Hell? Is it being treated fairly?
Hell? Is it being treated fairly?
I was recently tagged in a note that referenced a website that made some very strong claims about the Bible’s teaching about God and about the reality of hell (as a reaction to the Crazy Harold Camping’s prediction that May 21st is the rapture).
My intention in this post is not to write an exhaustive argument for or against hell but to respond to the website that was referenced in the Facebook note.
To begin I would like to recommend a video posted by Francis Chan on studying this topic.
My intention in this post is not to write an exhaustive argument for or against hell but to respond to the website that was referenced in the Facebook note.
To begin I would like to recommend a video posted by Francis Chan on studying this topic.
Response to Bill Mcginnis ‘Do all non-Christians go to hell? Bible says “No!”
(Click Here to see the original site) * The text in bold will be direct quotations from Mcginnis’ website
It was this false doctrine, as much as anything else, which allowed the Church to authorize torture to be used to extract confessions from suspected witches during the Inquisition. "After all," the reasoning went, "what is a few hours or days of torture now compared to an eternity of torture which is surely awaiting these same people after they die?" And thus the law of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was turned upside down, as the Church itself tortured people to death in the name of God.
This shows what happens when you have a one sided theology--when you believe in the wrath of God and the holiness of God but do not believe in the love of God and the call to love our neighbors. However does this justify the denial of the holiness of God or the wrath of God? In doing theology we must be very careful not to create a false dichotomy. It is not:
It was this false doctrine, as much as anything else, which allowed the Church to authorize torture to be used to extract confessions from suspected witches during the Inquisition. "After all," the reasoning went, "what is a few hours or days of torture now compared to an eternity of torture which is surely awaiting these same people after they die?" And thus the law of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was turned upside down, as the Church itself tortured people to death in the name of God.
This shows what happens when you have a one sided theology--when you believe in the wrath of God and the holiness of God but do not believe in the love of God and the call to love our neighbors. However does this justify the denial of the holiness of God or the wrath of God? In doing theology we must be very careful not to create a false dichotomy. It is not:
“Is God wrathful or loving?” This is a false choice, but rather it is true to say “God is love and God is Holy”
His love expresses itself to the sinner as Grace while his holiness expresses itself toward the sinner as wrath
This false doctrine defames God and is a stumbling block to potential believers, because it is so intuitively unfair and repugnant to Justice.
I would wonder whose justice this is talking about? Or who’s fairness? Is this some sort of morality that we are forcing on God as a presupposition? If we begin with the presupposition that God exists and that he reveals himself clearly in His word can we make such a claim? The claim would be that “God’s wrath is contrary to God’s justice.” This is actually opposite of what is true. Rather it is God’s holiness and Justice that demands that wrath is to be expressed.
If God is perfectly just he must respond to the breaking of His law. How would a perfect judge simply let those who break the perfect law of God to go without punishment? The only way this can happen is in the way the God of the bible has taken care of this issue. Only Christianity teaches a truly just God who reacts to sin not by just pardoning everyone but by providing an atonement or propitiation for our sin. Which means that Jesus received the wrath of God on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Can it be seen what taking away God’s holiness and wrath does to the good news? It strips it of its power. The good news is God offers us Grace, which is that we are offered the opportunity for eternal life based on the sacrifice of Jesus. But if we reject the forgiveness God offers us we simply receive that which we justly deserve.
This false doctrine defames God and is a stumbling block to potential believers, because it is so intuitively unfair and repugnant to Justice.
I would wonder whose justice this is talking about? Or who’s fairness? Is this some sort of morality that we are forcing on God as a presupposition? If we begin with the presupposition that God exists and that he reveals himself clearly in His word can we make such a claim? The claim would be that “God’s wrath is contrary to God’s justice.” This is actually opposite of what is true. Rather it is God’s holiness and Justice that demands that wrath is to be expressed.
If God is perfectly just he must respond to the breaking of His law. How would a perfect judge simply let those who break the perfect law of God to go without punishment? The only way this can happen is in the way the God of the bible has taken care of this issue. Only Christianity teaches a truly just God who reacts to sin not by just pardoning everyone but by providing an atonement or propitiation for our sin. Which means that Jesus received the wrath of God on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Can it be seen what taking away God’s holiness and wrath does to the good news? It strips it of its power. The good news is God offers us Grace, which is that we are offered the opportunity for eternal life based on the sacrifice of Jesus. But if we reject the forgiveness God offers us we simply receive that which we justly deserve.
Our thinking must reverse from what I often hear
Remember: It is unfair that Jesus died as a sacrifice so that we may potentially have eternal life and it is fair that we, as breakers of God’s perfect law, receive his just wrath.
This false doctrine is based mainly on two verses from Scripture which might seem to say that belief in Christ is necessary to avoid Hell. These two verses are . ..(Mark 16:16, John 14:6)
I appreciate that Mcginnis has begun addressing the biblical data and stopped challenging God's character simply on philosophical grounds. If we do assume that the word of God reveals truth about His character (which I agree) than this is an appropriate approach. The major problem with what he says here is that no serious theologian believes these scriptures are the primary basis for the doctrine of hell or, as is specifically being addressed on the website, the punishment for unbelief. This means he is building a “straw man” which he then can easily dismantle. This is a dishonest approach to the scriptures and should not be trusted. But I will continue to address his approach to these scriptures because I believe there are still some fatal flaws in his logic.
Both of these, however, can be read in other ways, which change their meanings completely.
Let me say that there are a number of scriptures that can “be read in other ways, which change their meanings completely” but this is not a fair way to approach anything you read. Your job as a reader of any text (bible or not) is to ask “what’s the author’s intended meaning” not “what could this say to prove what I already think?” For example I cannot push my own meaning onto what is written on this website that I am reacting to. I must ask “what does he mean by that?”
This false doctrine is based mainly on two verses from Scripture which might seem to say that belief in Christ is necessary to avoid Hell. These two verses are . ..(Mark 16:16, John 14:6)
I appreciate that Mcginnis has begun addressing the biblical data and stopped challenging God's character simply on philosophical grounds. If we do assume that the word of God reveals truth about His character (which I agree) than this is an appropriate approach. The major problem with what he says here is that no serious theologian believes these scriptures are the primary basis for the doctrine of hell or, as is specifically being addressed on the website, the punishment for unbelief. This means he is building a “straw man” which he then can easily dismantle. This is a dishonest approach to the scriptures and should not be trusted. But I will continue to address his approach to these scriptures because I believe there are still some fatal flaws in his logic.
Both of these, however, can be read in other ways, which change their meanings completely.
Let me say that there are a number of scriptures that can “be read in other ways, which change their meanings completely” but this is not a fair way to approach anything you read. Your job as a reader of any text (bible or not) is to ask “what’s the author’s intended meaning” not “what could this say to prove what I already think?” For example I cannot push my own meaning onto what is written on this website that I am reacting to. I must ask “what does he mean by that?”
Mcginniss twisted approach to the Bible is how we end up with crazy men like Harold Camping making outrageous claims that the world was going to end May 21st or that it is the end of the church age.
We will look first at Mark 16:16….The condemnation applies only to people who have had he Gospel presented to them, so that they fully understand the ideas, and then they reject it anyway. If they have never heard it, they are not condemned. And if they don't understand it, they are not condemned....Thus the only condemnation in Mark 16:16 is for those who have heard the true Gospel message, and understand it, but reject it anyway. And this is a serious condemnation: to know the Gospel, but still reject it!
We will look first at Mark 16:16….The condemnation applies only to people who have had he Gospel presented to them, so that they fully understand the ideas, and then they reject it anyway. If they have never heard it, they are not condemned. And if they don't understand it, they are not condemned....Thus the only condemnation in Mark 16:16 is for those who have heard the true Gospel message, and understand it, but reject it anyway. And this is a serious condemnation: to know the Gospel, but still reject it!
This is affirming the truth that God condemns those who hear the message and reject it, which is affirming that the bible must be teaching the reality of hell even if it is just for those who reject Gods gospel. This seems to contradict the title and the points made earlier in this website.
What is wrong here is that it is not the rejection of the gospel that makes us guilty but the rejection and breaking of God's law (aka sinning). (Romans 6:23) "the wages of sin is death" that means what we earn because of sin is death aka condemnation.
But the big question that follows is "but what about those who have never heard?" This is answered in connection with what I mentioned above that what makes us guilty is not rejecting the gospel but rejecting Gods law. This "law" is not limited to just the Old or New Testament but is also explained as a sort of “natural law” (Romans 2:14-16) This law does not open an opportunity to be saved by nature or personal conviction but is actually showing that we are all guilty, even those who don’t have a written law have broken God’s law by disobeying the law put on all our hearts. This is the type of news that needs to stir our hearts to want to fulfill the great commission and go into all the world (Matthew 28:19-20)
The correct understanding of John 14:6 is that Jesus is the gatekeeper to Heaven. Nobody gets to the Father, that is, gets into Heaven, except by being let in by Jesus. Jesus may let them in for whatever reasons He chooses. He is not required to let in only those who believe in Him.
It is true that Jesus will let in those that have trusted in Him for salvation because God is consistent with his character and promises. And I would also add that Jesus could not let just anyone into heaven and still be consistent with his character (as described above that God is both Holy and Love) he cannot simply turn off a part of His character. God hates sin and must punish it as a perfect judge.
The Biblical fact is this: belief in Jesus is the sure way to avoid Hell, but it is not necessarily the only way.
Notice how this is in direct contradiction of the verse quoted. "no man comes to the father except through me." what else could this possibly mean other than trusting in him?
Jesus Himself said that you can avoid Hell by doing good to other people out of love for them. This is the entire meaning of the Parable of the Sheep And The Goats. In this parable, there is no mention whatsoever of faith: it is pure works based on love. God accepts your good works toward others as if they were good works done to Him in love. He counts your love for others as righteousness (see Matthew 25:46, below).
I think this shows very clearly what happens when you deny the reality of hell. You end up with a “works based salvation.” Which means that you are attempting to be made right before God by how good you are to others, etc. But this is the opposite of the gospel (as mentioned above). The good news begins with the bad news that we cannot be good enough to be in the presence of God. And then the good news that emerges from this is that God’s love provided a way by providing His Son as the perfect sacrifice and by trusting in His sacrifice rather than our good deeds we can gain access to eternal life.
So does this mean that Matthew 25 contradicts salvation by Grace apart from works?
Nowhere in this passage does it say that the love we have towards others is what leads to our “righteousness” as implied in Mcginnis’ statement. Rather this is the exact opposite teaching of the rest of the Bible. There are a number of scriptures that can be referenced in regards to our own righteousness or how good we are have no part in our right standing before God. i.e.:
Philippians 3:6-11
Notice that Paul says that he is “found in [Christ]” not by his own righteousness “derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness.” (Phil 3:9). Our righteousness deeds are like “a menstrual rag in [God’s] sight” (Isaiah 64:6). We have a righteousness according to faith (Hebrews 11:7). We are clothed with righteousness (Isaiah 61:10)
Paul speaks so strongly against what Mcginnis is saying here that he says that Jesus died for no reason if we are saved by how good we are (Galatians 2:21) There is a great warning for those that preach salvation by works Paul actually says “let him be eternally condemned” (Galatiansd 1:6-9). Read the entire book of Galatians and see Paul’s reaction to those who try to strip away grace by saying that we can somehow earn our salvation.
I hope these scriptures are very clear that we cannot merit our right standing before God but we must grasp to Christ’s righteousness as Paul does in Phillipians 3:9
Many other Bible verses support the idea that love for others is sufficient to keep you out of Hell.
Refer above to the idea that any sort of personal righteousness or goodness cannot save us. As mentioned earlier our law code has made us guilty and we cannot somehow be good enough to become unguilty. But we must either accept what we rightfully deserve, death (Romans 6:23 first part) or accept through faith that which we do not deserve (Romans 6:23 second part).
Mcginnis quotes:
Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8, 10, James 2:8 This in no way implies you are saved by love unless again we are somehow saved by law. This is something we do BECAUSE we are saved not IN ORDER TO BE saved.
Proverbs 10:12, 1 Peter 4:8 These in no way are talking about our relationship to God. Rather that Sin stirs up hatred in men in their relation to one another; but love covers the already existing sins, and smooths the disturbances occasioned by them.
I believe I have properly responded to the points made in regards to 1 Corinthians 13 and 1 John 4. Remember again God is love and God is Holy. We cannot have a one sided view of things. It is in that view that we seriously diverge from scriptures teaching about who God is
In addition to love for others, there is another way that non-believers in Christ can avoid going to Hell: by following the Natural Law written on their hearts by God...According to the Bible, there is such a thing as "The Natural Law." It is given by God to mankind, written on our hearts so we instinctively know right from wrong. Those who are not Jews (under the Law of Moses) will be judged by this Natural Law, not by whether they accept Jesus Christ or not. ROMANS 2:14-16
Mcginnis is 100% correct in saying that there is a natural law written on the heart of mankind. But his application of this truth misses the whole purpose of Romans 1:18-3:20 in that trying to follow LAW (whichever system you may be under) to be saved is futile and no one will be saved under LAW. (Romans 3:20) But rather we must be saved by GRACE (Romans 3:21-5:21) The only thing LAW is doing is showing that we are guilty. Romans 3:19-20 is very clear on this point.
This is the last point that I will address on the website because I believe the information I have provided in response to other points he made will also be applicable throughout the rest of his website.
Notice that Paul says that he is “found in [Christ]” not by his own righteousness “derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness.” (Phil 3:9). Our righteousness deeds are like “a menstrual rag in [God’s] sight” (Isaiah 64:6). We have a righteousness according to faith (Hebrews 11:7). We are clothed with righteousness (Isaiah 61:10)
Paul speaks so strongly against what Mcginnis is saying here that he says that Jesus died for no reason if we are saved by how good we are (Galatians 2:21) There is a great warning for those that preach salvation by works Paul actually says “let him be eternally condemned” (Galatiansd 1:6-9). Read the entire book of Galatians and see Paul’s reaction to those who try to strip away grace by saying that we can somehow earn our salvation.
I hope these scriptures are very clear that we cannot merit our right standing before God but we must grasp to Christ’s righteousness as Paul does in Phillipians 3:9
Many other Bible verses support the idea that love for others is sufficient to keep you out of Hell.
Refer above to the idea that any sort of personal righteousness or goodness cannot save us. As mentioned earlier our law code has made us guilty and we cannot somehow be good enough to become unguilty. But we must either accept what we rightfully deserve, death (Romans 6:23 first part) or accept through faith that which we do not deserve (Romans 6:23 second part).
Mcginnis quotes:
Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8, 10, James 2:8 This in no way implies you are saved by love unless again we are somehow saved by law. This is something we do BECAUSE we are saved not IN ORDER TO BE saved.
Proverbs 10:12, 1 Peter 4:8 These in no way are talking about our relationship to God. Rather that Sin stirs up hatred in men in their relation to one another; but love covers the already existing sins, and smooths the disturbances occasioned by them.
I believe I have properly responded to the points made in regards to 1 Corinthians 13 and 1 John 4. Remember again God is love and God is Holy. We cannot have a one sided view of things. It is in that view that we seriously diverge from scriptures teaching about who God is
In addition to love for others, there is another way that non-believers in Christ can avoid going to Hell: by following the Natural Law written on their hearts by God...According to the Bible, there is such a thing as "The Natural Law." It is given by God to mankind, written on our hearts so we instinctively know right from wrong. Those who are not Jews (under the Law of Moses) will be judged by this Natural Law, not by whether they accept Jesus Christ or not. ROMANS 2:14-16
Mcginnis is 100% correct in saying that there is a natural law written on the heart of mankind. But his application of this truth misses the whole purpose of Romans 1:18-3:20 in that trying to follow LAW (whichever system you may be under) to be saved is futile and no one will be saved under LAW. (Romans 3:20) But rather we must be saved by GRACE (Romans 3:21-5:21) The only thing LAW is doing is showing that we are guilty. Romans 3:19-20 is very clear on this point.
This is the last point that I will address on the website because I believe the information I have provided in response to other points he made will also be applicable throughout the rest of his website.
Let me end with an outline of what the Bible teaches about the gospel and our response it:
The Gospel *the good news
- The Character of God:
- There is only God (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
- He is Holy (Psalm 99:3-5, Hebrews 12:29)
- He is Love (1 John 4:8)
- The Situation of Man: He is Guilty of Sin. (Romans 3:20, Romans 3:23, James 2:10)
- The Consequence Man Faces: Payout of Sin is Death= Hell (Hebrews 9:27, Romans 6:23a, Revelation 20:14-15)
- God’s Answer: The Death of Jesus (Romans 3:25-26, 1 John 2:1-2)
- God’s Offer: Forgiveness of Sins and Eternal Life! (John 3:16, Romans 6:23b)
Our Response
AKA: Obedience to the gospel: 2 Thessalonians 1:8
- We Must have Faith (Hebrews 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-10, John 3:16)
- We Must Repent (turn away) from Our Sins (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38)
- We Must Call on Jesus’s Name/ be immersed. (Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:37-38, 22:16,1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:1-4)
- We Receive Forgiveness of Sins (Acts 2:38, John 3:16
- The Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:34, 1st Corinthians 6:19)
Follow up question: So do we actually have to change? Yes, see (Romans 3:31, Romans 6, Ephesians 2:8-10)
Comments
Post a Comment