Why is everyone obsessed with Hell?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well… I feel stupid. Sorry guys. okay. Give me a moment to gather my thoughts and offer a response.
 
No worries, if you’re not used to the shorthand it’s kinda jarring. We get it.
 
I agree that physical salvation is not the issue in most of the Epistles. However, salvation is not limited to the context of eternal life. You treat it as a matter “pending” approval. Kind of like a mortgage payment. As long as we make the “faith payments, backup by good works, we get to remain in the house.” If we stop making those payments, we forfeit the house.

I do not buy-in to this approach. For us, the house was paid in full. The matter of eternal life is never again on the table. And this is the way Jesus treated it in the many narratives about it, in John’s gospel.

Here is a theological formula:

We have been saved in spirit from sin’s penalty, = justification = POSTION IN CHRIST
We are being saved in soul=life from sin’s power= sanctification. = CONDITION IN CHRIST
We will be saved in body= from the very presence of sin, = glorification. =AMBITION IN CHRIST

The saving of one’s soul=life is temporal. When Paul addressed the Philippians to say, work out your salvation=deliverance with fear and trembling, Why? because God has worked it in you. In other words, he addressed them as people who already have eternal life, not as one “pending a final verdict.”

The Galatian passage about being cut off is real… They were rejecting grace to embrace a moral code of the law as a means to be eternally saved.

Paul was saying, by doing so, you cut yourself off from God. Not in the context of eternity, but in terms of communion.

It’s like the prodigal Son who rejected his father’s grace and found himself cut off from the blessings of that grace. But at no time did he ever NOT be the son of his father.

He always had a father. Only geography separated him from his father. Why? Because he was born of his father. He shared his DNA. Nothing could ever reverse that birth. Not even disobedience.

This truth only glorifies our God who is merciful and loving to His children.
In Paul’s comments about disciplining his body lest he become disqualified. Disqualified from what?.. eternal life? what is it in the context that connects these specific dots?
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
The saving of one’s soul=life is temporal. When Paul addressed the Philippians to say, work out your salvation=deliverance with fear and trembling, Why? because God has worked it in you. In other words, he addressed them as people who already have eternal life, not as one “pending a final verdict.”
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I have to completely disagree. Salvation is not set until we are dead and have been judged. I can have a relatively solid assurance of my salvation if I live according to God’s law, but up until that moment of death I can always make the free will choice to reject God’s salvation and be damned.

When we are baptized, the grace necessary for salvation is imparted to us. It is a free gift given by God. But that is not the end of the story. We still have to live our lives according to God’s will. If we do not, if we reject Him, then we forfeit our claim on the free gift of salvation, we tell God no. And with that no, we forfeit our salvation.
tgGodsway said:
Paul was saying, by doing so, you cut yourself off from God. Not in the context of eternity, but in terms of communion.
Click to expand...
When Paul speaks of grace in this context, he is clearly discussing salvific grace. Not merely the “good graces” of communion with the Church. I doubt you could find a single interpretation prior to the Protestant revolt that would agree with that assessment.
tgGodsway said:
It’s like the prodigal Son who rejected his father’s grace and found himself cut off from the blessings of that grace. But at no time did he ever NOT be the son of his father.
Click to expand...
At no time are the damned any less the sons of God than they are while they are alive. Just because we are a son of God doesn’t mean that we cannot forfeit the gift of our inheritance and lose salvation.

I also note that you still haven’t tried to tackle Romans.

All of that being said, we’ve veered far off the topic, so we should probably reign it in. I’d be happy to continue via PM, or feel free to start another thread, but we are no longer dealing with the OP’s topic.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I’m sorry, but I have to completely disagree. Salvation is not set until we are dead and have been judged.
Click to expand...
You certainly are entitled to your opinion and I would never try to stop that. But on what scriptural bases is salvation “not set until we are dead and have been judged.” Who among the apostles echo’s this idea? Please reference your case scripturally.
 
I think the bottom line is that people learn that the Catholic Church teaches that mortal sin, even just one that goes unconfessed, will land a soul in eternal torment (Hell). There is no getting around that. I realize that isn’t the language, exactly, what is used. However, it is what is taught. Everything else is window dressing, if one believes that is the bottom line. And when you consider that the mortal sins on “the list” include things like missing Mass or sexual sin…things that aren’t hard to commit in the world of today, it is sort of understandable that people obsess over it.
 
To close out the discussion, here is a more complete analysis of the subject than I can reasonably give in a forum post. There’s a lot more as well, if you search the site. There are also many apologetic works dedicated to the subject that show how it is irrational in the light of scripture.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/once-saved-always-saved

As for the basis of my assertion, that basis is free will. Until the moment of my death, I retain the capacity to reject God. Therefore, we cannot be truly and completely saved until we not longer retain that capacity, ie death.
 
Yes, in comparison to the concept that one mortal sin, unconfessed, is going to land you in hell.

What difference does the other stuff make, if that is the case?

(Not saying I believe that, but I know many do).
 
ProdglArchitect said:
he is clearly discussing salvific grace. Not merely the “good graces” of communion with the Church.
Click to expand...
On what scriptural bases do you separate grace?.. what is it you are looking at in scripture that makes this distinction?
 
Wait… what? You’ve lost me, and again, we’re no longer on topic.

I’m not separating grace. “Good graces” is a colloquial term meaning to be in communion. You claimed that the passage referred to merely being out of communion with the church, not having lost the grace which saves.

Once again though, we need to return to the topic at hand, which is the focus on Hell.
 
I’m not sure who came up with this rule about staying on topic when we all know that theology is a building block of thought. It evolves based on ideas layered upon each other. Hell is connected to salvation in thought. Grace is connected to salvation. Defining our terms is all part of the process of theology. I have a feeling you know this.
 
It is related, but in the process of discussing it we have basically hijacked the thread to discuss a tangential topic. A few posts is generally fine, but we’ve basically had an entire separate conversation.

The discussion of grace as it relates to salvation is relative to the topic, that’s fine. The discussion of the validity of OSAS is a related, but different, topic which should be in it’s own thread.

More to the point, I’m simply out of time to continue discussing it right now. I understand that might sound like a cop-out to you, but that’s why I linked to that article. It does a better job discussing hte topic than I can, especially in the limited amount of time I have available to me right now. That’s also why I offered to continue the discussion via PM, since we can take our time and I don’t feel quite so rushed, and also so we can allow this topic to get back on track.
 
Last edited:
Yes I hear you. I’ve been away from this site for a while and I don’t remember this rule. Is it new?.. I respect the position, but surely it makes for difficult progressive thought if we must stay in the parameters of a subject. But I will withdraw this line of conversation. … a nice conversation sir.

Blessings to you.
tgGodsway.
 
Last edited:
It’s a pretty old rule. It’s been there as long as I’ve been a member. It does seem to see a bit more enforcement on this version of the forum… that could just be me though.
 
Last edited:
p.s. No… you’re right. I was flagged on a different topic just today. I was told it would be blocked if I continued. It makes for very poor theological conversations though. But again, I can understand why.
 
Lea101, Spiritual freedom never has these kind of feelings. All of your sin-debt was placed on Christ at the cross. You have passed from eternal death to eternal life. See John 5: 24 “Most assuredly, I say to You, he/she who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into JUDGMENT! but has passed from death to life.”

Jesus said, if you believe in Him, you won’t be judged over sin. Will you believe John 5:24?
 
Last edited:
Hell is the absolute worst thing that can happen to anyone. It is forever, it is unspeakable suffering, it never gets any better, there is nothing either you or anyone else can do about it, and it is an eternal state of hatred, bitterness, and torment.

Any of us could go there, as noted above, for so much as one mortal sin unrepented and unconfessed. That means we cannot do whatever we want to. We have to listen to what the Church teaches us, about what is true and what is false, what is a sin and what is not, and then form our minds and hearts accordingly.

We live in this state from this moment, until the day we die. We focus on the love and mercy of God, to be sure, but we always have to keep this reality in mind.

It’s as simple as that.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
We need to focus on Hell, because we need to get back to the point that people understand it as a real possibility.
Click to expand...
I think that is an early stage of Christian maturity. Fear of hell may help get some people to seek out the truth. But as we mature in our journey it should become more about our love of God and His church.
I was raised Protestant beginning as a Lutheran and then bouncing around to various denominations. I came to a point when I prayed the prayer where I thought I was saved. I studied the Bible and attended church regularly for many years. I truly loved God. Events in life led me to falling away as happens to so many, but I never stopped loving God, but I was living a sinful life because I am weak. Years later I marry my Catholic wife who was previously a widow. But I was divorced and she fell away in part because of me. My love for God was still there and we decided together to get things right, not for fear of hell, but for love of God. When I started to study Catholicism and went through the annulment process for my previous marriage, I started seeing the truth of the Catholic faith. My love for God and seeking the truth led to my conversion. Though I loved God throughout my Protestant years, there was an emptiness that allowed me to fall away. The Catholic Faith filled the void and here I am today. Never during this period was I ever in fear of hell. I know I’m a sinner and I love the sacraments. I realize now that I was in danger of hell at the time, and I’m concerned for many family members. I believe in hell. But for me it’s always been about love of God. I was misguided through much of my life, but God didn’t give up on me and I never fully gave up on him. I don’t know why I’ve never feared hell, but maybe it’s because I had trust in Him to get me straight. Once I found the way, I’m amazed at how my life has changed.
I ramble too much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top