Do Sinners go to hell due to rejection of Christ/Or Their Sin Natures?

[Fred's Wife]

The Lord Jesus Christ paid the full penalty for ALL sin...even for the sin of those who reject Him.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

It's true that all the lost are judged guilty and die IN THEIR SIN....but this does not mean that Christ did not pay their sin debt on the cross of Calvary. All who go to hell, go to hell with their sin paid for.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

Some scriptural proof regarding Gods giving potentially saving "Light" to every person who comes into the world, even those who never heard the gosple of Jesus Christ...

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm )

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1.19-20)

We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." (Acts 14)

Indeed, when Gentiles [i.e. non-Jews], who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, (Romans 2.14ff)

There is much more, of course.

 

[WITBOTL]

A couple of quick points:

If rejection of Christ is the ultimate condemnable sin then what about the following situation: A man is confronted with the gospel over the course of 40 years and repeatedly vehemently rejects Christ, rejects the gospel and refuses in every way. He endures the appeal of fine evangelical preaching, the appeals of his friends family and loved ones but he will have nothing to do with God period. Then after rejecting Christ 1000 times over his 40 years something changes and he falls on his knees, trusts Christ and is saved. How is it that he was not overwhelmingly condemned for not one act of rejection but 1000? Was his act of acceptance so overwhelmingly great that it canceled out the penalty of all those rejections?

As far as I can tell, rejecting Christ is not some special class of sin. All that rejection does is maintains a state of lostness, it does nothing in itself. Simply put, upon rejecting Christ nothing changes. The change happens when in repentance and faith one trusts Christ. In hell, God will judge the sinners rejection of him to be sure, but are you suggesting that this rejection is the only sin that man will pay for in hell? No, condemnation abides upon the sinner with or without his rejection of the gospel. Otherwise, one would have to move logically to an idea that it is better not to preach the gospel to anyone because if they reject it they will be damned.

I would put the analogy of the judge a bit differently.

Suppose there are three men Bob and Tom Hatfield and Jim McCoy. Bob and Tom hate Jim, they are enemies because their families have been enemies for generations. They are beyond reasons, they simply hate each other and wouldn't think twice to cause the other harm. Bob and Tom are caught setting Jim's house on fire. It burns to the ground and they are caught and the evidence against them is incontrovertible. They will surely be sentenced to years in prison. However, Jim does not hate Bob and Tom. To be sure they are enemies because of their family connections but Jim wants to change this. Jim also has a secret, that his great grandmother on his mother's side was actually a Hatfield. Jim in the spirit of reconciliation goes to the judge and says, Judge I am willing to forgo the charges, I will allow these men to walk free upon one condition: each man must reject their hatred of me as a McCoy shake my hand and apologize. The judge agrees to this proposition, but he points out to Jim that the hatred runs so deep that he is sure they will reject the offer. It is simply not in a Hatfield's nature to shake hands with any McCoy, let alone apologize. That would turn around generations of conditioning and would be nothing short of a miracle. Jim says, "I know, nevertheless my offer is genuine and honest, and if they do this I will not press charges." The deal is put to the Hatfield's and they predictably reject the offer spitting on the ground and saying would rather spend a lifetime in prison than shake hands with any McCoy. So, in a final effort at reconciliation, Jim visits Tom and manages to make a connection with him. He shows Tom how that he is done with all this feuding and that he even has Hatfield blood himself. He spends a great deal of time and effort with Tom and as a result, Tom has a change of heart and accepts the offer, and is let free. Bob on the other hand, goes on in his hatred and refuses to accept the gift Jim is freely and honestly offering.

So, is Jim disingenuous in his offer? Did he not offer the same redemption to each. Was he unjust to Bob because he spent time with Jim and changed his heart? I don't think so. Even though Jim KNEW that it was not in a hatfield's nature to shake hands with a McCoy it doesn't make his offer of reconciliation any less sincere. Just because he targeted one man and spent extra effort doesn't mean he was unjust to the other. Justice was that no offer be made at all and each man did his time in prison. Everything above that was grace on the part of Jim McCoy.

 

[glazer1972]

They go to hell because they are sinners and have rejected Christ.

Sinners who have accepted Christ go to Heaven.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

is it due to the fact they willfully have rejected/ not believed in the Son of God, or due to the fact are born sinners by nature?

Neither. People go to Hell as punishment for their sin.

 

[Skandelon]

A couple of quick points:

If rejection of Christ is the ultimate condemnable sin then what about the following situation: A man is confronted with the gospel over the course of 40 years and repeatedly vehemently rejects Christ, rejects the gospel and refuses in every way. He endures the appeal of fine evangelical preaching, the appeals of his friends family and loved ones but he will have nothing to do with God period. Then after rejecting Christ 1000 times over his 40 years something changes and he falls on his knees, trusts Christ and is saved. How is it that he was not overwhelmingly condemned for not one act of rejection but 1000? Was his act of acceptance so overwhelmingly great that it canceled out the penalty of all those rejections?

He met the provision within the time given for him to meet it, so he is saved. Why is that somehow not acceptable?

one would have to move logically to an idea that it is better not to preach the gospel to anyone because if they reject it they will be damned.

Ignorance of the gospel is not a guarantee of salvation because even nature reveals the eternal attributes and eternal nature of God and thus men are held to account to how they respond to that level of truth.

I would put the analogy of the judge a bit differently.

Suppose there are three men Bob and Tom Hatfield and Jim McCoy. Bob and Tom hate Jim, they are enemies because their families have been enemies for generations. They are beyond reasons, they simply hate each other and wouldn't think twice to cause the other harm. Bob and Tom are caught setting Jim's house on fire. It burns to the ground and they are caught and the evidence against them is incontrovertible. They will surely be sentenced to years in prison. However, Jim does not hate Bob and Tom. To be sure they are enemies because of their family connections but Jim wants to change this. Jim also has a secret, that his great grandmother on his mother's side was actually a Hatfield. Jim in the spirit of reconciliation goes to the judge and says, Judge I am willing to forgo the charges, I will allow these men to walk free upon one condition: each man must reject their hatred of me as a McCoy shake my hand and apologize. The judge agrees to this proposition, but he points out to Jim that the hatred runs so deep that he is sure they will reject the offer. It is simply not in a Hatfield's nature to shake hands with any McCoy, let alone apologize. That would turn around generations of conditioning and would be nothing short of a miracle. Jim says, "I know, nevertheless my offer is genuine and honest, and if they do this I will not press charges." The deal is put to the Hatfield's and they predictably reject the offer spitting on the ground and saying would rather spend a lifetime in prison than shake hands with any McCoy. So, in a final effort at reconciliation, Jim visits Tom and manages to make a connection with him. He shows Tom how that he is done with all this feuding and that he even has Hatfield blood himself. He spends a great deal of time and effort with Tom and as a result, Tom has a change of heart and accepts the offer, and is let free. Bob on the other hand, goes on in his hatred and refuses to accept the gift Jim is freely and honestly offering.

So, is Jim disingenuous in his offer? Did he not offer the same redemption to each. Was he unjust to Bob because he spent time with Jim and changed his heart? I don't think so. Even though Jim KNEW that it was not in a hatfield's nature to shake hands with a McCoy it doesn't make his offer of reconciliation any less sincere. Just because he targeted one man and spent extra effort doesn't mean he was unjust to the other. Justice was that no offer be made at all and each man did his time in prison. Everything above that was grace on the part of Jim McCoy.

I don't mean to nit-pick your analogy because I realize they are given to provide clarity to a particular point. But, the point you are attempting to defend (the genuineness of the appeal to be reconciled) is not accurately depicted because it leaves out one very important component. The reason Tom and Bob's heart is set against accepting Jim's genuine appeal to be reconciled.

Let's add that component to your analogy and see if doesn't change the perspective. Suppose, that prior to the barn burning, in fact before Tom and Bob were even born; Jim was friends with their father Clive Hatfield who had done something really bad to Jim causing their relationship to be corrupted. Jim, though innocent of wrong doing, felt justice must be served. Because of this Jim gave Clive a secret drug that would make all his children unable to willingly accept any offer of reconciliation presented from any McCoy, unless of course the antidote was first given. So, before the boys even burned down his barn he made a decision to give the antidote to Tom but not not Bob.

Now, pick up in your story where Jim makes an appeal to both Bob and Tom and then honestly tell me, is his offer genuine to Bob?

 

[Skandelon]

Yes. I said this before. I even said in the post that you were correct up to this point.


This has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Also, the discussion isn't about the determinative factor. Both of use agree that both those in heaven and those in hell are sinners. All are sinners. The differences is that my sins have been paid for on the cross and applied to my account. Those that don't believe, will not have their sins payment applied to their accounts.

Correct, but that doesn't mean their sin wasn't paid for, because it was. This is why we should be in agreement. The difference is that you don't believe that Christ atoned for the sins of the world world, taking away the curse of the law, appeasing the wrath of God once and for all. You think it takes Christ AND Hell to appease God's wrath, you believe the cross didn't take care of the whole curse of the law, which is biblically unfounded. The reason some go to hell is because the refused to accept the truth as the scriptures, I presented and which have gone virtually untouched, clearly teach.

 

[Skandelon]

John 3 says we are condemned already. We don't believe, so we keep the condemnation that is coming to us. If we believe, we are not condemned.

I couldn't agree more and can't understand why this wouldn't make you want to be in agreement with me.

All men stand condemned in unbelief, so what is the ONE thing that will get them out from under that condemnation? BELIEF And what is the one thing that keeps them condemned? UNBELIEF. Again, I'm not sure how you see this as supporting your concept that men are condemned for breaking the law when clearly belief/unbelief is the primary factor being laid out here.

Revelation 20 teaches that the sinners at the Great White Throne will be judged on what they do(i.e. their sins)

So, are you saying you believe in works based salvation? Obviously not. What is the one thing the sinners being judged must do in order to be seen as covered by the blood? BELIEVE...and in doing so God will see the works of Christ, not our "doing" at the great white throne.

 

[Skandelon]

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

According to Revelation 20:12-13, every lost person is judged according to their works not their sin. All sin was judged at the cross. Therefore, all those who end up in hell will go there with their sins already paid for. It is the rejection of Christ which sends a person to hell.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[jbh28]

I couldn't agree more and can't understand why this wouldn't make you want to be in agreement with me.

Because you are not a Calvinist so I must disagree :laugh:

All men stand condemned in unbelief, so what is the ONE thing that will get them out from under that condemnation? BELIEF And what is the one thing that keeps them condemned? UNBELIEF. Again, I'm not sure how you see this as supporting your concept that men are condemned for breaking the law when clearly belief/unbelief is the primary factor being laid out here.



So, are you saying you believe in works based salvation? Obviously not. What is the one thing the sinners being judged must do in order to be seen as covered by the blood? BELIEVE...and in doing so God will see the works of Christ, not our "doing" at the great white throne.

No, the unbelievers are judged for their works/sins for damnation. We are covered by the blood of Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

You say,

the unbelievers are judged for their works/sins

Jesus said, "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day."

No offense, but I'll go with what Jesus said.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast...

Some scriptural proof regarding Gods giving potentially saving "Light" to every person who comes into the world, even those who never heard the gosple of Jesus Christ...










There is much more, of course.

AIC
These are all good verses, but they only teach that man knows there is a God who He is responsible to. None of these verses indicate a special saving knowledge being given to them...that is what I meant about the light of nature, or conscience.

 

[TomVols]

is it due to the fact they willfully have rejected/ not believed in the Son of God, or due to the fact are born sinners by nature?

Yes. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I still want to hear how Calvinists explain this text:

1 Cor. 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Notice 3 things:

1. God is not counting men's sin against them and we should regard NNE from a worldly point of view.
2. Paul uses words like "persuade" and "appeal," which seem unnecessary when the act of irresistible regeneration would accomplish this.
3. Notice the term "died for all" in this context. Can it possibly be interpreted as "a few people from many nations" and maintain the obvious intent?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by JesusFan
is it due to the fact they willfully have rejected/ not believed in the Son of God, or due to the fact are born sinners by nature?

Yes. :smilewinkgrin:

Prior to the cross and the appeal to be reconciled, the reason for condemnation would have been our breaking of God's law (sin), but "while we were still sinners Christ died for us."

So, its no longer about whether we broke his law, it about how we respond to the cross and his appeal to be reconciled through it. As Jesus said, "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day."

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconaclast...



Thats because you are running with the wrong crowd, friend. :thumbs:

[Or the IN CROWD}

Oh. And since when did they ever become infallible? It is the scriptures that we are use as the standard to judge truth from error...not the puritans and reformers. Calvinism is riddled with errors and false teachings.

[you say this as if the reformers and puritans did not use the scriptures! This betrays your aversion to such,unfortunately. When you turn from truth you go into myth. The puritans and reformers have forgotten more scriptures than you and I know put together. To fail to use gifts God has given to his church is not the way to go.
Are they infallible.....no.. of course not. No calvinist would believe such. If anything they were constantly self examining themselves.
Every confession of faith puts the scriptures first. Every one, because that is what God has given to us. You might not like what they teach, or be unable to receive it at this time. But looking at the verses you and some others offer here...as compared to my puritan friends who with one mind and heart exalted the Lord Jesus Christ......sorry my brother, but I will stick with my long departed friends teaching,as they saw more of Christ than many today.]

I have some AW Pink works on my bookshelf. Have had them for a long time.

[ they work better when they come off the bookshelf:thumbs: read some of his work with an open bible....tell me where he has gone off the rails..
A few weeks ago I posted a link and tried to set out some of His teaching on the atonement.....only Allan came in to discuss some aspects of the teaching.
AIC.. you are welcome to do so.....but come with more scripture than Jn 1:9., or jn 3;16

I actually gave Calvinism every opportunity to convince several years ago.

[AIC....I am reading this,and believe you mean this sincerely, however, I can almost guarantee you did not look at it accurately. In other words, we we sat over a cup of coffee and I asked you to explain calvinism to me...I doubt you would give an accurate account of the teaching. I have done this with several persons and they usually say...oh I never saw that before, or that is different than what I was taught.....maybe you could surprise me
When put to the test of the scriptures...it failed.
[ I am sure it never fails....when put to the correct scriptures after all It is God's eternal purpose and decree. He planned it, and He is carrying it out.
AiC

Thanks for your response, although I see we are not closer to agreement on this. Perhaps as time permits I will start some threads based on puritan,quotes, and we can see who had more of the scriptures in their hearts and minds

 

[Iconoclast]

I still want to hear how Calvinists explain this text:

1 Cor. 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Notice 3 things:

1. God is not counting men's sin against them and we should regard NNE from a worldly point of view.
2. Paul uses words like "persuade" and "appeal," which seem unnecessary when the act of irresistible regeneration would accomplish this.
3. Notice the term "died for all" in this context. Can it possibly be interpreted as "a few people from many nations" and maintain the obvious intent?

Great verse Skan;
Lets look at the heart of it

14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again

The ALL that died...are not the world of the ungodly...how do we know that?

Because that would mean that the ungodly world was now "living for Christ"

The those who Live are the elect,who are translated out of the world ,into Christ. The same in Romans 5..which you struggle with, and 1cor15:22. [even if you do not see it yet, plug that in to the verses, in other words read it as a calvinist would..and you will see it .]
You see the word, all or world,and go nuts with it. take time with it..write it out on a white board, or a legal pad and see that it is so.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ

This qualifies the whole passage;
1]anyone In Christ

2] is a new creation

3]they{elect believers in Christ] are now reconciled

4] their sins are not imputed to them.

The ungodly world will have all their sins imputed to them at the white throne judgement.
That is why Paul says ....now

And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The fact that we plead with sinners to be reconciled...is because they are not yet reconciled.....do you see it?? If the whole world without exception was already reconciled, their sins would no longer be held against them....vs 11 says..Knowing the terror of the Lord ..we persuade men
They are under his wrath ......the penalty of the broken law.
The OT avenger of blood was a type of the law of God seeking the guilty..
Jesus alone is the city of refuge ,for guilty sinners.

Paul does not say...knowing the love of God we ask you to consider accepting Jesusas your personal saviour, if your not to busy watching the nba playoffs, or american idol atry. he says know ing the terror of the Lord
In Acts they say God has commanded all men everywhere to repent.

Can you see this? You are seeing part of it[we are to plead with sinners, yes, because God ordains the means as well as the end}

 

[Skandelon]

The ALL that died...are not the world of the ungodly...how do we know that?

Because that would mean that the ungodly world was now "living for Christ"

This is the fallacy of setting up a "false dichotomy." Its also called the "either-or fallacy" and it involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

Your two alternatives are:
Christ died for all either means:

1) He died for every individual, which means all would be saved (universalism): or as you put it, "that would mean that the ungodly world was now "living for Christ."

or

2) He died only for the elect

The problem is that there are other options:

3) He died for believers (this view would say that Christ foreknows who will believe and thus only died for them)

4) He died provisionally for everyone (provisional atonement - which is my view): This view is just like it sounds and I've expounded on it numerously in other posts (I can direct you to them if needed or desired)

You are seeing part of it[we are to plead with sinners, yes, because God ordains the means as well as the end}

But what do the means of "persuasion" such as "envy" (Rm 11:14) and signs and wonders accomplish that the effectual calling does not?

 

[Iconoclast]

The Lord Jesus Christ paid the full penalty for ALL sin...even for the sin of those who reject Him.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

It's true that all the lost are judged guilty and die IN THEIR SIN....but this does not mean that Christ did not pay their sin debt on the cross of Calvary. All who go to hell, go to hell with their sin paid for.

Not at all....Jesus has bought the rights to all men at the cross,similar language was also found in Deut. also exodus19...all the earth is mine.
hebrews 10...they despise ....wherewith he was sanctified...
Jesus is the he that was sanctified, on behalf of His elect Spiritual children
hebrews 2:9-16 all of one source, ie God the Father!

At the white throne all sin will be punished...in the sinner in hell
or in the substitute at the cross, who at that time will be intercedeing as the High priest for the Sheep only hebrews 10:14

 

[Skandelon]

Plus, the verse says, "and he died for all, that those who live"...not..."and he died for all [elect], that they will live"