If Christ Died for All, Why Hell?

     My previous post on the Atonement concluded with a profound question that Reformed Christians (e.g. Calvinists) have asked for centuries: If Christ's atonement paid for the sins of all, then what justification could there be in sending anyone to Hell? If these sins are washed in the blood, then why must the sinner endure the Flame? If Christ died for all, why Hell?

     As I have said, this question is very profound - but it has a simple answer. It's amazing. This question troubled me for some time when I first began to combat Reformed Theology more directly, years ago. I feared that it might not have any good answer, that its difficulty might force me to accept Reformed Teachings, at least in part. But in time, the answer became not only clear, but obvious! It amazes me to look back and wonder why I didn't see it before.

     Here are the facts I have presented: God created Man. Man sinned. God condemned Man. God sent Jesus. Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind. Some repent, others do not. Some go to Heaven, and some to Hell - but all sins are covered.

     The answer to this riddle lies in the greater context of Jesus' atoning death. What surrounded his death? I don't mean anything in Time or Space - I mean ideology, I mean tradition, I mean... the Jewish Faith. More specifically, the Mosaic Covenant, which Jesus' resurrection concluded. Incidentally, his resurrection also jump-started the Covenant of Grace, or the Church Covenant, or the New Testament, if you will. In other words, Jesus' death did not occur within the Church Covenant at all - it occurred within the Mosaic Covenant. His sacrifice was an Old Testament sacrifice. His sacrifice covered sins in much the same way as sacrifices always have - few Christians will deny this - although his sacrifice of course covered the sins of a great many more people and years. A bull or a lamb might only cover one person's sins, or a family's sins, or the nation's sins, depending on the animal and the occasion. But all of these sacrifices have one thing in common: they did not guarantee forgiveness, reconciliation or deliverance. You could kill all the spotless sheep and cattle the world and still be punished, if your heart was in the wrong place.

     Throughout the Old Testament, God rebuked Israel for offering "vain" sacrifices (Is. 1:13, shav, H7723). This was not always indicative of improper delivery, or a faulty animal, or anything physically askew - but God condemns Israel on a metaphysical basis, on moral grounds. Not because of any sacrificial protocol, but because their hearts were not in the sacrifice. Simply put: they had offered their proper sacrifices, but with unrepentant hearts, which displeased God (Hos. 6:6).

     No sacrifice in the history of the sacrificial system ever guaranteed forgiveness in itself, and there is no good indication that Christ's sacrifice is any different. If this is the case, then even if Christ died only for the Elect, this is no guarantee of even their redemption, in light of the true nature and purpose of sacrifices.

     But as a final example of sacrifices not bringing forgiveness in themselves, look to the Torah, the Pentateuch - throughout the wilderness wanderings of Israel, they were offering their sacrifices. One sacrifice in particular paid for the sins of the entire nation for a whole year (Leviticus 16). If sacrifice equals forgiveness, then what justification could there possibly be for God to judge Israel during that time (Numbers 16:31-35, 21:4-9)? God judged even for improper altar use (Leviticus 10:1-3) - are we to believe that He would have ignored the omission of the most important sacrifice in the Jewish sacrificial year? Doubtful, at best.

     The Old Testament leaves us doubtless that a sacrifice atones for sins, but cannot guarantee the forgiveness of sins. Even if a person's sins were atoned for by sacrifice in the Old Testament, if they remained unrepentant, their sins were not forgiven, and they came under judgement.

     The New Testament leaves us doubtless that Christ's death is identical in nature and purpose to that of Old Testament sacrifices. His death propitiates like old sacrifices (I John 2:2). It requires repentance and faith in order to save (Acts 3:19, 16:31). Regardless of whether we say repentance and faith are gifts from above, it's clear that both are necessary in order for the Atonement to have its full effect on those who believe. The Atonement does not effectually accomplish their salvation without those two things.

     

     So then, there is no logical or exegetical conflict with the teaching of a Messianic Atonement against the justification of sending sinners to Hell for atoned sins, because that's simply not how sacrifices work.

Thanks for reading!