PDA

View Full Version : ARTICLE: Am I Going to Hell?


STR Ambassador
June 7th 2004, 03:49 PM
Am I Going to Hell?

by Greg Koukl

I talked in the past about the difficulty in clarifying our communication of the need for salvation. Frankly, to a lot of people the message of Christianity is not going to be palatable, but at least we can make it clear. It will not be the kind of thing they will be happy with. Yet, at the same time, there are things we can do that make it clearer and not inappropriately put stumbling blocks in people’s way.

This is why I’ve often said that the Gospel is offensive enough all by itself. Don’t add any more offense to it. But we shouldd not take out the offense that is inherent to the Gospel, either. This is why we are not pluralists even though there is pressure to be pluralists or at least inclusivistic with the Gospel. At the same time, we don’t want to communicate the exclusivity of Christ in such a way as to confound those people who are listening.

Christians often say, if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven; if you don’t believe in Jesus you go to Hell. Is that true? Well, it is true, but it doesn’t communicate a sense of the true circumstance. It’s not coherent to most people because it just seems bizarre why what one person thought about some guy who died 2000 years ago has anything to do with their eternal destiny. Whether they believe in him or not seems irrelevant to anything that might happen after we die. So we have often not been careful to communicate the sense of things.

We need to be clear so that someone rejects the real message and not some incoherent mess that some Christian has handed him that they can’t make sense of. So, I don’t say, if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven, and if you don’t believe you go to Hell, because this is misleading. I’d rather try to explain it more accurately.

Many of you are familiar with the conversation I had with a fellow at Barnes and Noble in which he asked me a question. I was giving a talk there as part of the book on relativism that Dr. Frank Beckwith and I co-authored, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Since I was talking about it in the bookstore, he came up afterwards and started asking questions about Jesus. Instead of unloading this slogan on him, I asked him this question. Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? He said, “Yes.” I said, “Good, so do I.” Second question, “Have you ever committed any moral crimes?” Pause. Then he said, “Yes, I guess I have.” You know what I said to him? “So have I.”

This just took 30 seconds, right? Then I reflected back to him, “Look where we’ve come so far. We both believe that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished. And we both believe we’ve committed moral crimes. You know what I call that? Bad news.” And it is bad news.

Most people are concerned with doing what is right. That was one of the first things he told me. “I’m Jewish. I believe in morality, I believe in God. Why do I have to believe in your Jesus?” Here is a man who has some level of commitment to the moral life. The problem is, he knows that that commitment does not guarantee that he is going to live a fully moral life and he’s aware of his own moral crimes. And so am I. Now what? That is the issue? We are guilty. That is the bad news.

This is why it is so important to get the bad news before the good news. The bad news gives meaning to the good news. I was able to talk about the fact that now we both admit we have a problem, but that there is a solution that God has ordained. Since He is the one who is offended, He is the one who can call the shots on how to fix the problem. The answer is through His Son Jesus, who provides mercy because he took the rap for our crimes. We got off, He went to jail. A modern metaphor to put it in perspective.

There at least is the sense of things about Jesus being the only way. I hear it even asked on TV. The question is often asked honestly, but I think most of the time it is asked for an inflammatory effect. The person who is asking the question is wording it very carefully because he knows precisely how the faithful evangelical Christian will respond. He is counting on it so that the Christian says something that sounds to the rest of the people to be bizarre. Therefore, they can discount what the Christian says.

I don’t want you to sound bizarre when you answer the question I am about to offer. I want you to sound sensible. Here is the question. Do you think I am going to Hell? Now the only person who asks that is a person who thinks you think they’re going to Hell. Ninety per cent of the time they would ask it because they think you are nuts and they want other people to think you are nuts, too. They want to get you to say in public that people who disagree with you are going to Hell so that you will look silly and they will look good. How do you deal with that?

The problem, of course, is, first of all, it’s probably true they are going to Hell. Secondly, it doesn’t communicate the sense of things and so it is misleading. The people who ask this are generally not criminals. It’s going to be some nice guy who is basically good and sincere. You are in a tough spot. You are on the defensive already, you want to answer truthfully, but you know by giving a truthful answer you are going to play into his hands.

Jesus faced this frequently. He always got out of it, and I’m going to give you a way to get out. Answer the question truthfully and don’t sound like an idiot. It doesn’t mean everyone is going to believe you, fall at your feet, and want to receive Christ, but at least you will be able to give a proper and appropriate answer to those who ask you to make a defense for the hope that is within you (2 Peter 3:15). The answer is simply this.

When somebody says, Do you think I am going to Hell? and you think they are., you say something like, Well, I believe in justice, do you? Yes. What is justice but that people who are guilty get punished in an appropriate way to their guilt? I believe that people who are guilty pay for their crimes unless they have been pardoned.

This is very straightforward language. It fits entirely with our culture. It is terminology that has meaning immediately. It is also terminology that the person you are talking with not only is familiar with but they agree with the concept. We both believe the same thing here: justice. If you have committed any moral crimes, if you have done anything wrong, I think you will be punished for them unless you receive pardon. The punishment for moral crimes is Hell.

You are saying yes, I think you are going to Hell unless you receive Jesus. But you are putting it in terms that are making more sense to that individual. In fact, he has already affirmed the underlying concept, as well he should, because he believes in it.

Most people believe in justice. It is built in. It is part of their moral intuition, the image of God in man that is being expressed. They clamor for justice. There is a place for mercy, and pardon. We both agree. From God’s perspective, if you have committed any moral crimes, then you are going to be punished for them. You’ll only receive God’s punishment if you are guilty of something. Are you guilty of anything? What is so controversial about that? Don’t want to be punished? God has a means for a pardon. That is the whole point of our conversation. I don’t want to be punished either. I want to experience a pardon.

See how that works? That’s part of the tactical elements of communicating the knowledge truthfully.


Stand to Reason - Training ambassadors for Christ in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/records/amigoing.htm

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

$cirisme
June 7th 2004, 04:00 PM
That is just awesome. :thumb:

JardinPrayer
June 7th 2004, 04:16 PM
Awesome, indeed! I want to point every Christian (and seeker) I know to this article! I will certainly have opportunities to use this technique...and I look forward to that!

Thank you!

C. D. Ward
June 7th 2004, 04:46 PM
It's certainly an interesting response, and probably better than simply saying "yes", but it's almost as certainly going to raise a couple of questions.

1) Why are finite moral crimes (as are all committed in this world of finite existence) appropriately punished infinitely? And ancillary to this is the question of why the moral crime of stealing a pack of gum should receive the same infinite punishment as mass murder.

2) If Hell is justice for moral crimes, what would be the hypothetical fate of those who never commit any? Is the virtuous non-believer exempt from Hell?

I'm aware that these questions are discussed by numerous Christian & non-Christian writers, but any would-be apologist utilizing Mr. Koukl's approach should certainly prepare him/herself for the obvious questions it raises...

TuckEverlasting
June 7th 2004, 04:51 PM
(Just a quick cameo:)

If Hell is justice for moral crimes, what would be the hypothetical fate of those who never commit any? Is the virtuous non-believer exempt from Hell?

Yes, the sinless non-Christian is exempt from hell.

$cirisme
June 7th 2004, 05:13 PM
Not to get into a debate... but I can't help it :teeth:

1) Why are finite moral crimes (as are all committed in this world of finite existence) appropriately punished infinitely? And ancillary to this is the question of why the moral crime of stealing a pack of gum should receive the same infinite punishment as mass murder.
Primarily, I would disagree that hell is the place for typical(stealing, murder, etc... things people generally think of with hell and sin) sins, but (imho) rather it is the punishment for the greatest of all sins, rejecting God.

Think about it this way... without violating the victim's freewill, what sin on eath is there that God can't undo? He can undo murder(He will in the resurrection preceding the judgment of all men), He can restore life savings, He can heal wounds(both physical and mental), and on.

But, without violating the victim's freewill, how can He have the victim come to know accept God? That is the only sin I can think of like this(you could argue suicide but that makes things a little bit more complex then I'd prefer for now as it is rather irrelevant in answering your question).

If the ultimate purpose of humanity is to know God, and if God stepped down and gave His own life so that you could and you still rejected Him, what greater sin is there from His perspective?

And if hell is the place where people who have no desire to know God go to and God's presence is not there, and if heaven is where God in all His glory is revealed in the highest and where people who have the desire to know Him and be with Him go, then I think things make a lot of sense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that hell isn't a place of punishment for sin(it's also more than that), what I am saying is that the primary sin that everyone is guilty of is rejecting God, all else pales in comparison to that.

I realize that none of this will work but in a Christian worldview(hence all the ifs) but you asked. :teeth:

2) If Hell is justice for moral crimes, what would be the hypothetical fate of those who never commit any? Is the virtuous non-believer exempt from Hell?
Well, if the primary sin is rejection of God, then I'd think it would be a contradiction to say they are a non-believer and sinless. :teeth:

reasonabledoubt
June 7th 2004, 05:32 PM
If the primary sin warranting infinite eternal punishment is rejection of God- what does that really mean?
"Reject" (from Merriam Webster): 1 a : to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <rejected the suggestion> <reject a manuscript> b : to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : REBUFF (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rebuff), REPEL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=repel) <parents who reject their children>

What the author is saying in this article is that anyone who doesn't subscribe to a certain dogma, ie, Christian Exclusivism, is rejecting God. Is that really the case? There are many Christians who don't believe so, not to say Jews, Muslims, etc. Furthermore, in order to reject something, you have to first believe that it is the case, and then decide that you don't want to accept that reality. If you don't believe that the case is that the Bible teaches eternal damnation for all those who don't explicitly acknowledge Christ as God - then you are not rejecting God. You are rejecting the position of Christian exclusivism.

Most people have no problem believing that Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and other murderous evil people are in hell, because they believe that those crimes deserve major punishment. They believe the people who commit atrocities like that could in no way accept God, so they effectively HAVE rejected God and deserve to be in hell.

There's a difference, however, between the person who is a non-Christian, who has NOT rejected God, and the person who HAS rejected God.

$cirisme
June 7th 2004, 05:35 PM
Who was that addressed to?

reasonabledoubt
June 7th 2004, 05:40 PM
No one in particular. Just a comment on the article.

$cirisme
June 7th 2004, 05:43 PM
Well, I am the one that brought up rejection of God as being a moral "crime", the article simply argues that moral crimes should be punished as a response to a paticular question, not what are(or are not) moral crimes.

TuckEverlasting
June 7th 2004, 06:26 PM
Well, if the primary sin is rejection of God, then I'd think it would be a contradiction to say they are a non-believer and sinless.

:yeahthat:


(What I said before applies to those who never heard of Christ, e.g.)

reasonabledoubt
June 7th 2004, 06:29 PM
Oh sorry, my mistake, Cirisme- I guess it'd be addressed to you then.

$cirisme
June 7th 2004, 06:36 PM
What the author is saying in this article is that anyone who doesn't subscribe to a certain dogma, ie, Christian Exclusivism, is rejecting God.
That's not true since I left open the definition of what exactly rejecting God is.

(and I did so intentionally, that's a whole other debate on top of this!)

Lazy Agnostic
June 10th 2004, 12:31 AM
"Conviction of conscience" can be manipulated by any religion or cult. "Believe-it-or-ELSE" makes God out to be a bogeyman. I suspect the simple message which brought followers to Jesus was long-ago subsumed by the neo-pharisees who came along to sell us what we can have for free.

They persist in men like Mr Koukl who have been duped by the psychosocial manipulations which they deploy during their pernicious competition for one anothers' flocks. They are not Christ-centered, they are ministry-centered, and the amount of believers' monies wasted in the ego-strewn infrastructures of Corporate Christianity must be astronomical. They have hijacked a selfless faith from its rightful inheritors---and that's the sin for which they'll pay.

Dear God, because you have chosen to remain largely a mystery, there are those who will claim divine-anointing to speak for you. Please remind us, and them, that you do not reveal yourself TO us via their words but rather THROUGH us as we struggle to balance our simultaneous capacities for good & evil/ love & fear.

[Moderator: I realize the last paragraphs probably don't belong here. Move them, if you wish.]

Ruth Serra
July 7th 2004, 07:08 AM
(Just a quick cameo:)



Yes, the sinless non-Christian is exempt from hell.

How do you know? Where did you get this piece of information? I'm not being snide or trying to argue, I've just never heard this opinion before.

ajohnson
July 7th 2004, 07:19 AM
How do you know? Where did you get this piece of information? I'm not being snide or trying to argue, I've just never heard this opinion before.

Because hell is reserved for those that have sinned, hence a sinless person will not go to hell.

A Christian is a person who has sinned but has accepted the gift of salvation from the One who gave us a way to have our sins forgiven. All of our sins - from yesterday through tomorrow.

Regards,

Alan

jason
July 7th 2004, 07:21 AM
How do you know? Where did you get this piece of information? I'm not being snide or trying to argue, I've just never heard this opinion before.
It seems to follow logically.

A person without sin will not be punished by God for sin. Seems obvious enough.

If you never sin then you never have the need of a redeemer do you.

So if you never sin then you can get into heaven and be with God without needing to go through Christ.

Of course I suspect you'll find that Tuck thinks the set of "Sinless Non-Christians" is actually the empty set.

Jason

Ruth Serra
July 7th 2004, 01:12 PM
Because hell is reserved for those that have sinned, hence a sinless person will not go to hell.

A Christian is a person who has sinned but has accepted the gift of salvation from the One who gave us a way to have our sins forgiven. All of our sins - from yesterday through tomorrow.

Regards,

Alan

That is a humbling thought, that ALL our sins are forgiven. Thanks for your reply.

lee_merrill
September 25th 2004, 06:40 PM
I like this forum! And Greg's (and others') thoughts.

… it's almost as certainly going to raise a couple of questions.

1) Why are finite moral crimes (as are all committed in this world of finite existence) appropriately punished infinitely?I think the reply here would be "How can we stop sinning?" If someone never stops sinning, should their punishment stop anyway?

And about Jesus being the only way, can we insist that the only remedy for poison is to take the antidote? That you can't eat hotcakes instead, and survive? There is a question to resolve, and that is whether Jesus can really save people from sin and judgment, and whether anyone else can save people, too.

Blessings,
Lee

Ruth Serra
September 26th 2004, 06:11 AM
I disagree that folks like Hitler, Dalhmer, etc can not repent. Of course they can and I've heard Dalhmer did. God can forgive murder, if not there are a lot of women who will spend eternity apart from God.

The murderer has to be repentant and accept Christ just like any other sinner.

Hoosier
September 28th 2004, 01:47 AM
If the primary sin warranting infinite eternal punishment is rejection of God- what does that really mean?
"Reject" (from Merriam Webster): 1 a : to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <rejected the suggestion> <reject a manuscript> b : to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : REBUFF (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rebuff), REPEL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=repel) <parents who reject their children>

What the author is saying in this article is that anyone who doesn't subscribe to a certain dogma, ie, Christian Exclusivism, is rejecting God. Is that really the case? There are many Christians who don't believe so, not to say Jews, Muslims, etc. Furthermore, in order to reject something, you have to first believe that it is the case, and then decide that you don't want to accept that reality. If you don't believe that the case is that the Bible teaches eternal damnation for all those who don't explicitly acknowledge Christ as God - then you are not rejecting God. You are rejecting the position of Christian exclusivism..

Actually, the author is saying that anyone who rejects the dogma is rejecting forgiveness, and/or claiming no moral guilt necessarily warranting punishment. There is nothing exclusive about that.

Only people with true moral guilt, deserving punishment, need consider the dogma.

People able to make just ammends for all moral failings, and who have, can ignore the offer of forgiveness proposed in the dogma.

People who have committed no moral failings can ignore the dogma.

Anyone else can choose to accept or reject the offer, or decide that it's all nonsense. If they choose to call it nonsense, it ought not to bother them that those who think it is sense place them on a particular side of the drawn line. It would just be another way of stating the same nonsense, albeit a more personal one.

Where is the exclusivity in any of that? No one is ruled out except by their own choice. Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, and even agnostics/athiests are on a level playing field within the parameters of the game. If they want to argue about the rules, then thier beef is with the ref, not the other players.


Most people have no problem believing that Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and other murderous evil people are in hell, because they believe that those crimes deserve major punishment. They believe the people who commit atrocities like that could in no way accept God, so they effectively HAVE rejected God and deserve to be in hell.

There's a difference, however, between the person who is a non-Christian, who has NOT rejected God, and the person who HAS rejected God.

Where do you draw the line? Hitler killed millions. Dahmer only a handfull. Some people only molested one child, or only did it once. Some people lie daily, others only when they're in a real pinch. Some murderers cared for their aging mother, or took in a stray dog.

Who decides which moral crimes are worthy of puishment, and why?

Are you morally pure? If not, who should decide the just punishment for what you've done?

Your victims? You?

And what larger yardstick determines the moral failing in the first place? Isn't it moral perfection? If we didn't recognize a moral obligation to do the BEST thing, no one could convince us we'd failed morally. We've transgressed something sublime if we even recognize our own moral weakness, something very big and very personal --- impersonals are only about what is ... personals are about what ought to be.

If we think this very big, very sublime, and very personal Something which places the BEST as the ideal is able to wink at some instances of moral failing but judge others, we've made It much less big and sublime than our own instincts seem to indicate. It might still be personal, much like we excuse the moral failings of others toward us (the best of us do, anyway, knowing that we're far from perfect), but this would do serious damage to the traditional concept (in all of the above dogmas) of what a "God" is, as well as make the instincive measure of the BEST puzzling, to say the least.

What god is it that you have not rejected, while rejecting Christian dogma?

elysian
September 28th 2004, 11:05 AM
This is a parody but a great example (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/LOL/lol.html) of how NOT to witness- scroll down and then click on "How True Christians Should Witness to Liberals."

Hoosier
September 28th 2004, 09:39 PM
This is a parody but a great example (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/LOL/lol.html) of how NOT to witness- scroll down and then click on "How True Christians Should Witness to Liberals."


Strangely enough, even that methodology has been known to work.

Mikeb
October 9th 2004, 03:57 AM
STR

Your use of the Socratic method in you “tactics” is quite commendable. Begin with the generally accepted premises and drag them kicking and screaming to your conclusions. Somewhere Plato said the beginning of intellection is the perception of opposition. In Christian/Hebraic terms we might call that perception the “knowledge of Good and Evil.” I think Plato called the recognition that one is the opposite of minus one. Plato was, after all, a member of the warrior/noble class, and verbal warfare is precisely the tactic he recorded in the Socratic method.

If you ask your question of a better-armed opponent the result might not be quite so auspicious. A better-armed opponent might ask what your definition of justice was. Perhaps they’d delved into the concept of justice a little bit further than the “built in” (or beaten in) wounds of our childhood. Plato believed that justice was specialization, each person performing their given task and minding their own business. Given this definition, the question becomes, do I believe that a developed mammal, a primate, can fit into the social matrix of an insect. The answer is, of course, no. Mammals, primates have none of the specialized physiology or behaviors that enable the ant, or termite or bee to create such a social form. Primates, humans cannot be shoehorned into an insect social form without an extreme degree or force and mutilation.

And so, we ask ourselves, where does this insect specialization, this justice come from. The answer is, of course, obvious. It came, as his firstborn, from Cain. We all remember Cain, the farmer the murderer. Cain was the human that invented the two great engines of human civilization, wealth and warfare, gathering beyond ones needs, and murdering your brother. The seed of these two great inventions, the firstborn of Cain was civilization itself, the city, Enoch. Enoch, the human insect hive, specialization is the realized world created by turning away from life and unto death, unto the knowledge of good and evil.

Do I believe in justice? Does a battery pod believe in the Matrix?

gary cook
November 1st 2004, 01:33 AM
Because hell is reserved for those that have sinned, hence a sinless person will not go to hell.

A Christian is a person who has sinned but has accepted the gift of salvation from the One who gave us a way to have our sins forgiven. All of our sins - from yesterday through tomorrow.

Regards,

Alan
hell was made for satan .believing in JESUS CHRIST ,will get you nothing !You must repent .Then you must accept JESUS CHRIST as LORD AND SAVIOR .You must ASK him to enter your HEART .Then you should be BORN AGAIn .A clean spirit .The HOLY SPIRIT come into your spirit and STAYS forever .Then ,He begins to TEACH YOU .many are called ?FEW ARE CHOOSEN .Because most will accept JESUS as savior .But not as LORD .He MUST be LORD .Because in TRUTh ?HE IS .You can know it now ?Or wish you had later ?Because those who reject HIm .Must go to the lake of fire .And it was not made for you .NEW JERUSALEM was made for YOU .streets of GOLD and MORE for YOU .