Do Sinners Really Go to Hell? (Split-- Theist Q&A)

[Christian A.]

There's some room for argument there, because I don't believe that ALL thieving, lying, idolatry, etc is automatically a sin. To have a sin, you have to 1) Know something is wrong objectively (e.g. thieving) and 2) choose to do it anyway. Now we can argue that all people have a conscience and can properly discern that certain acts are objectively sinful, but I would still argue that there is a lot of nuance, and we can't just say that people who haven't heard the Gospel and do these things are going straight to Hell. There's a lot more to it than that. There's a lot of grey areas even if it does have the effect of making Christianity and the rules we follow more nuanced and confusing. I think we get in a lot of trouble when we try to make rules like saying people go to Hell when they commit sins. How many sins? 1? 50? Is there a bright line rule? Does it apply to people who never know they should be forgiven because they have no knowledge of God or forgiveness of sin? There's a lot of questions, which I think we really can only speculate about.

So... if someone's speeding, but they don't know it, aren't they still breaking the law?

Also, I think since we would probably disagree on man's sinful nature, we couldn't really agree on the degree to which a person offends God when he sins. I would argue that one sin merits an eternity in Hell. But I also hold, based on several passages of Scripture, that there are different levels of punishment in Hell. Therefore, someone who only committed one sin would receive less severe punishment (though still eternal) than someone who raped and killed 50 women.

The thing here is that no one deserves the chance to be forgiven. We are all guilty. We all deserve Hell. God had no obligation to ever offer a chance for salvation. But He did. But He doesn't choose to make that salvation known to everyone. That doesn't mean that those people are any less deserving of Hell.

[Marvin D.]

There's also the fact that you're taking a Calvanistic view, Christian that plays a role in this. I believe it is our choice, not God's choosing, on whether or not we accept the gift of Heaven. He offered it, but we have to actively choose it, like Paul told the jailer and said in Romans. Everyone can know his gift, since it's in the Bible. It's not only for some elect.

And I refuse to debate this again

[Christian A.]

I didn't say anything about the elect or Calvinism in my reply! It's a view held by both sides!

[Marvin D.]

It was coming

[Sherlock]

So... if someone's speeding, but they don't know it, aren't they still breaking the law?

There's no moral component to speeding. It's a strict liability law that doesn't take intent into account.
I don't believe all sins are strict-liability which means that while I believe that sin itself is wrong, I also believe that a person's individual culpability can be reduced or eliminated based on circumstances, understanding of the sin and comprehension of the act itself. And ultimately only God is doing that calculation.

Also, I think since we would probably disagree on man's sinful nature, we couldn't really agree on the degree to which a person offends God when he sins.

I believe that man was created inherently good but his nature is fallen because of the original sin. I do not believe in the concept of total depravity a la Luther.

I also believe that certain sins vary in severity, which is to say that between two sins consciously committed, rape is more offensive to God than lying and carries a more severe penalty. I do believe that, by definition, every sin offends God and is an act of rebellion against God's laws.

The thing here is that no one deserves the chance to be forgiven. We are all guilty. We all deserve Hell. God had no obligation to ever offer a chance for salvation. But He did.

I agree with this.

But He doesn't choose to make that salvation known to everyone. That doesn't mean that those people are any less deserving of Hell.

But it also doesn't mean that those people are any less able to access God's grace than the rest of us even if it doesn't occur through the "traditional means." I believe that a person who has no knowledge of God can be saved if he acts in accordance with his conscience to the best of his ability. I do not believe God condemns people to Hell who have no way of knowing Him and are trying to live as good, decent human beings. I believe God judges us justly.

I guess I should also say that I don't believe in the idea of the so-called "elect" so that may preclude further discussion. I believe God offers His mercy and grace to everyone freely, not just a predetermined group.

[Christian A.]

So... if someone's speeding, but they don't know it, aren't they still breaking the law?

There's no moral component to speeding. It's a strict liability law that doesn't take intent into account.
I don't believe all sins are strict-liability which means that while I believe that sin itself is wrong, I also believe that a person's individual culpability can be reduced or eliminated based on circumstances, understanding of the sin and comprehension of the act itself. And ultimately only God is doing that calculation.

I wasn't trying to say that speeding had a moral component. I was merely using it as an illustration. I believe that every sin, whether known to the person or unbeknownst to them, is an act of infinite offense in God's sight. Even when I don't know I'm sinning, I am still sinning, and I'm still responsible to God for that sin.

Also, I think since we would probably disagree on man's sinful nature, we couldn't really agree on the degree to which a person offends God when he sins.

I believe that man was created inherently good but his nature is fallen because of the original sin. I do not believe in the concept of total depravity a la Luther.

See, that's what I figured. I believe that since every action of man comes from a totally corrupt and deceitful heart, everything he does is sin, until God changes his heart, so he can do no good (Psalm 14, Romans 3), and everything is "filthy rags," a stench in God's nostrils.

I also believe that certain sins vary in severity, which is to say that between two sins consciously committed, rape is more offensive to God than lying and carries a more severe penalty. I do believe that, by definition, every sin offends God and is an act of rebellion against God's laws.

I agree with everything you said there. Most people don't agree with me that there can be levels of punishment in hell, so I'm glad we at least agree there.

But He doesn't choose to make that salvation known to everyone. That doesn't mean that those people are any less deserving of Hell.

But it also doesn't mean that those people are any less able to access God's grace than the rest of us even if it doesn't occur through the "traditional means." I believe that a person who has no knowledge of God can be saved if he acts in accordance with his conscience to the best of his ability. I do not believe God condemns people to Hell who have no way of knowing Him and are trying to live as good, decent human beings. I believe God judges us justly.

I believe that since the "traditional means" is the only means that God informs us of, it is the only means. If it weren't, what would be the point of evangelism? God has ordained the preaching of the gospel as the primary and sole means of reaching people's hearts with His grace. If there were another chance where God Himself offers them salvation after they die, why would we worry about getting the gospel out to the whole world now, when they could just hear it from God after death? It just doesn't make sense to me. And as I mentioned before, there are no people who aer living as "good, decent human beings." Everyone sins, and everyone knows that they sin. Thus everyone deserves hell, no one deserves salvation, and God is just in not only sending them to hell, but also in not letting them ever know that there was another option.

I guess I should also say that I don't believe in the idea of the so-called "elect" so that may preclude further discussion. I believe God offers His mercy and grace to everyone freely, not just a predetermined group.

I don't think I was even trying to bring this into the discussion. My point was merely that we can easily observe that the gospel hasn't gone out to every person under the heavens. Thus not everyone knows about God's offer of salvation; but that doesn't keep them from justly deserving and being headed for hell. God does offer grace and mercy to everyone freely. The gospel call is to go out to the whole world. That's what we were commanded to carry out. It's our fault that not everyone has heard the good news. But, like I've said, they still deserve eternal punishment--I would still deserve eternal punishment, even if I'd never heard the true gospel.

[bookworm]

Even when I don't know I'm sinning, I am still sinning, and I'm still responsible to God for that sin.

A sin is always a sin, whether you know it or not. We agree there. But just because the act is sinful, that doesn’t mean it always brings on the consequences it otherwise would have. If you truly have no idea it’s wrong, then yes the act is still wrong, but your intent was absolutely not to do something wrong, so how can you be punished, at least to the full extent, for it?
God is all merciful, I am simply unable to envision Him saying to someone who sinned out of ignorance ‘Guess what, you had no way of knowing that was wrong, but it was, so you have to go suffer in Hell for all eternity.’

[Marvin D.]

I'm not sure what will happen to those who've never heard the Gospel, but even the native boys in Africa know right from wrong at some point. They're told not to steal or lie, so if they do it again, they know it's wrong.

[Christian A.]

Even when I don't know I'm sinning, I am still sinning, and I'm still responsible to God for that sin.

A sin is always a sin, whether you know it or not. We agree there. But just because the act is sinful, that doesn’t mean it always brings on the consequences it otherwise would have. If you truly have no idea it’s wrong, then yes the act is still wrong, but your intent was absolutely not to do something wrong, so how can you be punished, at least to the full extent, for it?

As one of Jesus' parables says, the servant who did not know the will of his master, but transgressed it, was still punished, but with lighter blows than the punishment of the servant who did know his master's will and still disobeyed. I do believe that those who sin unknowingly will receive a lesser punishment than those who sin unknowingly.

God is all merciful, I am simply unable to envision Him saying to someone who sinned out of ignorance ‘Guess what, you had no way of knowing that was wrong, but it was, so you have to go suffer in Hell for all eternity.’

That's why God gave man a conscience. I believe that the basics of the 10 Commandments are written on everyone's hearts. Everyone naturally knows that it's wrong to murder, wrong to commit adultery, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, etc. And everyone commits those sins, in some form or another. Therefore, everyone will go to Hell for sins that they know they committed. Sins they don't know they committed (I can't think of any specific examples, but you probably can) they will not be punished as severely for, but they still receive an eternal punishment because of the other, more grevious sins they committed. Does that make sense?

[bookworm]

Therefore, everyone will go to Hell for sins that they know they committed. Sins they don't know they committed (I can't think of any specific examples, but you probably can) they will not be punished as severely for, but they still receive an eternal punishment because of the other, more grevious sins they committed. Does that make sense?

It makes sense in that I can understand what you mean, but it doesn’t make sense for me to see the belief behind it.
I agree with the part about conscience, that does cover most things. And of course if someone knows they sinned, either through religion as ‘sin’ or simply through conscience as ‘wrong’ then yes, they would deserve punishment for that.
But if someone does not know, then I can only repeat myself that I cannot see them as deserving punishment. The act would still warrant punishment, because sin is sin, but I can’t see the person being held responsible because they didn’t know it was wrong. They did not knowingly intend to sin, which is what sends people to Hell.

The main issue here is that just as sin is sin, Hell is Hell. You say they won’t be punished as severely as conscious sinners, but the thing is they will still be punished. ‘Lesser’ Hell for eternity is just as grave as ‘full’ Hell for eternity, they are both the ultimate punishment, so in the end they aren’t really getting any alleviation for their ignorance, they’re getting punished just the same as anyone else.

[Sherlock]

I was going to respond, but I basically agree with everything bookworm said, especially in the last post. To me, it makes no sense to say "Well yeah, God punishes us less if we sin out of ignorance, but because every sin warrants Hell, the person is going to Hell anyway, though the punishment there may be less severe." That seems to be the gist of the discussion here.

I do have a hypothetical question for you Christian, since you said that you subscribe to the concept of total depravity. Suppose a five year old child who is raised by agnostic parents commits a sin but, being below the age of reason, doesn't comprehend the fact that it is a sin and passes away soon after. Your reasoning seems to point towards the conclusion that this same child must deserve Hell because of his sin, tempered though it may be by ignorance?

Basically, my issue here is that if we are all really fundamentally horrible and wicked and depraved, then all babies who are aborted and all children who pass away at a young age, unable to comprehend their acts, will all merit Hell and would more than likely be doomed to eternal suffering because they were unfortunate enough to die before they had the chance to come to know God.

I just can't reconcile that viewpoint with my own belief that God gives us all a chance to accept or reject Him. Young children, babies who dies in utero, and people on remote island nations do not have that chance. God isn't a lottery ticket where some people are lucky enough to hit the jackpot and others are left holding a blank piece of paper. I believe God gives us all an equal opportunity to accept or reject Him, but he may not approach all of is in the same way or at the same time, or even on this Earth.

[Christian A.]

I do have a hypothetical question for you Christian, since you said that you subscribe to the concept of total depravity. Suppose a five year old child who is raised by agnostic parents commits a sin but, being below the age of reason, doesn't comprehend the fact that it is a sin and passes away soon after. Your reasoning seems to point towards the conclusion that this same child must deserve Hell because of his sin, tempered though it may be by ignorance?

Basically, my issue here is that if we are all really fundamentally horrible and wicked and depraved, then all babies who are aborted and all children who pass away at a young age, unable to comprehend their acts, will all merit Hell and would more than likely be doomed to eternal suffering because they were unfortunate enough to die before they had the chance to come to know God.

I just can't reconcile that viewpoint with my own belief that God gives us all a chance to accept or reject Him. Young children, babies who dies in utero, and people on remote island nations do not have that chance. God isn't a lottery ticket where some people are lucky enough to hit the jackpot and others are left holding a blank piece of paper. I believe God gives us all an equal opportunity to accept or reject Him, but he may not approach all of is in the same way or at the same time, or even on this Earth.

Yes, that really is a tough issue that this usually comes down to. Concerning both the babies and the five-year-old, I would say that they certainly deserve Hell. Every person who dies has obviously committed some sin, because death is the wages of sin. Thus, if someone dies, we can logically conclude that they sinned. I believe that all babies, at conception, are imputed the sin of Adam, leaving them guilty before God and deserving of Hell. I know that's not a popular view anymore, but that's what I believe. In Psalm 51:5, David says that he was conceived in sin. Romans 5:12 says that death passed to all men because all sinned in Adam.

Now, everyone wants to believe that miscarried or aborted babies, as well as infants who die prematurely, go to heaven when they die. I want to believe that too. And the confession that my church holds to (the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689) takes a position on the issue that sounds very odd. But I believe it. Here's what it says,

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

So according to that, I believe that there are infants that God chooses out of His own sovereignty, just as He chooses humans who grow up to a normal age. At His appointed time, while they're in the womb, He gives them the faith to believe, He works within them to exercise this faith, and He saves them. I know it sounds weird. But in Scripture, God has only showed us one way that He saves people--through repentance and faith. Therefore, I conclude that if there are any infants or mentally disabled people who go to heaven, it's because they were saved the same way I was: through repenting of their sins and trusting in Christ for salvation.

Now you can attack me.

[Astronomer]

A question: Jesus died. Does that mean he sinned? Or is it different since he was murdered, rather than died of natural causes?

[Sherlock]

Yes, that really is a tough issue that this usually comes down to. Concerning both the babies and the five-year-old, I would say that they certainly deserve Hell. Every person who dies has obviously committed some sin, because death is the wages of sin. Thus, if someone dies, we can logically conclude that they sinned. I believe that all babies, at conception, are imputed the sin of Adam, leaving them guilty before God and deserving of Hell. I know that's not a popular view sin anymore, but that's what I believe. In Psalm 51:5, David says that he was conceived in sin. Romans 5:12 says that death passed to all men because all sinned in Adam.

Okay, I agree and disagree with you here. I'll try to explain my view so you can see how.

I agree that we all inherited the sin of Adam (often referred to as the first sin or "original sin"). So no issue there. However, I believe that God created Adam good, which is to say that I believe that we also inherited that from Adam too. So, while I disagree with Luther's belief that we are born as depraved, worthless pieces of dung, I would say that we, like Adam, were created by God as ultimately good (In Genesis, we are told that God looked at His creation and saw that it was good), but that because of Adam's choice to sin, we all inherited the fallen nature of Adam, the predisposition towards sinfulness as well as the consequences of that sin (death). That is why I say that we are born into this world good but fallen creatures. We are good because God created the human race as good, but we are fallen because we inherited the original sin of Adam.

Now, how does Baptism play into this? I believe that Baptism was instituted by Christ to remove the supernatural stain of original sin, though the natural effects (predisposition towards sinfulness and death) still remain. But because of Baptism, we are no longer "cast out of the Garden of Eden" so to speak, and God welcomes us into His family, and bestows special graces upon us to resist our sinful tendencies. Baptism is an outward sign of a choice to reject our sinful tendencies and work towards being a faithful child of God.

Now, everyone wants to believe that miscarried or aborted babies, as well as infants who die prematurely, go to heaven when they die. I want to believe that too. And the confession that my church holds to (the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689) takes a position on the issue that sounds very odd. But I believe it. Here's what it says,

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

So according to that, I believe that there are infants that God chooses out of His own sovereignty, just as He chooses humans who grow up to a normal age. At His appointed time, while they're in the womb, He gives them the faith to believe, He works within them to exercise this faith, and He saves them. I know it sounds weird. But in Scripture, God has only showed us one way that He saves people--through repentance and faith. Therefore, I conclude that if there are any infants or mentally disabled people who go to heaven, it's because they were saved the same way I was: through repenting of their sins and trusting in Christ for salvation.

Now you can attack me.

Well, first, to clarify, my purpose here isn't to attack you, it is merely to challenge some points and gain clarity about where we differ.

Note, I did not say that I believed miscarried/aborted babies go to Heaven. My issue was with the presupposition that they go to Hell, based on what I know and believe about God's mercy. To caveat what I am about to say, I have absolutely no idea what happens to these people when they die, I can only speculate and my speculations, again, are based on what I know and believe about how God offers his mercy and graces to the human race.

Most churches (it sounds like yours is included) have some speculation about what happens. It sounds like in your case, you are saying that you believe that God basically "handpicks" certain individuals "born or unborn" who are members of the Elect who will be offered the chance to repent and be saved. Interestingly, it sounds like you believe that God may offer some people this chance before they are born. To some extent, I agree with you and this is what I was referring to when I mentioned "non-traditional" means of salvation.

My view on this is that,

1) God offers every human being the chance to accept or reject him. I believe this to be true based on my understanding of God's justice and mercy (He is infinitely Just and also infinitely Merciful), and

2) It is impossible for some (namely the unborn and, in some cases, the severely mentally handicapped) to consciously make this choice, therefore the choice must be offered at some other time, not necessarily while the person is alive on this earth. All of this is pure speculation, but it is possible that these unborn children and others are given the Gospel at some point, and are also given the chance to choose to accept God or reject him after hearing it.

Now, the biggest hole in my reasoning (you may have picked it out already) is that this explanation doesn't account for Baptism. And, if you believe as I do, you would say that Baptism is absolutely necessary to remove the eternal stain of original sin. Quite frankly, I don't have an explanation for this, though many throughout the years have come up with various solutions, including Limbo and other things. These are all speculative and I have no real opinion on them, since we ultimately don't know one way or another.

[Christian A.]

A question: Jesus died. Does that mean he sinned? Or is it different since he was murdered, rather than died of natural causes?

Great question. Jesus died because He was bearing the sins of His people--you and me and all Christians. We are all born sinful and commit sins, therefore, when our sinfulness was put on Him, He received the "wages" of sin--death.

I agree that we all inherited the sin of Adam (often referred to as the first sin or "original sin"). So no issue there. However, I believe that God created Adam good, which is to say that I believe that we also inherited that from Adam too. So, while I disagree with Luther's belief that we are born as depraved, worthless pieces of dung, I would say that we, like Adam, were created by God as ultimately good (In Genesis, we are told that God looked at His creation and saw that it was good), but that because of Adam's choice to sin, we all inherited the fallen nature of Adam, the predisposition towards sinfulness as well as the consequences of that sin (death). That is why I say that we are born into this world good but fallen creatures. We are good because God created the human race as good, but we are fallen because we inherited the original sin of Adam.

I actually think I agree with almost all of this. I wouldn't use the word "good" to describe our inherent nature, just because the Bible says that no one is good or does good, but I would agree that we, as the special creation of God, retain His image and likeness, and also some sense of innate value to Him.

Now, how does Baptism play into this? I believe that Baptism was instituted by Christ to remove the supernatural stain of original sin, though the natural effects (predisposition towards sinfulness and death) still remain. But because of Baptism, we are no longer "cast out of the Garden of Eden" so to speak, and God welcomes us into His family, and bestows special graces upon us to resist our sinful tendencies. Baptism is an outward sign of a choice to reject our sinful tendencies and work towards being a faithful child of God.

Well, whether or not you expected it, I definitely disagree with you about baptism. Except your last sentence. I don't believe baptism plays any part in our salvation. One can be saved and die and go to heaven without ever being baptized. Salvation consists of repentance and faith. So I don't see it as a problem that miscarried babies cannot be baptized. I do certainly believe it is a means of grace, by which we are filled with assurance and boldness in our faith. But it's not anything more than, like you said, an outward sign to others of our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, our repentance and our resolve to follow Christ daily.

Well, first, to clarify, my purpose here isn't to attack you, it is merely to challenge some points and gain clarity about where we differ.

Well, my comment wasn't meant to be taken quite so literally. But I expected you to have a vastly different opinion than I, so I expected a full-blown attack against my argument. I'm glad you at least agree in part.

Note, I did not say that I believed miscarried/aborted babies go to Heaven. My issue was with the presupposition that they go to Hell, based on what I know and believe about God's mercy. To caveat what I am about to say, I have absolutely no idea what happens to these people when they die, I can only speculate and my speculations, again, are based on what I know and believe about how God offers his mercy and graces to the human race.

No, I wasn't trying to say that you said that. I was merely stating that it's pretty common for people to hope that the infants do go to heaven. It's just that most people don't really think about the theological implications of that belief. But I am confused about your comment that all of this is speculation. I don't think much of it is speculation, because most of it can be directly learned from Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is it indicated that God gives people some kind of "second chance" after death. Life is their chance. If He doesn't give them the faith to believe, then they go to Hell. And they go justly. And we only see one means of salvation in Scripture: repentance and faith. Thus, if babies are saved, they must be given the ability to repent and believe.

Most churches (it sounds like yours is included) have some speculation about what happens. It sounds like in your case, you are saying that you believe that God basically "handpicks" certain individuals "born or unborn" who are members of the Elect who will be offered the chance to repent and be saved. Interestingly, it sounds like you believe that God may offer some people this chance before they are born. To some extent, I agree with you and this is what I was referring to when I mentioned "non-traditional" means of salvation.

I'm not saying that God only gives certain people the chance to repent and believe. I think everyone has the "chance" to believe. The gospel is for everyone. But only those to whom He gives a new heart will be able to repent and believe, and thus be saved. It's not really a "non-traditional" means of salvation that I'm trying to suggest, but it's the same old "repent and believe," just applied to infants who never see the light of day.

My view on this is that,

1) God offers every human being the chance to accept or reject him. I believe this to be true based on my understanding of God's justice and mercy (He is infinitely Just and also infinitely Merciful), and

2) It is impossible for some (namely the unborn and, in some cases, the severely mentally handicapped) to consciously make this choice, therefore the choice must be offered at some other time, not necessarily while the person is alive on this earth. All of this is pure speculation, but it is possible that these unborn children and others are given the Gospel at some point, and are also given the chance to choose to accept God or reject him after hearing it.

Now, the biggest hole in my reasoning (you may have picked it out already) is that this explanation doesn't account for Baptism. And, if you believe as I do, you would say that Baptism is absolutely necessary to remove the eternal stain of original sin. Quite frankly, I don't have an explanation for this, though many throughout the years have come up with various solutions, including Limbo and other things. These are all speculative and I have no real opinion on them, since we ultimately don't know one way or another.

I wouldn't disagree with you entirely. The very fact that salvation is offered is a testimony of God's love and mercy to all. But as a result of our fallenness, we are unable to repent and believe of ourselves, because of our corrupt hearts. He must give us a new heart before we can be saved. And I believe that only those to whom He gives this new heart will be saved, and them alone. All others will go to Hell, which they deserve; and we'll go to Heaven, which we by no means deserve. He is infinitely merciful and gracious. But He is not obligated to be those things. Otherwise, no one would end up in Hell; but He does pour out His wrath and His justice on some, and they, rejecting His offer of salvation, justly go to Hell.

But with the baptism issue I must disagree. Baptism is not necessary for salvation in the least, as I see it. So it's not a problem to me that dead babies don't get baptized.