Whose soul is saved, and who gets roasted?
November 27th, 2006Interesting story from the Dallas Morning News about churches’ differing views on hell.
Modern Christianity has many answers to who goes to hell. On the one extreme are universalists who say that a loving God could leave nobody in eternal torment. On the other are strict Calvinists who say that God picked a small elect for paradise before the world was created, and everyone else is simply stuck in the Handbasket to Hard Times.
The Christian discussion generally starts with this passage from the Gospel of John: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
But how does Jesus decide who he’ll take to the father – and who he won’t? Not every Christian claims to have a straight answer.
The story proceeds to give an overview of the beliefs of several denominations, including Southern Baptists, United Methodists, Church of God in Christ, Presbyterian Church USA, Catholics and nondenominational types.
Thanks for the link, Tim. I thought the whole of the article was well-written and balanced.
I was pleasantly surprised by a couple of the quotes from the Catholics. The one from the new pope that dealt with an individual having the necessary info and turning his back on it was especially poignant.
I have leaned to toward a Calvinist viewpoint for several years, but am beginning to think that intellectual Calvinism eventually leads one to a universalist theology. Logically, it has to.
Jason, care to explain?
Okay, let me see what I can do.
1. Jesus loves the whole world (John 3:26).
2. God chooses some to salvation, but not all. Calvinists say that He does not choose hell for those NOT chosen to salvation, but lets them choose for themselves.
3. God knows that they will choose the wrong thing, because they have no other option, being born into sin.
4. So by NOT choosing them to salvation, by default He chooses them for damnation, which is not a problem, except for point #1. If He really loves them, would He choose them for eternal damnation? Not unlike choosing up sides for a game of softball, if I choose persons A, C, E, and G, and allow the other guy to choose persons B, D, and F, that leaves only person H to go. By NOT choosing H to my team, by default he goes to the other team.
If God only chooses blonde haired people to salvation, and leaves all dark headed people to fend for themselves, knowing that they will always choose to sin, He condemns them by default.
So for the Calvinist who believes in point #1 above, the next logical conclusion is that God chooses all people to salvation, because to do otherwise would contradict the fact that God is love.
Jason, I am not seeing the logical conclusion on this. I think that John Owen would disagree with that premise and spent the whole of his life fighting Belgic Semi-Pelagianism and Universalism would have been included in the fight if that was an issue back in his lifetime.
Just his simple points of, what did Christ die for would take care of universalism (of course you would need to read his whole discourse on the subject in “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” to get the details).
1. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
3. Christ died for all sins of some men.
Of course, 3 is true or else no one would go to hell or everyone would go to hell.
(More here: Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
j razz
j razz I think 1 is actually true but because of our choices 3 becomes the reality. Does that make sense?
Jason, I don’t think that to be true as that is not the only logical explanation. Could it be that in God’s love for all people, hell is a type of grace? Bear with me here. If we as unholy beings enter into the presence of God what happens? We die. The Bible is clear on that. So, if there are some who are not covered under the salvific grace of Christ and they entered into the presence of God they would be subject to die an infinite amount of deaths. So, could it not be that God is showing them grace by ensuring they will be where He is not?
Now, that is just an option; another is that we do not understand what love means on God’s level. Is sending the Egyptians to die at the bottom of a sea love? Is killing all the first born love? It is when looked at through the eyes of the Israelites.
Also, we cannot forget that God has other attributes besides love. He is also just, jealous, wrathful, etc. All these things have to be viewed through the lens of another or else we set one attribute above the others and can fall off the fence into error.
…the next logical conclusion is that God chooses all people to salvation…
So, what does one do with the fact that there is a hell? This has to be dealt with as God is not man that He would lie.
Thanks for sharing your thinking on this Jason. I appreciate you being willing to throw that out there.
Zoner: Actually John Owen is arguing here as to what Christ’s death procured as it did procure something. Owen would say it procured exactly what the Father intended for it to do; hence, this is a means to an end- namely two things: the glorification of the Father through the Son as well as the salvation of those that were given to Christ by the father. He argues that if God has set an end goal, God has also set up a means to that end and will see it through to completion. So, if God sent Christ to die for all the sins of all men then that is exactly what would happen and b/c Christ’s death procures salvation then none would be in hell and Christ would need not mention such a place as that is not an option. But, seeing how that is an option and how Christ did not die for all the sins of all but all the sins of some, hell has meaning and the end that God set out for has not been in vain (if it was you could say that God failed and then the God we know would cease to be the God of the Bible as He cannot fail: failure would be evident if He sent Christ to die for all the sins of all men, as we know that there are those who go to hell; ie rejected Christ) Did that make sense Zoner? If it made things more confusing email me and we can talk some more about it if you wish.
j razz
Jason,
As j razz said, we can’t simply look at one of God’s attributes to the exclusion of others.
Yes, God is love, but God is also holy.
Using the arguments you laid out, election isn’t even the issue. If you believe that some people go to hell — regardless of if God divinely elected them to or not — you still have to answer the question of how a loving God can allow people to go to hell, do you not?
Your kind response is much appreciated, j razz.
I am not a theologian in the sense that I did go to seminary, but gave it up for lent :>)
Seriously, I just love Jesus, and want to know His word the best I can. I am NOT a universalist, I should make that clear. I want to be. I wish it were true that everyone gets in, that hell is merely a metaphor, or that we are there now, etc. And I think that there are verses that would support such a conclusion. But I have not found that one definitive verse that says, “Oh, and by the way, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will confess that I am Lord, and every heart will believe that I was risen from the dead, resulting in the salvation of every soul.” Haven’t seen it yet, so I’m not a universalist.
I have been a Calvinist, and an Armenian, and each school of thought has issues that seem contrary to Scripture. jrazz is right, when he says that God displays His mercy when a baby dies–that baby gets in despite the pagan-ness of its parents. The Egyptian army is another issue. And I can’t see how hell is a form of grace, but that’s for another time I guess.
I think I’ll just be a Calmenian. That way I can keep my eyes shut tight, in search of a blissful ignorance.
Tim,
The doctrine of election makes the issue of God’s being loving more relevant. If we do not adhere to Calvinism, we then must believe that it is our choice to accept or reject Christ. Kind of like when you punish your child. You say, “do this, and you will get a spanking.” They do it, and you spank them. It was their choice, not yours as a parent.
But with the doctrine of election, we believe that God has already laid it all out. He has elected the elect, and the rest are left to fend for themselves, and like lemmings to the sea, they will fall into everlasting perdition.
If a person goes to hell having known what it takes to get to Heaven, then it is because of their conscious rejection of Christ that they go there. If they go to hell because God chose not to elect them, it is not their fault, and God becomes something other than loving.
As for God being holy in addition to loving, I see those two things being intertwined. His holiness is reflected in His love, and vice versa. His holiness does not contradict His love, nor does His love contradict His holiness.
Which brings us back to where we started. An Armenian stance leaves open choice and responsibility, but puts too much credit for salvation into the hands of sinful men. A Calvinist stance gives God all the credit for salvation, but also lays the blame for damnation at His feet, calling into question His love for His creation. Did He create people, only to damn them in the end? And if He did, does that make Him something less than loving?
Jason,
I would disagree that “If they go to hell because God chose not to elect them, it is not their fault” and that a Calvinist stance “lays the blame for damnation at his feet.”
The Calvinists I know would claim both divine initiation as well as human responsibility. Just because God did not elect someone, that doesn’t leave them blameless. They still had the responsibility to trust in Christ, and chose not to do so.
We don’t know how divine sovereignty and human responsibility work together, but they are both biblical.
Tim,
Your clock is on Eastern Standard Time… or I am completely losing it and lost an hour somewhere
Jason, I would recommend that you read this short introduction to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by J. I. Packer. It is only like 20 pages, well written and for anyone who wants to learn more about this issue- well worth the read.
Take some time and read through it. It should not go over anyone’s head and you will come out all the better. You may not agree, but at least it can be said that you looked into the matter. Remember, we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
If we don’t work out our understanding of the gospel as well as our living of the Christian life, can we really be working out our salvation, i.e. sanctification?
Here is the link to the introduction: Intro by Packer
j razz
Hey Jason. As a Calvinist, I respectfully disagree that if we give God all the credit for salvation that we necessarily must also lay the blame for damnation at His feet.
Please consider an article I submitted to Monday Morning Insight recently.
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/who_is_responsible_for_my_salvation/
Also, here is an article by Piper in response to Packer called The so called antinomy of man. It was written back in the 70’s after Piper read Packer’s book on Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God
This more so than any other article/book has helped me to understand man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty and how they are both true. Short article- around 4 pages. (It took me about 4 times before I grasped the arguement though- but well worth the four times through).
Here is the link
j razz
I just wrote a post here and it did not show up.
Anyways, basically what I wrote was that I was really helped in understanding how God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are compatible truths by reading an article put out back in the 70’s by Piper in response to a statement in Packer’s book Evangelism and God’s Sovereignty concerning the above. It is only about 4 pages but well worth the read (it took me about 4 times to grasp it, but once it clicked, it clicked) If any of you are struggling with the two concepts or want some more insight into it, I would recommend this article and it is free. Also, Carson has done some work on the same issue and it is equally as well written but I cannot remember the name of the chapter nor the name of the book it was in.
Here is the link: The So Called Antinomy Between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man
j razz
Well Mama cooked dinner for the whole family but my brother chose not to eat it. He was real hungry then. Is that on Mama? No. Mama made it for everyone but only some chose to eat it.
So it is with damnation. God shows us 2 paths. We pick. We don’t get to blame God for not being loving enough afterward. Not being loving would be to not show us a redemptive path.
This is getting too deep! But thanks for th elinks guys–I will enjoy tonight.
Guys, I changed the clock to the proper time, so now it’s throwing posts up higher on the page. If you don’t see yours at the bottom, that’s probably what’s going on. It should be back to normal in another half hour or so.
Dallas Morning News asks:
But how does Jesus decide who he’ll take to the father – and who he won’t? Not every Christian claims to have a straight answer.
According to John 6:37, Jesus doesn’t decide. The Father decides, and the Son does the will of the Father.
Also notice in Joh 6:44 that if the Father doesn’t draw someone, they cannot come.
If we can agree that “not cast out” and “raise him up on the last day” and “may have eternal life” all mean the same result, typically called “salvation” then Jesus says that he WILL save all who come to Him, ALL the the Father gives will come, and ONLY the ones that the Father draws will come. So, if some are not saved, according to Jesus, the Father did not draw them.
I guess I’ll just call myself a Johanian in theology.
Wow, I feel like I’m getting all the attention today. Its nice to be me ;>)
I’d love to read these articles, and I will. I had no idea that Piper ever wrote anything that was only 20 pages. He’s written paragraphs that are 20pp long.
I read Sproul’s book “Chosen By God.” Really loved it, but I still can’t understand how choosing NOT to save someone is anything other than choosing them for damnation. Adrian Rogers used to talk about people who did not want to make a decision for Christ. He would ask them to shake his hand. He put out both hands, and would say, “If you choose Christ, shake my right hand, but if you choose hell, shake my left.” They wouldn’t shake. His point was that to NOT decide is TO DECIDE. It seems to me that for God to choose some to salvation and not all, is to choose some for damnation. It can’t be both, can it? It can’t be, “some are chosen, and some get to choose, even though we know that no one who had the chance to choose would choose the right choice.” Oh, man. I’m dizzy.
Thanks guys for all your help. It is much appreciated.
OK, after some confusion that resulted in me correcting the time on my clock (thanks a lot, jrazz), I’ve gone through and tried to get the comments in the proper order. I think I’ve got them right now. Sorry for any confusion.
No problem Tim. Anytime I can potentially cause a pandemic of confusion I try my hardest
Maybe next time if I try a little harder I can effectively shut down the internet and cause the whole of the world markets to come crashing down… take that Osama!
(Disclaimer: The above statement was intended as a joke and nothing more. For the Homeland Security man that is sitting in front of your computer reading this now do not over react and send federal agents to come and detain me. It was nothing more than a joke.)
j razz
Ah the ageless debate… one which I have been sheltered from most of my life due to my relatively recent conversion…
I do not know enough of both camps to contribute meaningfully to this complex discourse but I believe I can say one thing: Why couldn’t it be both? Acts 4:27-28 seems to lean in that direction. This text seems to be paradoxical but then again doesn’t our faith seem to be just that, especially when our fallible minds try to compartmentalize everything, including what God does and what mortals do?
Why couldn’t it be both?
Why couldn’t it be both Man’s Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty? If that is what you are saying, I agree it is both. We see that God often uses other nations to bring about His will for the Israelites but He also holds them responsible for their actions as they wanted to do it and desired in their hearts to do it.
The Acts passage you referenced would also point to this as well as would the scripture I referenced earlier concerning working out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God…
If you mean Calvinism and Armenianism as both being right, they cannot both be right as they contradict; there is no paradox there.
j razz
Laz, you might just be onto something. Several years ago, I was chatting with that old moderate Dr. Lavonn Brown, and he put it this way: you walk up to the door, and it says, “whosoever will,” so you walk through. You close the door on the other side, and it says your name.
Beautifully put.
What’s interesting to me is how Christianity has been boiled down to who gets to go where when they die. To the outsider, Christianity must seem like one big fire insurance policy instead of a lifestyle. We sell (for lack of a better term) Christianity by appealing to people’s selfish wants for heaven. “You DO want to go to heaven don’t you?” So why are we so surprised that our churches are full of shallow and worldly people? And why are we surprised when some reporter comes up to us asking who is going to hell and who isn’t? The very fact that this is THE question should tell us something about what we are emphasizing and how weare perceived.
Good point Joel. I have some Buddhist friends, and when I asked them about two issues that seem to consume many Christians (creation and Heaven), their answer was really good. They said they have too much on their plate just trying to figure out what happened before they got here, or what will happen after they’re gone.
Not that we should not be concerned with our theology of the origin of man, or with what happens after we die, but I think that we spend too much time worrying about those things, and ignore the great needs that are right in front of us, including how we can live lives that are more holy.