Why People Go to Hell

One of the core elements of biblical evangelical theology is that people die and go to hell. While that doctrine is distasteful to many, and should be hard for anyone to preach gladly, it is what the Bible teaches and what the church has historically believed. It is hard to imagine that one will long be an evangelical after denying the reality of eternal conscious torment. However, my point here is not to address the reality of hell, but to think for a moment about why people go there.

It is common to hear people say something like, “People do not go to hell for their sins because Jesus died for all sin. They go to only only for their unbelief.”

Let’s consider this along two lines. First, the Bible plainly declares that people go to hell for their sins. For instance, Revelation 21:8 says, “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” It is hard to imagine that the list of sins is somehow not a part of the reason that they are there.

Second, unbelief is a sin (cf. Revelation 21:8 for starters). If Jesus died for all sin, then he must also have died for the sin of unbelief. Therefore, their unbelief, like all their other sins, would have been paid for. So why would they be in hell for a sin that was paid for?

If the sin of unbelief was not paid for, then unbelief is a sin that is atoned for by doing something, namely, by believing. That is to say that Jesus atoned for all sins but unbelief, and we atone for unbelief by belief. It becomes, in effect, a self-salvation, or salvation by replacement of one thing for another. One might as well deny the reality of hell as affirm the possibility of self-atonement.

“Well,” one might object, “unbelief is not a sin.”

Then we must ask why would one be punished in hell for eternity for something that was not even wrong to begin with? And why is it listed along with other sins in places like Revelation 21:8, Titus 1:15, and 2 Thessalonians 2:12.

People who usually make this argument do so, at least in part, as an argument about fairness, that it would be unfair for God to pay only for the sins of some and not the sins of others. The idea of fairness is crying out for a post, and perhaps shall have its own soon. But to entertain the argument, how is it fair for God to send someone to eternal conscious torment for something that was not wrong? It makes no sense.

Yes, this is, in some sense an argument for a limited atonement of some sort. Before you cry foul, remember that everyone (except universalists) limits the atonement in some way, either in its provision or its application or both.

But I think there are some who need to think a bit more rigorously about the idea that people do not go to hell for sin; they go for unbelief.

Hopefully, this might jumpstart a thought or two.

Say What? Ordo Salutis Edition

It is reported that someone recently said: “No offense, but there is no ordo salutis in John 6; but there is ‘believe.’”

It leaves me wondering about John 6:40:

This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Does it seem clear that belief precedes glorification? This is why most ordos have belief prior to glorification.

What about John 6:44:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Assuming that “come” is virtually synonymous with “believe” (as vv. 35, 37 seem to make clear, and I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, though I have been accused of having a weak imagination), isn’t it clear that drawing of the Father precedes belief, and belief precedes glorification. So here we have drawing, belief, glorification. That, my friends, is an ordo salutis.

What about John 6:65:

And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Not to be pedantic with the text, but isn’t it clear that “coming” (see above) comes after the “granting”?

If the above comment that started this post is a proper representation of what was said, perhaps we have another reason why some are dissatisfied with institutional fundamentalism: Too many of them preach in spite of the text, and not because of it. They preach whatever they believe, and the text becomes a prop for it. They will easily gloss or ignore whatever does not make their point, or whatever makes it weaker.

Define coming, drawing, giving, belief, granting however you will. It is impossible to say that John 6 has no ordo salutis.

Wait, I take that back. It is obviously possible to say it.

Perhaps the greatest need in fundamentalism is a revival of studying the Word itself.