when did protestants stop preaching that one could go to hell

[Chuck_Finley]

Some Baptists are Arminian (and therefore reject the doctrine of eternal security) rather than Calvinist.

Actually, Arminians don’t deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.
ioko:

But does your Baptist Preacher believe in and teach the same Doctrine as my friends Baptist preacher here in Australia?

If he’s a Baptist, then by definition, we are united on the doctrines commonly known as the Baptist Distinctives. If he’s a Christian, then we’re united on the essential doctrines of Christianity.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Security apply to all Baptist congregations regardless of where they are in the world?

There are many things, commonly known as “non-essentials” that we can disagree on. I simply don’t see any argument one can make from scripture for eternal insecurity. I would say that if one denies the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, they don’t understand the Gospel or how one is saved or what happens when one is saved.

My friends believe that you can lose Salvation if you continue to sin without repentance

That’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says that if you continue on in sin, that’s a huge red flag that you weren’t saved in the first place.

 

[jilly4ski]

Universalists, in fact, got their name basically from their belief that God rarely if ever sent anyone to eternal hell. How could a loving, forgiving, merciful Lord do such a thing?

 As for most Protestants thinking that Catholics go to hell, I would suggest that that is a wild exaggeration. As a far as I know none of the mainline Protestant churches teach  that - Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, UCC, etc. Even most evangelicals would believe that there are many saved Catholics who surrender their lives to Christ. Yes, a few narrow fundamentalists might teach that Catholics go to hell, just as here on CAF I find that some traditionalist Catholics believe Protestants as heretics go to hell. In fact, that was a common assumption among many strict Catholics before Vatican II when heretics were transformed into separated brothers and sisters. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" had been a widespread sentiment. Thank God for John XXIII!

Note the smiley and the phrasing. Not very many protestants don’t teach about hell. Indeed Universalists were the only ones I could think of (as a defined group, I am sure there are some small fringe groups that are hard to identify). Thus if that group is really small, then the 1 to 2 ratio also leads to a rather small group of those think all Catholics are going to hell.

 

[loko]

Actually, Arminians don’t deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.

If he’s a Baptist, then by definition, we are united on the doctrines commonly known as the Baptist Distinctives. If he’s a Christian, then we’re united on the essential doctrines of Christianity.

There are many things, commonly known as “non-essentials” that we can disagree on. I simply don’t see any argument one can make from scripture for eternal insecurity. I would say that if one denies the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, they don’t understand the Gospel or how one is saved or what happens when one is saved.

That’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says that if you continue on in sin, that’s a huge red flag that you weren’t saved in the first place.

Strange then, they consider themselves Baptists but don’t believe in once saved you are saved for life.

I’ll have to discuss this (Baptist distinctives) further with her to get her take on it.

Are you saying that once baptised you cannot sin? You don’t sin? I’m not understanding exactly what that means.

 

[RyanBlack]

Actually, Arminians don’t deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.

Yes, they do deny the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security. From the Arminian perspective, election is conditional, atonement is universal, grace is resistable, and the perseverance of saints is conditional upon the believers’ free exercise of the will to remain in Christ, while the Calvinist perspective is that election is unconditional, atonement is limited, grace is irresistable, and the perseverance of the saints is not conditional.

 

[Chuck_Finley]

Yes, they do deny the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security.

First of all, the Biblical doctrine of eternal security is not exclusively Calvinist.

Second, I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but Arminianism doesn’t deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.
ioko:

Strange then, they consider themselves Baptists but don’t believe in once saved you are saved for life.

Not really. Anybody can consider themselves anything.

Are you saying that once baptised you cannot sin? You don’t sin? I’m not understanding exactly what that means.

First of all, I never said anything at all about baptism. How you got baptism out of anything I said is beyond me.

Second, I’m saying that the Bible says that if we continue on in sin, that is, in a deliberate and willful lifestyle of disobedience, that that’s a good sign you’re not saved (in fact, the Bible actually goes further that).

 

[RyanBlack]

First of all, the Biblical doctrine of eternal security is not exclusively Calvinist.

Second, I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but Arminianism doesn’t deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.

The followers of Arminius, in their “Remonstrance”, basically stated that they were unsure on the question of eternal security. There may indeed be Arminians who affirm eteral security. However, as the term Arminian has come to be understood, it is generally associated with a rejection of the doctrine of eternal security.

 

[nightranger]

Some? See that’s what I don’t understand, they all call themselves Baptist but believe in different doctrines.

Exactly my friend. Now you have it. You can forget all the other bs you may have been exposed to. You are either catholic, orthodox, or one of many protestant sects, who make up their own theology as they see fit. The only valid Christian religions are the first two.
And actually, as JPII said, the catholic and orthodox are two lungs of the same body (church).

 

[loko]

Second, I’m saying that the Bible says that if we continue on in sin, that is, in a deliberate and willful lifestyle of disobedience, that that’s a good sign you’re not saved (in fact, the Bible actually goes further that).

Okay but what does that mean for the layperson? If they continue sinning they are not saved?

That would mean no Baptist is saved according to their own definition or have I misinterpreted it?

No Christian alive today does not sin.

 

[nightranger]

Second, I’m saying that the Bible says that if we continue on in sin, that is, in a deliberate and willful lifestyle of disobedience, that that’s a good sign you’re not saved (in fact, the Bible actually goes further that).

Okay but what does that mean for the layperson? If they continue sinning they are not saved?

That would mean no Baptist is saved according to their own definition or have I misinterpreted it?

No Christian alive today does not sin.

No you have not misinterpreted, according to certain protestants. Others say once you are “saved” nothing you do will take that away. In other words, once you are saved, no matter what you do, you don’t have to answer for your sins. Past present or future.

Why do you keep trying to find truth among false religions?

 

[loko]

No you have not misinterpreted, according to certain protestants. Others say once you are “saved” nothing you do will take that away. In other words, once you are saved, no matter what you do, you don’t have to answer for your sins. Past present or future.

Why do you keep trying to find truth among false religions?

What are you smoking? You accuse me of finding truth among false religions. For starters the quote you attributed to me was not mine. Read the posts before you start accusing people night ranger.

 

[nightranger]

What are you smoking? You accuse me of finding truth among false religions. For starters the quote you attributed to me was not mine. Read the posts before you start accusing people night ranger.

My apologies. I just quoted what was in your post. Perhaps I did it wrong.
Secondly, your were asking about various protestant doctrines, Baptist sects in particular (if I read your post correctly). You were wondering why they were all Baptists, yet had different doctrines.
You asked the question, so I gave you an answer: Because they are false religions.
If you are not catholic or orthodox, then your “Christian” religion is based on false doctrine. Pretty simple.
Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[loko]

My apologies. I just quoted what was in your post. Perhaps I did it wrong.
Secondly, your were asking about various protestant doctrines, Baptist sects in particular (if I read your post correctly). You were wondering why they were all Baptists, yet had different doctrines.
You asked the question, so I gave you an answer: Because they are false religions.
If you are not catholic or orthodox, then your “Christian” religion is based on false doctrine. Pretty simple.
Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.

No worries , just miscommunication.

I was looking for an answer from the members themselves, they do not see the contradiction or confusion in coming under an umbrella of Baptists or Anglicans or Lutherans yet can teach differing doctrines.

 

[nightranger]

No worries , just miscommunication.

I was looking for an answer from the members themselves, they do not see the contradiction or confusion in coming under an umbrella of Baptists or Anglicans or Lutherans yet can teach differing doctrines.

Ok. No problem. I will read more carefully from now on.
As to your above statement, I must agree. They seem not to see the contradictions and confusion.

 

[pablope]

Actually, Arminians don’t deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.

that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says that if you continue on in sin, that’s a huge red flag

that you weren’t saved in the first place.

Hmmmm…sorry, but this is confusing…let me see if I get this correctly…one says the sinner’s prayer or something…is said told to be "saved. Later on, sins again…then that person is told he was not “saved” in the first place…or to begin with.

Well…isn’t this kind of…cruel? Frst you tell him is saved…and turn around, a week, a month (or whatever) later…and tell him he is not saved after all?

Isn’t this lying? If it is not lying, then how would describe saying he is saved…then not saved?

 

[nightranger]

Isn’t this lying? If it is not lying, then how would describe saying he is saved…then not saved?

Perhaps it’s not lying, just plain mistaken theology. if you’re a protestant, and you don’t like the theology of a certain church, then you go to another church.
As for me, I would definitely go for the “once saved always saved” doctrine.
How could you lose?

 

[bevsue]

Gotta get my oar in the water here. I was in evangelical churches for about 20 years. Most of these churches tend to be non-denominational or members of a loose affiliation with each other. (I am a revert - cradle Catholic to pagan to evangelical to Home again ! ) I was told as an evangelical - once saved always saved. HOWEVER individuals within the church did not always totally subscribe to that. Remember most people in evangelical churches come from some denomination or other. What I heard from others at times, and believed myself was that a habitual sinner would not get a free pass, or as was mentioned here, was never saved to begin with.

So as I understood this:
Habitual sinning = considered serious sin as a Catholic would define it in this circumstance, though they would not consider everything a serious sin that we would.
So this would be things like spousal unfaithfulness, abuse, stealing, etc. If these sins continued and were not turned away from and repented of (of course we ALL sin - it was more the nature and severity of the sin and lack of repentance) it showed they weren’t saved to begin with, because coming to Christ involved repentance and a willingness to change your life and turn from sin, to being a disciple. If you still embraced sin or returned to it, without then turning back to Christ for forgiveness, it implied you either 1) didn’t know what becoming a Christian meant to begin with, or 2) you may have wanted to become a Christian for a number of reasons (pleasing people, liking the Idea of it, etc.), but not for the right reason and never had any intention of paying the price to follow Jesus to start with.

To be fair, although official Church doctrine is established (Church dotrine is PRIMARY of course), I have to say I have been in some Catholic churches since I’ve returned to the Church where they could never be accused of zealously following the magisterium! So I’m thinking just as all Baptists, Lutherans etc. aren’t the same tho there is an official doctrine in their church about some things, you could say the same thing about many Catholics - not saying that’s GOOD - but true I think. *We *appear to be confused and contradictory to many Protestants because so many Catholics don’t follow our Church teachings - ex. priests not supportive of official Church teaching, politicians who vote pro-choice, to the many Catholics who poo-poo contraception, etc. and appear to feel God won’t take any of that into account when we die. If these are the only type of Catholics you run into - and sadly there are lots of them - it would seem to me Protestants could almost consider us “faith only”!

 

[Georgia]

The OSAS is big in the Baptist churches where I grew up. At every funeral I attend, there is a preacher talking about how the deceased is now in Heaven and wishes for everyone to join him or her. That person might not have set foot inside a church, other than for funerals and weddings, since being baptized. The person’s life might have been far from saintly, but it does not mean that he or she didn’t join the church triumphant. Because that person made a profession of faith as a child, the gates were opened. Hell was a possibility only to those failing to get saved by repenting and praying the sinner’s prayer.

 

[ltwin]

The OSAS is big in the Baptist churches where I grew up. At every funeral I attend, there is a preacher talking about how the deceased is now in Heaven and wishes for everyone to join him or her. That person might not have set foot inside a church, other than for funerals and weddings, since being baptized. The person’s life might have been far from saintly, but it does not mean that he or she didn’t join the church triumphant. Because that person made a profession of faith as a child, the gates were opened. Hell was a possibility only to those failing to get saved by repenting and praying the sinner’s prayer.

I’ve been to funerals like this, especially funerals involving notorious and infamous public sinners who hadn’t stepped foot inside a church in decades. Where I’m from, this is called trying to “preach 'em into heaven,” and this “pastoral” practice is roundly criticized and condemned.

 

[Zooey]

Yes, they do deny the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security. From the Arminian perspective, election is conditional, atonement is universal, grace is resistable, and the perseverance of saints is conditional upon the believers’ free exercise of the will to remain in Christ, while the Calvinist perspective is that election is unconditional, atonement is limited, grace is irresistable, and the perseverance of the saints is not conditional.

This.
Googling “Arminianism” & “Calvinism” will help to show the main differences in belief.
(For the record, the UMC is Arminian).

 

[1voice]

Exactly my friend. Now you have it. You can forget all the other bs you may have been exposed to. You are either catholic, orthodox, or one of many protestant sects, who make up their own theology as they see fit. The only valid Christian religions are the first two.
And actually, as JPII said, the catholic and orthodox are two lungs of the same body (church).

The 2 most outspoken and well known Catholics in the country are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
What is confusing is the fact that prominent Catholics like Nancy Pelosi tell other Catholics that it is her Catholic faith that compels her to fight for gay marriage and abortion. The strength of Nancy Pelosi/ Joe Biden Catholicism is proven by the fact that over half of voting Catholics voted for Barack Obama.
Yet, the leaders allow her and people like Joe Biden to continue as if it is not that big of a deal … Stating that we cannot judge.
… yet people are quick to judge those that do not call themselves Catholic … if they do what NP and JB are doing.I know that there are outspoken Catholic clergy that denounce such behavior/ beliefs by those that call themselves Catholic … But they are still considered Catholics and no one really seems to care other that the outspoken few. It seems that the key … is the label …not the belief.