How prevalent is the idea that God sends some people to hell through no fault of their own?

[TK421]

Among the masses it’s hard to say, but among protestant theologians, the idea of people going to Hell outside of personal fault is definitely a small minority. The person either chooses for God or against God in some mysterious way (the view that overwhelmingly makes the most sense in my mind), or they go to Heaven. Since there isn’t a working concept of Limbo in most of protestantism, that view has never had much weight.

 

[losh14]

I think we’re getting a little sidetracked - there is an important discussion to be had, but perhaps there are three topics present:

(1) The fate of the unbaptized who are innocent of personal sin. The most recent ecumenical letter on this (to my knowledge) is The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without Being Baptized from 2007, found here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

A concluding note in paragraph 103:
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

(2) The fate of those who die unbaptized because the Sacrament - or indeed the very ministry of the Church - is not available to them. Such are counted among those who live in Muslim or atheist lands where evangelization is illegal or difficult. Not that we should not try, for such laws against preaching the Gospel are in opposition to God, but we realize that there are those who cannot be reached in their lifetime by our own means. We should first commend them to the Lord and pray for all who have not heard the Name of Jesus Christ to come to know Him through Providence. If we are still curious of how to reconcile a just and loving God with the apparent reprobation of these through no fault of their own, we may wish to take note of the theological concept of “invincible ignorance” for example from CCC 1793.

(3) This may be more of what the OP is asking - how common is the idea that there are those who actually seek God but are condemned anyway. There is room for this within some parts of Calvinist theology, because of the emphasis upon predestination, but there is not universal agreement. I talked with a friend who is a Presbyterian minister and he noted “you will know them by their works” and that those who are predestined to Hell - positive reprobation - will not attempt to seek God. There is within Catholic thinking room for a type of predestination provided that it is not positive reprobation. In other words, if one is among the Elect, he or she is predestined so; if one is condemned, it is by his or her own actions. Jimmy Akin has a far better explanation in his short book, The Salvation Controversy.

I’ve also seen within some Catholics the idea that Marian veneration is a sign of predestination to Heaven, while those who do not practice it are condemned. In talking with Catholics who hold this view they often cite Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion” but I think the saint’s arguments are more nuanced than that; otherwise we are to come away with Marian veneration as the core teaching and determinant of eternal fate. But such an idea does exist among at least some in the Catholic Church.

 

[ffg]

People do confuse the effects of sin (OS specifically) and sin itself.

We also need to remember to marry ‘free will’ into the equation of folks who ‘never had the chance’ at life. Or the young or uneducated in Truth.

Those who die without knowledge, surely have to be educated, and make a decision still.

Free will is for all people, not just those that are living past an age of reason, or without natural causes that might affect one’s will.

Logic would say the teacher after death is probably Holy as opposed to the ‘father of lies’.

We could reasonably logic that receiving an education directly from the sources we quote in this world would probably help one choose a path toward the big house.

 

[catholictiger]

I think we’re getting a little sidetracked - there is an important discussion to be had, but perhaps there are three topics present:

(1) The fate of the unbaptized who are innocent of personal sin. The most recent ecumenical letter on this (to my knowledge) is The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without Being Baptized from 2007, found here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

A concluding note in paragraph 103:
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

(2) The fate of those who die unbaptized because the Sacrament - or indeed the very ministry of the Church - is not available to them. Such are counted among those who live in Muslim or atheist lands where evangelization is illegal or difficult. Not that we should not try, for such laws against preaching the Gospel are in opposition to God, but we realize that there are those who cannot be reached in their lifetime by our own means. We should first commend them to the Lord and pray for all who have not heard the Name of Jesus Christ to come to know Him through Providence. If we are still curious of how to reconcile a just and loving God with the apparent reprobation of these through no fault of their own, we may wish to take note of the theological concept of “invincible ignorance” for example from CCC 1793.

(3) This may be more of what the OP is asking - how common is the idea that there are those who actually seek God but are condemned anyway. There is room for this within some parts of Calvinist theology, because of the emphasis upon predestination, but there is not universal agreement. I talked with a friend who is a Presbyterian minister and he noted “you will know them by their works” and that those who are predestined to Hell - positive reprobation - will not attempt to seek God. There is within Catholic thinking room for a type of predestination provided that it is not positive reprobation. In other words, if one is among the Elect, he or she is predestined so; if one is condemned, it is by his or her own actions. Jimmy Akin has a far better explanation in his short book, The Salvation Controversy.

I’ve also seen within some Catholics the idea that Marian veneration is a sign of predestination to Heaven, while those who do not practice it are condemned. In talking with Catholics who hold this view they often cite Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion” but I think the saint’s arguments are more nuanced than that; otherwise we are to come away with Marian veneration as the core teaching and determinant of eternal fate. But such an idea does exist among at least some in the Catholic Church.

about to read this document thanks for the quotes.

 

[Contarini]

simple question for the non Catholic Christians on this board. Something I have seen preached by non Catholic Christians is that you can only be saved through professing with your lips in Christ Jesus, or something similar. They argue in light of what they believe about coming to salvation that, budist, hindus, jews, atheists, etc can never be saved if they don’t believe in Jesus Christ. Some will even claim that there are some people who will be sent to hell simply because of circumstances. For example, a native american never heard about Jesus Christ probably until the 16th century meaning that all the people who lived in North America would be condemned to hell out of no fault of their own. I think this view is very problematic and not true in light of the entirety of scripture and tradition.

so my simple question, i’m also open to debate about this issue, how prevalent is the idea that God sends people to hell out of no fault of their own? Is it just a few radical groups in Christianity or is it so wide spread that only Catholics and a handful of people believe it to be false.

Somewhere in between. It’s certainly still a very common belief among conservative evangelicals and some other conservative groups (like Missouri Synod Lutherans). However, when pushed many will admit exceptions. As a general rule, this view is the majority among “rank and file” evangelicals (particularly the older ones) but a minority among intellectuals, and increasingly losing strength among younger evangelicals (indeed, has been since the 1980s).

The argument is not that people go to hell without personal fault but rather that everyone is a sinner and deserves hell.

Edwin

 

[ffg]

The argument is not that people go to hell without personal fault but rather that everyone is a sinner and deserves hell.

Edwin

Bingo.

And if we start with a consensus here, we can move to the logical next few questions - like stop / go questions in tax returns

Do we as humans matter individually to God? (If no, stop and accept fate)

If yes we matter, Do we as humans have an ability to do something about this hellish outcome we deserve? (The only way to give a an answer, is if it was revealed.)

If Yes, What was revealed?

If No, What was revealed?

I would argue the last ‘no’ is impossible because if we do matter individually, but can’t do anything about a hellish end, it would seem we don’t really matter or are just puppets. Which would go against the nature of a loving creator who invites us to be with Him.

…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Amongst Calvanists and Lutherans It seems a prominent idea although lets clarify they do not think those being sent to hell are faultess. Rather these are those who have been condemned by their own sinful life and turning against God.

 

[BeProfOSX]

One of the ways of putting this that I’ve always liked is this:

Nobody gets sent to hell because they didn’t believe in Jesus. They get sent to hell because of their sin. We all deserve hell. If judged on the basis of our actions alone, we would all get hell.

Some people, however, get to go to heaven. Those that do so, only get to do so because of what Christ did for them on the cross and their faith in Him.

 

[Contarini]

As I’ve generally seen this used, it’s nothing but sophistry to cover up the cruelty of the “conservative” view.

What does it even mean to say “if judged on the basis of our actions alone, we would all get hell”? It seems to me that this posits a twisted fantasy that has nothing to do with the reality of God, and then asks us to be grateful for being delivered from it. It makes no sense.

A sinful person cannot be happy in God’s presence, and a sinful person can do nothing to earn or make himself/herself fit for God’s presence. If God did not heal and deliver us, we would not be able to enjoy eternal union with Him. If your statement is simply another way of saying this, then I agree with it.

But this hypothetical “judgment on the basis of actions alone” seems completely fallacious and useless, as stated.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

As I’ve generally seen this used, it’s nothing but sophistry to cover up the cruelty of the “conservative” view.

I’m sort of confused - what’s cruel about the view that we all are sinners and deserve hell but we have God’s assurance of grace through faith?

Frankly, watering the Law down so that we don’t need the Gospel is a false comfort and a true cruelty, as it could cause others to stop their journey into faith.

 

[BeProfOSX]

A sinful person cannot be happy in God’s presence, and a sinful person can do nothing to earn or make himself/herself fit for God’s presence. If God did not heal and deliver us, we would not be able to enjoy eternal union with Him. If your statement is simply another way of saying this, then I agree with it.

That’s exactly what I mean, but I fear I may have over complicated it.

We all deserve Hell, but, because of Christ, some of us get heaven.

I’m not a Universalist though, so if that’s what you’re objecting to, then I’m afraid we’ll have part ways on this one.

 

[benjohnson]

Missouri Synod Lutherans

Edwin, you really should let Lutherans speak for themselves.

If indeed you find a Lutheran living up to your stereotype by preaching Law without the Gospel, you a free to whack them in the head until they repent.

It’s true that Lutheran’s don’t water down the Law so that we’re become comfortable in our sin, but we use the law to show how each and every one of us needs the Gospel.

The current trend among many well-meaning Christians is to find excuses for the sins of our times - like abortion and homosexual attraction. Instead you’ll find Lutherans holding to God’s word that theses are indeed sins, so based on modern secular sensibilities it can look like we’re a bunch of old fuddy-duddies.

But you’ll also find us proclaiming that just about our entire lives are sin even if we not personally afflicted with those particular sins.

There’s nothing new in this - and it’s why you find gay people in my church. Their sin is perhaps a bit more visible, but that it. Everybody in the pews is bunch of horrid sinners that needs to hear the proclamation of the Gospel and receive the Sacraments.

Thanks be to God that he loves us all in our wretched sin.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m not a Universalist though, .

I’m not either… but there’s nothing stopping us from praying that God will gather more wheat from distant fields.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, you really should let Lutherans speak for themselves.

If indeed you find a Lutheran living up to your stereotype by preaching Law without the Gospel, you a free to whack them in the head until they repent.

It’s true that Lutheran’s don’t water down the Law so that we’re become comfortable in our sin, but we use the law to show how each and every one of us needs the Gospel.

The current trend among many well-meaning Christians is to find excuses for the sins of our times - like abortion and homosexual attraction. Instead you’ll find Lutherans holding to God’s word that theses are indeed sins, so based on modern secular sensibilities it can look like we’re a bunch of old fuddy-duddies.

But you’ll also find us proclaiming that just about our entire lives are sin even if we not personally afflicted with those particular sins.

There’s nothing new in this - and it’s why you find gay people in my church. Their sin is perhaps a bit more visible, but that it. Everybody in the pews is bunch of horrid sinners that needs to hear the proclamation of the Gospel and receive the Sacraments.

Thanks be to God that he loves us all in our wretched sin.

I apologize for not being clearer. What I was referring to was the belief that those who do not hear and believe the Gospel explicitly will go to hell. I would be happy if in fact this is not the standard/universal LCMS teaching. But the LCMS students I taught last year (at a Catholic university) were pretty insistent that this was what they had been taught.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

I apologize for not being clearer. What I was referring to was the belief that those who do not hear and believe the Gospel explicitly will go to hell. I would be happy if in fact this is not the standard/universal LCMS teaching. But the LCMS students I taught last year (at a Catholic university) were pretty insistent that this was what they had been taught.

Edwin

And I apologize for my poor reading comprehension!

The LCMS students are correct in that the assurances of the new covenant are for those that participate. They are incorrect to surmise anything for will of God for those that have no opportunity to hear the Gospel.

Given our inability to offer comfort to those that can’t hear the Gospel, you can see why we’d like for all to participate and that why you see some Lutherans act as if it is of ultimate importance - it could be!

From the LCMS on ‘predestination’ - but it applies to those that never hear the Gospel.

So how do Lutherans answer this question? The answer is that Lutherans do not try to answer it, because (we believe) the Bible itself does not provide an answer to this question that is comprehensible to human reason. Lutherans affirm, with Scripture, that whoever is saved is saved by God’s grace alone, a grace so sure that it excludes all human “action” and “choice” but rather rests on the foundation of God’s action in Christ and his “choice” (predestination) from before the beginning of time. Lutherans also affirm, with Scripture, that those who are damned are damned not by God’s “choice” but on account of their own human sin and rebellion and unbelief. From a human perspective, there is no “rational” or “logical” way to put these two truths together. Lutherans believe and confess them not because they are “rational” and “logical,” but because this is what we find taught in Scripture.

 

[Contarini]

And I apologize for my poor reading comprehension!

The LCMS students are correct in that the assurances of the new covenant are for those that participate. They are incorrect to surmise anything for will of God for those that have no opportunity to hear the Gospel.

Given our inability to offer comfort to those that can’t hear the Gospel, you can see why we’d like for all to participate and that why you see some Lutherans act as if it is of ultimate importance - it could be!

From the LCMS on ‘predestination’ - but it applies to those that never hear the Gospel.

So how do Lutherans answer this question? The answer is that Lutherans do not try to answer it, because (we believe) the Bible itself does not provide an answer to this question that is comprehensible to human reason. Lutherans affirm, with Scripture, that whoever is saved is saved by God’s grace alone, a grace so sure that it excludes all human “action” and “choice” but rather rests on the foundation of God’s action in Christ and his “choice” (predestination) from before the beginning of time. Lutherans also affirm, with Scripture, that those who are damned are damned not by God’s “choice” but on account of their own human sin and rebellion and unbelief. From a human perspective, there is no “rational” or “logical” way to put these two truths together. Lutherans believe and confess them not because they are “rational” and “logical,” but because this is what we find taught in Scripture.

Thanks for that clarification. The one student who spoke most about this clearly had some trouble understanding and accepting LCMS teaching, and I remember him saying something in a rather garbled way that agrees with what you are saying (he seemed to be saying that this was just about infants who died unbaptized, but that may have been either his mistake or mine–the context is that I required them to interview a pastor or other authority figure, and he had talked with his pastor, so this wasn’t just his vague recollections).

Edwin

 

[SpidersfromMars]

I suggest you read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis.

Hell isn’t so much a giant pit we are thrown into boiling where we scream to escape. Hell is a state of being. Hell is when someone is in a definite state of rejection of God. They live eternally, rejecting God and all good through him, growing in misery. They grow every increasingly more opposed to God as time goes on.

Thanks for your recommendation

So when Jesus talked repeatedly about the ‘lake of fire’ where there’s ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ etc, he meant it metaphorically?

 

[BeProfOSX]

Thanks for your recommendation

So when Jesus talked repeatedly about the ‘lake of fire’ where there’s ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ etc, he meant it metaphorically?

To steal something shamelessly from C.S. Lewis (and I’m paraphrasing):

A symbol or metaphor is by its very nature less than that the thing it is referring to. That’s the whole idea of a symbol or metaphor, after all.

So, if the words of our Lord with regards to Hell, with its flames and worms and whatnot, are symbols or metaphors, then they point to a reality that is so much worse than that.

In my mind, I don’t know that I can 100% affirm a belief in literal fire. I think that it may be there or it may not be. What definitely is there, however, is separation from the love and mercy of God, and that alone is enough to make Hell a place to be feared.

I don’t think however, that anyone who ends up there will, at least after the Final Judgement, be in anyway surprised or think it in anyway unjust. What they all wanted more than anything else in their lives was to be left alone by God and that’s exactly what they’ll get and if there is a more awful, horrific thing than that, then I don’t know what it is.

 

[SpidersfromMars]

To steal something shamelessly from C.S. Lewis (and I’m paraphrasing):

A symbol or metaphor is by its very nature less than that the thing it is referring to. That’s the whole idea of a symbol or metaphor, after all.

So, if the words of our Lord with regards to Hell, with its flames and worms and whatnot, are symbols or metaphors, then they point to a reality that is so much worse than that.

In my mind, I don’t know that I can 100% affirm a belief in literal fire. I think that it may be there or it may not be. What definitely is there, however, is separation from the love and mercy of God, and that alone is enough to make Hell a place to be feared.

I don’t think however, that anyone who ends up there will, at least after the Final Judgement, be in anyway surprised or think it in anyway unjust. What they all wanted more than anything else in their lives was to be left alone by God and that’s exactly what they’ll get and if there is a more awful, horrific thing than that, then I don’t know what it is.

I do like the metaphorical explanation more than the theory of people literally being on fire 24/7. Also if you have no physical body at that point then how could you feel physical pain anyway? The concept of ‘spiritual agony’ on the other hand makes more sense.

 

[TRH1292]

Thanks for your recommendation

So when Jesus talked repeatedly about the ‘lake of fire’ where there’s ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ etc, he meant it metaphorically?

I think there is a great deal of figurative language. Sometimes Jesus speaks of a lake of fire, other times a place of darkness. He was using the gehena phrase to draw on his own experience in Jerusalem, with the great inferno like garbage dump outside the city.

But I agree with BrProfOSX, that sums it up pretty well. Being deprived of all will be a torture far beyond anything we could ever comprehend, but it will be something chosen.