Protestants not believing in Hell

[punisherthunder]

Update***

In speaking with another Protestant friend who turned Catholic, they told me that the
feeling/impression nowadays is that Hell is only a concept and that nobody goes there. Basically that the idea is being watered down so much that nobody seems concerned about it.
It is almost as if going to church for them is a feel good high and they dont’ want anything that may be negative interefering with it.

 

[powerofk]

Very manipulated!

Though, if true, it has more to do with people not understanding what Church teaching is on these matters than anything. During the chaos that reigned in the two decades immediately after Vatican II (which was not the fault of the Council), many well-meaning (or possibly not-so-well meaning) priests and religious came out and proclaimed that the Church’s teachings(!) on these things had changed. And also many laypeople seeing that the Mass had changed, thought that the Church’s teachings on these things had changed as well. I don’t know how many times I’ve read or heard about people being told about the general Resurrection or Hell or the Real Presence or the Virgin Birth and saying, “The Catholic Church still teaches that?” And when the Bible is mentioned, I’ve heard quite a few people say, “When we were growing up, we, as Catholics were told not to read the Bible!”

 

[alwayswill]

That is absolutely bizarre… to the point that I seriously question the accuracy of the polls. For Catholics to doubt the Virginity of Mary even with Jesus!?! Come on…

the source is a Harris poll: two different polls:
media.theharrispoll.com/documents/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-Religious-Beliefs-2008-12.pdf table 2

media.theharrispoll.com/documents/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf
and also table 2

Religious Differences
There are very big differences between the beliefs of Catholics, Protestants, born-again Christians and Jews.

Catholics are more likely than all adults to believe in: God (94% compared to 82%); heaven (86% vs. 75%); that Jesus is God or the Son of God (90% vs. 73%); angels (83% vs. 72%); the survival of the soul after death (82% vs. 71%); the resurrection of Jesus Christ (87% vs. 70%); hell (70% vs. 61%); and the virgin birth (by 74% vs. 61%).
Catholics are also somewhat more likely than all adults to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution (51% vs. 45%).

Protestants are also more likely to believe in God (92%), %); that Jesus is God or the Son of God (91%); heaven (90%); angels (88%); the resurrection of Jesus (88%); miracles (87%); the survival of the soul (85%); the virgin birth (79%); the devil (77%) and hell (73%).

But Protestants are much less likely than all adults to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution (32%), ghosts (33%); astrology (20%); and reincarnation (13%). They are more likely than all adults to believe in creationism (56% vs. 40%).

Born-again Christians are much more likely than Catholics or all Protestants to believe in God (97%); heaven (97%); the Resurrection (97%); miracles (95%); angels (95%); the virgin birth (92%); the survival of the soul (91%); hell (89%); and the devil (89%).
Born-again Christians are also much more likely to believe in creationism (68%), and much less likely to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution (16%).

 

[Reuben_J]

Though, if true, it has more to do with people not understanding what Church teaching is on these matters than anything. During the chaos that reigned in the two decades immediately after Vatican II (which was not the fault of the Council), many well-meaning (or possibly not-so-well meaning) priests and religious came out and proclaimed that the Church’s teachings(!) on these things had changed. And also many laypeople seeing that the Mass had changed, thought that the Church’s teachings on these things had changed as well. I don’t know how many times I’ve read or heard about people being told about the general Resurrection or Hell or the Real Presence or the Virgin Birth and saying, “The Catholic Church still teaches that?” And when the Bible is mentioned, I’ve heard quite a few people say, “When we were growing up, we, as Catholics were told not to read the Bible!”

Oh, really? The way you say it is as if it’s a norm rather than an exception.

Perhaps in the place where you come from. It’s sad because it shows how far away we have gone astray.

I have not heard such comment from a Catholic though, and that may be because I did not mix much with many people of different backgrounds, I don’t know.

 

[powerofk]

Oh, really? The way you say it is as if it’s a norm rather than an exception.

Perhaps in the place where you come from. It’s sad because it shows how far away we have gone astray.

I have not heard such comment from a Catholic though, and that may be because I did not mix much with many people of different backgrounds, I don’t know.

Believe me, I’ve heard plenty such comments from Catholics. Especially regarding the reading of the Bible. IMO, one of the best changes with regard to the Mass of Paul VI has been the extended Liturgy of the Word, with 3 readings on Sundays (in addition to the psalm), along with the 3-year cycle of Sunday readings and 2-year cycle of Weekday readings. In fact, if I were having a discussion regarding the OF/EF debate, I would state that the best of both worlds would be OF celebrated ad orientum, with the priest having the option to celebrate it in Latin or in the vernacular (as is the case today).

Regardless, when polls show that the majority of Catholics who go to Sunday Mass weekly think abortion and same-sex “marriage” are okay, we know we have a problem. When the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame promote internships at PP and the supposedly Catholic University of San Diego promotes gay pride week, we have a problem. And when a parish promotes Call to Action (which promotes/promoted priestly ordination of women), apparently with the backing of the bishop (which was the case when I was growing up in the Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan), we have a problem. And when catechism class at a Catholic school denies the Real Presence (which was noted on these boards a couple weeks ago), then we have a problem.

Catholic Universities need to be authentically Catholic. Pastors need to talk about the realities of Heaven, Hell, and the Real Presence in their homilies. Bishops need to root out organizations which promote ideas hostile to Church teaching. Catechism (whether in a Catholic school or as a weekly after school/Sunday program) needs to be good catechesis. And we, as the laity, have to stop being lazy and simply relying on our shepherds and teachers to do all the work. We have an obligation to learn as much about the faith as possible and, if we have children, passing along that faith to our children. And those of us who know Church teaching need to volunteer in parish ministries, especially with regard to catechism and RCIA.

 

[Reuben_J]

Regardless, when polls show that the majority of Catholics who go to Sunday Mass weekly think abortion and same-sex “marriage” are okay, we know we have a problem. When the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame promote internships at PP and the supposedly Catholic University of San Diego promotes gay pride week, we have a problem. And when a parish promotes Call to Action (which promotes/promoted priestly ordination of women), apparently with the backing of the bishop (which was the case when I was growing up in the Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan), we have a problem. And when catechism class at a Catholic school denies the Real Presence (which was noted on these boards a couple weeks ago), then we have a problem.

I am honestly shock.

 

[MikeFr]

to RC Witness:

I’m a member of an independent non denominational church. Therefore there is no “afiliated denomination”. This is from my churches’ website:

Concerning Hell: “Eternal punishment in hell and separation from the blessed presence of God are the consequences of the unregenerate person’s sinfulness that has not trusted in the redemptive sacrificial work of Christ on the cross (Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 6:23,Matt 25:46 ).”

Concerning “Eternal Security”:
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand,” (John 10:27-28). Christ has done all that is needed for our salvation and He says that those who have eternal life will never perish. Those who appeared to be Christian, but fell away never were Christians to begin with (1 Jn. 2:19). Eternal security does not mean that we have a license to sin (Rom. 5:21-6:2) and those who believe this do not understand God’s ability to regenerate the sinner and turn his heart to repentance.

(End quote)

“Once Saved Always Saved” is generally a phrase adopted by opponents of Eternal Security. I’ve not heard of any Evangelical use that term, although I suppose you could find that usage if you looked for it. I would emphasize the sentence stating that we do NOT have a license to sin.

I might also say that “Eternal Security” is not believed by all “Protestants”. I can see both sides of the argument. But there is no Evangelical who would say anything like “Just get saved and you can sin as much as you want”, any more than the Catholic Church would say “Just sin as much as you want - and then just go to confession.”

That is a very quick summary of what many Protestant Evangelicals believe about the topics of Hell and Eternal Security or “Once Saved Always Saved”.

I recognize that is not the subject of this thread but though I would give this response since I was asked for it.

Mike

 

[Reuben_J]

t Those who appeared to be Christian, but fell away never were Christians to begin with (1 Jn. 2:19).

This is what I would say a circular argument or a chicken and egg question. Maybe that’s why I am not a Protestant.

 

[rcwitness]

to RC Witness:

I’m a member of an independent non denominational church. Therefore there is no “afiliated denomination”. This is from my churches’ website:

I was raised in a non-denominational community.

Concerning Hell: “Eternal punishment in hell and separation from the blessed presence of God are the consequences of the unregenerate person’s sinfulness that has not trusted in the redemptive sacrificial work of Christ on the cross (Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 6:23,Matt 25:46 ).”

Concerning “Eternal Security”:
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand,” (John 10:27-28). Christ has done all that is needed for our salvation and He says that those who have eternal life will never perish. Those who appeared to be Christian, but fell away never were Christians to begin with (1 Jn. 2:19). Eternal security does not mean that we have a license to sin (Rom. 5:21-6:2) and those who believe this do not understand God’s ability to regenerate the sinner and turn his heart to repentance.

Thank you.

“Once Saved Always Saved” is generally a phrase adopted by opponents of Eternal Security. I’ve not heard of any Evangelical use that term, although I suppose you could find that usage if you looked for it. I would emphasize the sentence stating that we do NOT have a license to sin.

I might also say that “Eternal Security” is not believed by all “Protestants”. I can see both sides of the argument. But there is no Evangelical who would say anything like “Just get saved and you can sin as much as you want”, any more than the Catholic Church would say “Just sin as much as you want - and then just go to confession.”

Yes, i hear ya!

That is a very quick summary of what many Protestant Evangelicals believe about the topics of Hell and Eternal Security or “Once Saved Always Saved”.

I recognize that is not the subject of this thread but though I would give this response since I was asked for it.

Mike

I think there is much common ground in your understanding. Perhaps it is in other Scripture that the Church has found as grounds to not Teach a “Once Saved Always Saved” message? Like this:

Hebrews 10

For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

Matt 13

18 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path. 20 **As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

I Cor. 13

15 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.**

 

[MikeFr]

Hi RC Witness,

Thank You for your response. I think that with the Eternal Security question the could be verses supporting both viewpoints. There are other passages (2 peter 2:20-22 and Hebrews 6:4-6) that appear to support the idea that one can fall from faith.

Mike

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RC Witness,

Thank You for your response. I think that with the Eternal Security question the could be verses supporting both viewpoints. There are other passages (2 peter 2:20-22 and Hebrews 6:4-6) that appear to support the idea that one can fall from faith.

Mike

Thanks bro!

I think some Catholics, in an attempt to reject Once Saved Always Saved, go too far the other way, and mistakenly feel that they can never know if they are justified/saved. Being Justified/Saved doesn’t mean we still need to earn it, or that we can’t reject it down the road.

It’s about enduring when our faith is tested… doing what pleases the Spirit… remaining in Him and Him in us.

This is the Work of the Lord… this is believing on Him.

Philippians 2

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;13for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Some Catholics see “work out your own salvation” but miss the next important verse.

 

[TIK]

Just poking my head in to say that I’m a Catholic who is not convinced that Universalism has officially been declared “heretical” by the magisterium. Certainly Origen’s particular construal of Universalism has been rejected (although even that can be debated, as the authenticity of the anathemas against him have been called into question), but this does not rule out the general doctrine of Universal salvation, which may be formulated in other terms deemed not to be heretical. Hans Urs Von Balthasar has argued that we should hope for the salvation of all, but we cannot know it for sure. If someone can point me to a statement against Universal Salvation which carries de fide status in Roman Catholic tradition, I would love to see it.

The only person who we know for sure goes to Hell is Jesus, a la the apostles creed (“he descended into Hell”) and a couple of places in the epistles. It’s a personal belief of mine that this descent of Christ into the deepest depths of Hell in some way nullified the everlasting aspect of Hell and transformed it into purgatory, and as a result no one else suffers everlasting damnation. This is of course by no means official church teaching and I am open to correction by dogmatic definition.

For further background, my theology of the afterlife has been considerably shaped by the Eastern Orthodox in that I believe Heaven, Hell and Purgatory to be the same place (the completely unveiled presence of God) experienced differently according to the state of your soul at death. The love of God is reward to the saved, torment to the damned (Thank you St Isaac the Syrian). I also have been heavily influenced by Fr Sergius Bulgakov’s idea that most people experience heaven and hell simultaneously: lets face it, only Mary and the Saints perfectly reflect Christ. The rest of us are a mix of Good and Bad in different proportions; God will probably deal with us as such: rewarding the good and purifying the bad. The purgation may truly feel like an eternity in Hell, but the end result will be that all illusions will be shattered and all will freely choose to love Christ.

(I also believe and hope that God will save the Devil. But I don’t have any idea how. I don’t think it is spiritually healthy to think about it too much)

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The belief your referring to is "conditional immortality "

 

[ExMethodist]

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/10/most-americans-believe-in-heaven-and-hell/
and here

thearda.com/quickstats/qs_72_p.asp

Protestants are more likely to believe in Hell than Catholics.

All are self-identifying. “Catholic” as far as polls go can include anyone from the person who goes to church faithfully every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, goes to confession regularly, and active in the parish all the way down to someone who was born and raised Catholic, was baptized, and then hasn’t been to Mass an adult. There’s a wide range in between there as well. I’ve even heard on pollster (I worked for a polling firm for a year or so) say that Catholic was often the first choice on poll questions for religious ID and would get picked more for that reason - so he mixed them up the order of his choices on his polls even for the demographic identifying purposes.

 

[ExMethodist]

The only person who we know for sure goes to Hell is Jesus, a la the apostles creed (“he descended into Hell”) and a couple of places in the epistles.

To clarify, the references in creeds are referring to the fact that Jesus descended into what is called Sheol or Limbo by set it apart rom the hell of the damned (which some call Gehenna.)

In the Old Testament, everyone who died went to Sheol.

From the Catechism (636-7):
“By the expression ‘He descended into Hell’, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil ‘who has the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:14). In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened Heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.”

 

[blanchardman]

Just poking my head in to say that I’m a Catholic who is not convinced that Universalism has officially been declared “heretical” by the magisterium. Certainly Origen’s particular construal of Universalism has been rejected (although even that can be debated, as the authenticity of the anathemas against him have been called into question), but this does not rule out the general doctrine of Universal salvation, which may be formulated in other terms deemed not to be heretical. Hans Urs Von Balthasar has argued that we should hope for the salvation of all, but we cannot know it for sure. If someone can point me to a statement against Universal Salvation which carries de fide status in Roman Catholic tradition, I would love to see it.

The only person who we know for sure goes to Hell is Jesus, a la the apostles creed (“he descended into Hell”) and a couple of places in the epistles. It’s a personal belief of mine that this descent of Christ into the deepest depths of Hell in some way nullified the everlasting aspect of Hell and transformed it into purgatory, and as a result no one else suffers everlasting damnation. This is of course by no means official church teaching and I am open to correction by dogmatic definition.

For further background, my theology of the afterlife has been considerably shaped by the Eastern Orthodox in that I believe Heaven, Hell and Purgatory to be the same place (the completely unveiled presence of God) experienced differently according to the state of your soul at death. The love of God is reward to the saved, torment to the damned (Thank you St Isaac the Syrian). I also have been heavily influenced by Fr Sergius Bulgakov’s idea that most people experience heaven and hell simultaneously: lets face it, only Mary and the Saints perfectly reflect Christ. The rest of us are a mix of Good and Bad in different proportions; God will probably deal with us as such: rewarding the good and purifying the bad. The purgation may truly feel like an eternity in Hell, but the end result will be that all illusions will be shattered and all will freely choose to love Christ.

(I also believe and hope that God will save the Devil. But I don’t have any idea how. I don’t think it is spiritually healthy to think about it too much)

Let me reply to this last part first.
Rev. 20:10 “The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
It may have been possible at some point for Satan to repent but when God issued this prophecy his fate was sealed.

As for hell being in heaven:
“In the beginning God…” Before creation God was. All that was was God. Would it be much of a stretch to say "all that is is God? Therefore where God is everything is. God is in heaven therefore everything is in heaven.

 

[steve_b]

A couple quick thoughts:

Statements like “I met a protestant who said…” are NOT valid when trying to determine anything IMO. The way to understand what another group believes is by studying the source of the belief via their statements of faith. “I met a southern baptist who said…” can’t be used to assess the theology of that group.

This is one of my pet peeves about one group looking at anothers’ faith. Catholics have been victims of this in spades. It is not valid to say “I met a Catholic who said…so that is what Catholics must believe it”. One should rather study the theology of the Catholic Church (the Catechism perhaps?) before deciding what Catholics actually believe.

The same goes for any group. That is my opinion.

Even people who converted from a Protestant group to Catholicism can be incorrect about what their former group believes and so they might not be an accurate source of information. Same thing goes for people who have converted from Catholicism to a Protestant group.

Take the time to study what other groups believe by consulting their statements of faith!

All valid points
M:

When I see comments made about “Once saved always saved” here I wonder if people making those comments really have any in depth knowledge about what that Once Saved Always Saved" really means. That is not the subject of this thread but it does not mean “I got saved once and now I can live my life doing whatever I please”.

Mike

Yet if one has to immediately walk back the obvious meaning of the phrase “OSAS”, because virtually everyone comes to the same conclusion, then to be fair, would you agree the fault is in the phrase?

The same is true of the phrase “faith alone”