with me, but then you go off in another direction. I didn’t say anything about Hebrews 9:22, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”.
I can’t detect anything in your comment that interacts with my point–which was about the connection between Heb 10 and Heb 11, and the stated connection between the sacrifice of Christ and the “sacrificeless” purification of the Old Testament people you’re pointing to. I would ask you, please reread my comment, and either address it for the first time, or clarify how you think you already did.
Going back to CMP’s original post, and looking over my posts in which I was working through his thinking, I find that I am with CMP up to and including his comments that “Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?”, “I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden” and up to “The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam”.
Given what I have posted on the damning damage suffered by our pre-born selves, and the supporting quotes from Calvin, it seems clear that on a Calvinist understanding of the matter we are indeed ordained and sent to Hell for who we are rather than for what we have done (and thus, having been dissed by Adam, Adam is not my homeboy).
Where I think I diverge from CMP is in and after his statement that “From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam”. I think that on a Calvinist understanding (and, since Arminius followed Calvin in all things except the four ULIP, I assume an Arminian understanding is no different), we would have to assert that we inherit something from Adam from the moment we are conceived (actually, our inheritence would start earlier, in Adam himself, since our DNA was physically in his sperm and rib, and potentially our unformed soul as well).
But is “rebellion” the correct way to describe this damage? Calvin calls it “corruption” and “depravity”. While all conscious or willed sin is a rebellion against God, the same cannot be said about what affects us from conception. Our depravity which we have from conception and which renders us fit for hell and unfit for heaven, is not a “rebellion” but a “corruption” or “ruin”.
“After the heavenly image in man was effaced, he not only was himself punished by a withdrawal of the ornaments in which he had been arrayed—viz. wisdom, virtue, justice, truth, and holiness, and by the substitution in their place of those dire pests, blindness, impotence, vanity, impurity, and unrighteousness, but he involved his posterity also, and plunged them in the same wretchedness. This is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure.” (Institutes, 2:1:5)
“As Adam, by his ruin, involved and ruined us, so Christ, by his grace, restored us to salvation. . . Adam, therefore, when he corrupted himself, transmitted the contagion to all his posterity. For a heavenly Judge, even our Saviour himself, declares that all are by birth vicious and depraved, when he says that “that which is born of the flesh is fleshy” (John 3:6), and that therefore the gate of life is closed against all until they have been regenerated.” (Institutes, 2:1:6; . Emphasis added)
Regarding the comments about sovereignty and love
There are differences between sovereignty and love that give love a greater and stronger preeminence over sovereignty.
Love precedes sovereignty both logically, efficaciously and temporally.
Before creation, there was nothing to be sovereign over (and by creation I include creation of time and matter and spiritual beings other than God). However, there was love, because the triune members of the Godhead loved each other.
Moreover, when John says that God is love, it seems to carry a weight or sense of identity more than of ascription. That is, it is more like saying that “Jesus is God” than it is saying that “God is omnipotent”. On the other hand, saying “God is sovereign” is more like the latter than the former.
Regards,
#John
Regarding the eternal issue (both wrt the punishment endured by those who go to hell and that endured by Christ on the cross), the people I know who argue it often argue that, if you want to put it into mathetmatical terms, Christ, as God, would suffer infinitely (not speaking of duration) on the cross. The physical pain was rough, ofc, but paled in comparison to the being cut off from the Father. His punishment was applicable for more than one other since he was divine.
I’m not sure how I feel about it. I’m not sure the Bible gets that explicit about it. A lot of it is putting different passages together and connecting the dots in a way that makes sense to some.
Like I say, I’m not sure. I do think the cross is spoken of as various things (e.g., ransom, sacrifice, substitute, etc.). I think they are truly those things, though I think sometimes we may press it further than is warranted.
Aside from all of that, I think you make a good point. Even when you look at the OT Law, the punishments are generally proportionate to the crimes. The nature of those who reject Jesus in the gospels jibes well with the idea of hell being populated with those who stubbornly refuse to embrace Jesus.
Michael, I really do know what you’re saying having heard it many times in many different ways. However, think about what we have come to when “justice” becomes a synonym for “must punish sin”? This is essentially the evangelical take on God’s justice.
Perhaps this is a linguistic bias resulting from us having 2 words (justice and righteousness) where the Greeks, Hebrews (and Germans) only have one. In our Anglo-Saxon minds Justice is tit for tat (crudely stated) and righteousness is about doing right. So we think God is only just when he punishes each and every crime.
However God’s justice is actually the same as God’s doing right. The question is whether unavoidable punishment for sin fits in with “doing right” – God’s righteousness. Surely mercy is “doing right” apart from punishment sometimes (i.e. when repentance is there). If that were not the case, we would have no basis for forgiveness. Each wrong done to a person MUST be avenged. Indeed only Christians would be expected to forgive and pagans would be “doing right” in avenging each and every offence.