hellforsins

DO SINNERS GO TO HELL FOR THEIR SINS? 

A gospel tract once came into my possession. After it set out some gospel truths, the writer made the following statement as he drew his article to an end:
 

"People do not go to Hell for their sins. They go to Hell for rejecting Jesus Christ as their Sin Bearer, their Substitute, and the One who died in their place for their sins."

Does this statement measure up to the teaching of the Bible? If it does, then we must accept it.  If it doesn't, then we must reject it out of hand. What saith the Scripture?

1) Colossians 3:5-6 declares: "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:" (Emphasis mine) Why does the wrath of God fall on the unsaved (identified here as the children of disobedience, as Ephesians 2:12 bears out)? For their sins, including those of fornication, uncleanness etc.,

2) Romans 1:18 declares that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"

3) John in Revelation 21:6 declared in a similar vein: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." These people are still identified by the law of God by their particular sins (idolaters, whoremongers etc.,) and are being punished as such in the lake of fire.

 Similar verses include Revelation 22:15/1 Corinthians 6:9-10 etc., which distinctly name certain types of sinners in their capacity as committing those sins as being barred from Heaven.

4) No one doubts that Christ rejection is the ultimate sin or that the evangelical reception of Christ leads to pardon for all sin. This is true. But it is still wrong to deny that people are in Hell purely because of Christ rejection. Why then is the heathen man in Hell who never heard the gospel or the name of Jesus? Answer: Because of those sins which his own laws and conscience condemned (Romans 2:12-16) He will be beaten with less stripes than those more privileged (i.e. the evangelised) but punished he surely will be. (Luke 12:48)

5) Why did the tract writer above make this statement? (I have also heard it propagated elsewhere by other evangelical people.)

[i] It is a sincere, though misguided effort, to magnify the atoning work of Christ on Calvary. It is true to say (in the words of the hymn writer) None need perish, for Christ has died. Every last sinner is invited to the Cross. If he should come, then all his sins will be forgiven. If he doesn't come, then he adds this great sin to all the others. This is what happened when Herod imprisoned and eventually murdered John the Baptist: But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison. (Luke 3:19-20) By murdering John, Herod effectively murdered the voice of God to his soul. He punctured his own airline and therefore drowned in his own perdition. This was the crowning sin of all, but not the only sin for which he is in Hell. He is there as an adulterer and a murderer and all the other sins he committed on this earth. If the sinner doesn't come, then his sin is not taken away - it remains (John 9:41) - and it is greatly increased by his ultimate rejection of Christ.

We can urge people to seek the Lord at the Cross by other means. We can highlight the sin of Christ rejection (as emphasised in John 3:18/John 3:36 etc.,) without compromising - indeed without denying - the serious consequences of other sins.

[ii] The thinking that leads to the misleading statement above flows from the erroneous belief that Christ has made atonement on Calvary for all the sins of all men i.e. elect and reprobate alike. We deal elsewhere with the problems which flow from this doctrine. Yet the matter raised here suggests something else. If the Lord died for every last sin of the ultimate Christ rejecter, then it must be admitted that He died for the sin of ultimate Christ rejection. If He did, then why isn't this sin not forgotten about also? If the sin of adultery or murder etc., will not put the sinner into hell - presumably because it has been atoned for (otherwise God's justice is left lacking) - why then does Christ rejection stand out different from the rest? It has either been atoned for or it hasn't. If it has, then God is demanding payment twice. If it hasn't, then to state the obvious: Christ did not die for all the sins of all men.

To conclude, the statement above ("People do not go to hell for their sins") is erroneous. Whatever the honourable intentions of the writer of the tract, he overstepped the mark of Bible orthodoxy in making this statement. If he wishes to focus men into the absolute necessity of seeking pardon through the Cross, then he should concentrate on the seriousness and the madness of forsaking our own mercy (Jonah 2:8) It shows that we should not have hazy views about the intention of Christ's cross and try and figure the logical outcome of our doctrines. I am all for evangelism, but not at the expense of evangelical orthodoxy. Only truth sets men free (John 8:32)

THE END

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

principles 3

 

SOME POSTCARD ENGLISH SERMON NOTES 

 A SERIES ON THE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLE INTERPRETATION:

  THE  JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH SHALL DO RIGHT

That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:25)

Although our text is asked as a question, yet it is a rhetorical question i.e. the answer is heavily implied  within. Of course the Judge/earth (God Himself) does right and it is a fixed Bible principle in interpretation that whatever God does in any given situation cannot be faulted. If you come to a portion/Bible and  in order to arrive at some kind/understanding, you conclude: "Well…God erred here…He shouldn't have done that!" then your interpretation is not the mind/Spirit of God. You erred. Our text was used by Abraham in prayer as he sought to almost bargain with God in sparing Sodom. Abraham's concern was for the righteous people who lived in Sodom (Lot) and he based His pleading/prayer on this thought: That the Judge of all the earth could not punish the righteous with the wicked for that would not be right. An unmoveable principle. It is unconditional. 3 thoughts: 


1) SOME CLEAR CASES WHERE THERE IS LITTLE DISPUTE:

A/ The cases of extreme wickedness. Sodom itself (context) is a good example. If were to study the perversions/Sodom - which goes beyond homosexuality - we would wonder not why God wiped it from the face/earth, but why He gave them space/opportunity to repent. This could be said of many situations in the Bible. No one challenges the thought that Adolf Hitler or Stalin is in hell or any of those depots who blot human history. Some even comment: "Hell: too good for them!" 


B/ The cases of poetic justice: Listen to David/Psalm 9:15-17 The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken. The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.   Who can doubt the righteousness/God in such cases. Is there not a corresponding "Amen!" in our hearts when we see the wicked reap what they have sown? If it were known (or better still: appreciated) that God does intervene in many occasions to prevent the wicked from further inflicting others and does so in such cases of poetic justice, then would God not be glorified more in men's hearts? It is only the blindness of men to the reality that He is not. 


C/ Those cases where God rewards deeds/kindness. Not that there is merit is them, but nevertheless good often follows good. Why is this? Because Judge/all the earth does right. Them that honour me, I will honour  (1 Samuel 2:30)  Blessed are the pure/heart etc., No one doubts the Justice/God in His rewards to those who seek to do His righteous will & who are a threat to none and a blessing to all. With all his faults, Lot was basically a good man and subsequently he was rescued out of Sodom. Even his rescue and especially the aftermath was measured/balanced to reflect his basic position and yet take account of his unwarranted compromises.


2) SOME NOT SO CLEAR (TO US) CASES:

"Not so clear to us cases" This is because we have greatly limited knowledge. Our information is limited. Our understanding of why's/wherefore's is limited. Our wisdom as to how best to respond is limited. Sometimes we are too quick to judge and that even of God. Our text should be a brake on such folly on our part. 


A/ Where God withholds material benefits in some cases. Why are their 3rd world countries etc., 2 different valid viewpoints:

[i] Could blame men for the hunger etc., Although failure/crops etc., yet the hunger often stems from greed/government corruption etc., We could sit tight here & refuse to budge.

[ii] Although man is responsible, yet God allows it to happen. Again, we might trace the root cause to sin (Adam) but why do some eat quite well and others don't? Why are some areas of the world relatively safe/prosperous to live in (despite their great sins) and  others not? Ans:- The Sovereignty of God which respects His own maxim: That He must ever do that which is right. No one who argues against God judging sin one way in one place and apparently is more lax elsewhere, ever argues that we should all be judged according to the more severe measure. Underlying argument is that sin should not be judged at all! But not so (text).


B/ It is sometimes hard to understand why (both inside/Bible & outside) why infants often perish for the sins/fathers. Whole Canaanite/Amalakite families., were all to be wiped out.
Ans:- Every child born is born in sin, so strictly speaking there are no innocents. True: innocent of actual sin, but Adam's guilt is imputed to every single one born/woman.  However, it is believed, not least on the basis/text, that any human being to fails to reach the age/understanding/accountability is covered by the redeeming blood/Jesus Christ. We just have to stand back and take these words by faith. 


C/ Those passages which teach that God withheld spiritual benefits. A classic example is: Matthew 11:20-21 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But they weren't. Repentance had been withheld from these people. Not given the privileges of others. Perished in their sins. Why does God not deal with each sinner separately and equally? What if He did and damned us all as we richly deserve in Hell? No man is in Hell who does not deserve to be there. There are no innocent sufferers in hell. Wonder is not that God hated Esau… Rather: That He should ever love Jacob. 


3) WHY OUR TEXT STANDS SO FIRM:

A/ God must always do right for He is inherently righteous. High Priestly prayer: O righteous Father (John 17:25)  Again: There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is  none beside me. (Isaiah 45:21)  In God: no darkness (unrighteousness) at all. 


B/ It is not for us with our severe sin inflicted limitations to judge God as to what is/is not righteous. Israel tried that in Ezekiel 18:25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? How can sinful men sit in judgement over God? Who do we think we are? 


C/ As indicated above, such a text requires and indeed often tests our faith. That cannot be a bad thing. What must it be like then to get/Heaven and to see how even the most appalling incidents redounded to the glory/God? As they will: God makes the wrath of man to praise Him (Psalm 76:10)  Not for us to run too far ahead. Only when the final story is told can we come to a conclusion. 


D/ The wicked themselves when dealt with by God never rightly complain. True, Cain complained: My punishment is greater than I can bear but this compliant was totally unwarranted. Had God dealt with him there and then as he had dealt with Abel, then the punishment would have been ultimate and immediate. Consider: Rich man/Hell never once complained on injustice. Judas never complained of injustice. 


In closing: Our text encourages us to be content with such things as we have. None/us are worthy (as Jacob said) even of the least of God's mercies (Genesis 32:10) and yet they are new each morning. God does no man any wrong. If He should mark our iniquities, then who should stand? Heaven would be a pretty empty place. Whenever you read the Bible and you come to things hard to be understood, then never violate our text. Better to suspend an answer than to charge God with any folly/sin.  

THE END

INDEXES:
* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX