Why do people go to Hell?

Helen · Mar 27, 2004

OK, Barry just called and I talked to him about this (he'll be home Tuesday!). He also referred to Romans 14:23, but with an interesting thought. Here is Paul's overarching principle:
"everything that does not come from faith is sin."

And so Barry was sort of thinking out loud and mentioned that if someone had faith that God did not exist and acted accordingly, then his lack of belief in God could not be counted to him as sin, although the actions arising from it could.

It was a logical thing. I'm still chewing on it. He is, too, but he was late for an appointment so we will talk more later. But I thought I would mention it here anyway.

Helen · Mar 27, 2004

Originally posted by russell55:
Helen,

Believing is the same thing as obeying the first commandment to treat God as holy.

...because you have not believed me, to treat me as holy.... (Numbers 20:12)

Also look at Numbers 14. The reason God was going to destroy Israel was "that they did not believe in Me." Moses intercedes for them asking that God "pardon the INIQUITY of this people." And so God PARDONS them. If unbelief isn't a sin, why does Moses ask God to pardon them? Why does God pardon them is unbelief does not need pardoning?

And Deuteronomy 9:23

When the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, 'Go up and possess the land which I have given you,' then you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God; you neither believed Him nor listened to His voice.

Not believing God and not doing His commandments and not listening to God are equated. Once again, not believing is not fulfilling the first commandment.

OK!! Thank you! That's the kind of thing I was looking for. Thank you very much. I'll read up on that more there after I put Chris in bed.

THAT's what I was talking about! Thank you!

russell55 · Mar 27, 2004

And so Barry was sort of thinking out loud and mentioned that if someone had faith that God did not exist and acted accordingly, then his lack of belief in God could not be counted to him as sin, although the actions arising from it could.

Except that Paul always uses "faith" to mean "faith in God."

Daniel David · Mar 27, 2004

Originally posted by Helen:
1. Sin is defined by the law. This we know.

2. Nowhere in the law is there a COMMAND to believe. Belief is always given as a choice. Unbelief is a choice.

3. Unbelief, in terms of the law of the Bible, is not a sin, it is a choice.

4. I had not thought of it that way before, but I think he is right.

5. All sin was atoned for on the cross. Whether or not you believe on Christ is your choice. If you do not believe, despite the truth you are shown in this life, then you stand condemned. You are also, according to Romans 1, fully given over to the sinful lifestyle you have preferred in refusing the truth, who is Christ.

6. I'm still thinking about this, and if someone can show me a place where unbelief is actually a sin in and of itself, as defined by the law, I will be interested to see it.

1. Sin is defined as active and passive disobedience to the law. The law of Christ is what we judge sin by now. So I agree with you there.

2. Acts 17:31 would be one place off the top of my head.

3. Do you have Revelation 21:8 in your Bible? What about Romans 14:21? Where is my concordance?

4. He isn't right. He is wrong. You said he was a Bible teacher?

5. You have this wrong. Perhaps it is your wording. ALL sin has not been atoned for. Christ is the atonement for all sin though. You must not understand the difference.

6. Revelation 21:8 and Romans 14:21, not to mention several texts from Hebrews.

Tell your son to keep studying. The only people who are to teach are those who actually know the word.

Helen · Mar 27, 2004

OK, looking up the verses --

Numbers 20:12
The word used in your quote as 'believed' is also translated 'trusted.' So I looked it up. It is 'aman,' a primary root meaning to build up or trust, and by implication to believe. But it is not a belief IN God, but rather a trusting of His instructions. So that reference is negotiable, I think...

Numbers 14 is solid. The only possible argument against it in terms of others is that the Israelites had experienced the incredible miracles and had no excuse for their disbelief. I do not think that argument holds up, however, because, as we see in Romans 1, every person has some kind of evidence presented to him and so none have an excuse.

On the other hand (no, I'm really NOT Jewish!), is there a subtle difference we might be missing here? We can see that refusing to believe by thrusting away the evidence of the truth, as the Israelites did and as Romans 1 mentions is a sin. However is it a sin to not believe before you have been presented with the evidence???

Greater minds than mine....

On to Deuteronomy 9:23 -- Again the word the KJV translates at 'believe' is actually 'trust.' "You did not trust him or obey him" is, perhaps, the more correct translation.

It's Numbers 14 which is solid, at least to the extent of refusing to believe despite evidence, which I do personally associate with the Romans 1 chapter. That is biblically a sin.

Now, to go back to the original purpose of this thread -- I still stand by Jesus' words that it is belief in Him which saves and unbelief which condemns. Unbelief in the face of evidence has strong biblical basis for being called a sin. Nevertheless, Jesus did pay for ALL sins on the Cross. Paid for or not, however, the unbeliever walks away from all that....straight into hell.

It's sort of like evicting oneself from an apartment and wandering the streets even though someone else has paid the rent, eh?

Thank you again. It's been a fascinating afternoon!

Helen · Mar 27, 2004

You said he was a Bible teacher?

What Scott and I toss around in the privacy of our own home in terms of Bible study is not necessarily what he teaches! He is quite knowledgable regarding the Bible and a very good teacher. But still, there are times when we all sit around with Bibles and Concordances and commentaries and all kinds of things and work one particular subject or another from as many sides as we can think of. Of course he is not going to teach all the things we talk about! I don't know about you, but we have thrown around some pretty interesting ideas and then looked to see if we could disprove them biblically. We learn an awful lot that way.

At any rate, don't take what I mention us discussing as what he is going to be teaching! Thanks.

Daniel David · Mar 28, 2004

Well, that is a relief.

Watchman · Mar 28, 2004

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Helen:
Therefore no man goes to hell because of sin.

But this is not what Scripture says. Scripture says that man does go to hell for his sin.[/QUOTE]Perhaps it is worth while to take a look at the actual fate of the unsaved and go backwards from there, to see how they came to that fate. This is graphically stated in a passage that has already been mentioned. The last part of that verse says:
"...was cast into the lake of fire."
Rev. 20:15b
Now, that we know of, no one is in this lake of fire as of now. So the, "Was," speaks of the certainty of this yet-to-occur event.
What was it, exactly, that caused them to meet with such a fate? The first part of our passage explains:
"And anyone not found written in the book of life..."
Rev. 20:15a
To not be found in the book of life, therefore,
is what causes the lost to be cast into this lake of fire.
So, the question should REALLY be not, "Why do people go to hell?, But "Why are people not in the book of life?"
The debate here is centered around sin; is that it? Is sin the thing that keeps people from being found in the book of life?
The wages of sin is death; no doubt. The soul that sinneth, it shall die; Yes. Sin separates; without question. But is that THE thing that keeps a person from being in the book of life?
Let's look at Saul of Tarsus, he went around killing Christians. Now, did the sin of "Saul of Tarsus" cause him to not be in the book of life? That is not possible, because Saul, and the Apostle Paul, are one and the same person. Rest assured, The Apostle Paul is in the book of life.
To be justified is to be, "Just-as-if-I'd" never sinned. Paul, all of us never sinned if we are in Christ Jesus. The cause of not being in the book of life is because one is not in Christ Jesus. Why are people not in Christ Jesus? Well, IMHO, I refer back to my first post.

Pastor Larry · Mar 28, 2004

But it is the OT Law -- the Pentateuch -- which defines sin. There is no 'thou shalt believe' stated.

I completely disagree with that. Sin is defined by lack of conformity to the character of God. THere were people in teh world (and sin) for many thousands of years prior to the giving of the OT Law. There are NT commands that are not in the OT Law. Furthermore, I would point out that Paul says we are no longer under the OT Law, yet that does not mean there is no more sin. There is also a "law written on the hearts" (which I take to be the result of image of God in man), so that those without the law do by instinct the things written in the Law. In this, the overarching principle of sin is outside or and prior to the Law. So I can't agree that sin is defined only by the OT Law.

I will take a closer look at your comments perhaps later when I get a chance.

Hamtramck_Mike · Mar 28, 2004

I can relate to this as well, Pastor Larry as to the true definition of sin. When our Lord was here on this Earth, He was fully God and fully the Perfection of Humanity. Only He can claim this absolute Perfect obedience and conformity to the Fathers will and purpose from the moment He was concieved until forever and ever He knew no sin; as evidence we can point to the fact that everything He did, every utterance that proceeded out of His Holy Mouth was ALWAYS IN ABSOLUTE, 100% conformity to the Law He wrote, and also to the Fathers will--never even for a microsecond did our Saviour ever slip up from this state, He could not, He is God!

This is the only definition of sin that is biblical; if we are not ALWAYS IN ABSOLUTE, 100% conformity to the Law He wrote, and also to the Fathers will, we are sinning! All we are doing is giving sin and Satan excuse if we try to come up with any other definition!

Audra · Mar 28, 2004

It's according to what hell you're talking about.
There is Hades (the grave) which we all go to. And there is Gehenna (the lake of fire where people are destroyed and burnt up completely as punishment, not a continual punishing). So I guess you're talking about Gehenna. Sins unrepented of destroy us, as well as being totally unaccepting of Christ after being given the chance.

jshurley04 · Mar 29, 2004

Originally posted by GODzThunder:
to more simply answer your question though, we go to hell because we choose to. God says that to earn heaven you must live a holy life (equal to Christ in every way). We fall short but we choose to fall short. We, knowing the judgment and punishment of sin commit that sin anyways. I know Hell is the wage of sin yet I lied, stole & cheated many times in life with that knowledge.

That is a load of hot fresh bull stuff! I know men and women who are lost as a goose in a blindin hail storm and live a more holy life than some church members I know. According to your post it is simply a matter of right living.

Going to Hell is caused by one thing, being born into this world. It is where all men and women will go if they do not choose the gift that God has presented them. To go to hell one must simply live a life and die and death and be a person who does not choose Christ inbetween.

Phillip · Mar 29, 2004

Originally posted by Audra:
(the lake of fire where people are destroyed and burnt up completely as punishment, not a continual punishing).

Nah, read my post in the subject matter for "Is Hell Eternal". The Bible is pretty specific.

dr396 · Mar 29, 2004

There are a couple of things that need to be said regarding the question of this post. First, my question was asked in order to invoke study of the relation of sin to atonment (so I am glad some of you went there). Second, I think I should have somehow included in the question, "Why are people (continually) suffering in Hell?" What I mean by that is "what is the direct cause and effect of unbelievers' suffering in Hell (as it seems to be somewhat conditional)?"

As for the responses I would say overall they are what was expected. I will say a few things about them.

Helen, the whole argument regarding sin vs. unbelief in regards to command in the OT (specifically the Law – as defined by you as the Pentateuch) is really unnecessary. When Jesus refers to the Law, He often parallels it with the Prophets. Their commands are considered Law as well. So when they say “believe” it is a direct command of the Law. To not believe is to sin. What Brutus did was to show us the relation of sin to unbelief. They exist together and are in some way synonymous (we have seen the parallel of these in Revelation). When you say Paul’s overarching principle is sin is a lack of faith you are right, but he also says the wages of sin is death. You must affirm both that sin sends people to Hell and unbelief sends people to Hell. There can be no contradiction here. There are plenty of passages that teach both. Also, if you substitute unbelief for sin in Rom. 6:23 passage then you are affirming that sin is synonymous with unbelief and not a choice that is amoral (which is logically impossible, since no choice is truly amoral). So, it seems that there is a logical, Biblical progression working here.

Unbelief --> Sin --> Death. This Biblical equation (see also James 1:14-15) is problematic if we take from it sin by saying that Christ paid for sin, but not unbelief. This is because the equation becomes invalid. Sin is necessary to bring about death. Unbelief is the cause which leads to the effect of sin, which is the cause (or rather leads to the effect) of death. Secondly it’s really problematic if we say Jesus paid even for unbelief. If you hold to the doctrine of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement (which I will not try to defend in this post – if you don’t believe it start another post about it and I will do it there), which most conservatives feel is orthodoxy, then you have to say that Christ paid the penalty for all those sins and unbelief, yet those in Hell are also paying the penalty for all sins and for unbelief. This would be unjust. One sin cannot be paid for twice. One Biblical passage that comes to mind to defend this idea that we “pay” for our sins in Hell is Matthew 18:21-35, the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave. The slave is thrown into prison and told that he must “pay” (apodidomai) back every cent owed to him. Jesus then says to the disciples, “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.” Parallel that with Jesus words to the Pharisees in Luke 12:59, “I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the very last cent” and other passages referring to people paying the penalty of their sins or the Lord requiring payment for sins (Matthew 16:27; 2 Tim. 4:14; Rev. 22:12) and you will see how this payment is for sin and is to be executed in Hell.

Also there is the issue of greater condemnation and punishment in Hell. How is this determined if unbelief is the only standard? We see this in Matthew 23:14 and John 19:11. It seems obvious from Scripture that some will suffer in Hell more or will have a harsher punishment than others.

Finally I will say that the statement that Pastor Larry was reading Scripture from a certain perspective because he had to fit it in with his Calvinism works both ways. Everyone has a worldview and we argue from it, not necessarily to it. Everyone on this post is arguing from their perspective. It comes down to whether or not their position is tenable and Biblical. But it is true that this issue is important to many other Biblical doctrines such as limited atonement (which some brought up), penal substitutionary theory, and the work of Christ. That is why it is so important to get this one right Biblically.

D.R.

aefting · Mar 29, 2004

Ahh, but I'd like to know if Lightner is teaching that the atonement is actually applied to all men, or if he is teaching that the rejection of Christ's work means the atonement is never applied, and thus those who reject His work remain in their sins.

I'm pretty sure he's teaching the second option.

Andy

russell55 · Mar 29, 2004

Okay, then that's general atonement as historically explained,

Audra · Mar 29, 2004

Yes it is Phillip, and I come to a totally different conclusion than you do. Read my post in the same thread.

dr396 · Mar 31, 2004

Oh, one more passage related to this topic,

Rev 20:12-15
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is {the book} of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one {of them} according to their deeds.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

D.R.

Johnv · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by dr396:
Based on Scripture and your interpretation of it, why do people go to Hell?

A person ends up in Hell because that person is given the opportunity to accept God's gift of salvation, and chooses to ultimately reject it.

Daniel David · Mar 31, 2004

Johnv, if it weren't for the Bible, I would agree with you.

Opportunity has nothing to do with it.

Revelation 20 and 21 explicitly condemn a man because of his actions. Sorry.

Why do people go to Hell?

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

New Member

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member