What gets someone thrown into hell?

SkyWriting · Feb 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
Regardless of what you consider hell to be, what kinds of things do you have to do, or not do, to find yourself there?
New Testament quotes, especially the gospels, would help.

When you read the original language, "Hell" is written in the active present tense.
Not a future destination.

SkyWriting · Feb 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
That is the opinion of all of the original apostolic Churches. So no, it is not merely my opinion.

That is your opinion as well.
The original churches were a hot mess.
Truth only comes from God, not from other people, by definition.

DNB · Feb 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
Note that you need to tone down your language. The admins will ban you.

Now what point in particular would you like me to prove?

You need to start recognizing when something is of your opinion, and when it's divinely inspired.
If you're going to start an OP, you should be prepared for contending opinions, and not claim that your 'opinion' supersedes all others, because you feel that your the only one that rightly divides God's Word.

DNB · Feb 7, 2020

SkyWriting said:
I regard others views. I then evaluate them and let untruth slide off.

Agreed, and even then I am prepared to state that I may have made a mistake either way.
It's all opinions here, nothing more. Be wary of those who claim otherwise.

HTacianas · Feb 7, 2020

DNB said:
You need to start recognizing when something is of your opinion, and when it's divinely inspired.
If you're going to start an OP, you should be prepared for contending opinions, and not claim that your 'opinion' supersedes all others, because you feel that your the only one that rightly divides God's Word.

Why don't we walk through this. What point would you like me to prove?

Lazarus Short · Feb 7, 2020

SkyWriting said:
When you read the original language, "Hell" is written in the active present tense.
Not a future destination.

Actually, the exact word "hell" is not found in Latin, Greek or Hebrew. It comes from the languages of then-pagan north Europe. I have found it in Norse mythology and in "Beowulf."

bbbbbbb · Feb 7, 2020

Paulus59 said:
People don't have to do things to get to hell they are already there, they are already condemned, it just hasn't been realized yet until they die, because their eyes are blinded in this world to the truth of their situation. That's why Jesus came to rescue us. If you don't have God then you don't have love and if you don't have love you have nothing within yourself except to be condemned by a fruitless life.

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

PuerAzaelis · Feb 7, 2020

“Mephistopheles: Why, this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Think'st thou that I, who saw the face of God
And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,
Am not tormented with ten thousand hells
In being deprived of everlasting bliss?”

― Christopher Marlowe, Dr. Faustus

Lazarus Short · Feb 7, 2020

PuerAzaelis said:
“Mephistopheles: Why, this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Think'st thou that I, who saw the face of God
And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,
Am not tormented with ten thousand hells
In being deprived of everlasting bliss?”

― Christopher Marlowe, Dr. Faustus

Contrary to popular opinion, I was unable to find any evidence in the Bible that Satan, whatever name you give him, is the prince of Hell. I could find no connection at all, except that he is tossed into the Lake of Fire. See Job 1 and 2 to see the extent of his operations.

DNB · Feb 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
Why don't we walk through this. What point would you like me to prove?

For one, the points to prove were based on a major digression that we took, so my interest is not in the individual points themselves (even though I did cite each one, thus, you should know which one's I was referring to - the Orthodox's faithful preservation of truth, and the canon).
The point is, you keep screaming 'heresy', without qualifying your position. But the problem is, that even if you were to offer a justification somehow, you are not appreciating the subjectivity of everyone's opinion and exegesis.
In my opinion, no one denomination or Church has the pure and unadulterated Word of God, in either their tenets, doctrines, liturgy or dogma. They all have some truth, but equally many fallacies, and hence, I remain non denominational. Plus, I will never put another name before Jesus Christ's (Calvin, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Orthodox, etc..).
Therefore, I am just a Christian, who is obligated to investigate all the Churches to see which align with God's Word, as far as I can comprehend. And after all has been said and done, I can only state that my position on Truth, is based solely on my feeble and fallible opinion (compared to God's).
Like my belief in Sola Fide.

HTacianas · Feb 7, 2020

DNB said:
For one, the points to prove were based on a major digression that we took, so my interest is not in the individual points themselves (even though I did cite each one, thus, you should know which one's I was referring to - the Orthodox's faithful preservation of truth, and the canon).
The point is, you keep screaming 'heresy', without qualifying your position. But the problem is, that even if you were to offer a justification somehow, you are not appreciating the subjectivity of everyone's opinion and exegesis.
In my opinion, no one denomination or Church has the pure and unadulterated Word of God, in either their tenets, doctrines, liturgy or dogma. They all have some truth, but equally many fallacies, and hence, I remain non denominational. Plus, I will never put another name before Jesus Christ's (Calvin, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Orthodox, etc..).
Therefore, I am just a Christian, who is obligated to investigate all the Churches to see which align with God's Word, as far as I can comprehend. And after all has been said and done, I can only state that my position on Truth, is based solely on my feeble and fallible opinion (compared to God's).
Like my belief in Sola Fide.

Well let's begin with sola fide. It's very very old. It was a heresy of the first century based on a misunderstanding of Paul. Paul taught that we enter in to salvation not as a reward for anything we may have done in the past. It is the unmerited grace of God. He wrote to the Ephesians in Ephesians 2:1-10 that they were previously dead in sin and trespass yet God chose to save them anyway. He said to them "it is not of works that no man can boast". Then after the Ephesians entered into salvation they were required to, echoing the words of John the Baptist, do works consistent with their repentance. Even that God had preordained those works, see Ephesians 2:10.

All that "not of works" combined with his teaching also on "the works of the law" as he mentioned at Colossians 2:21-22 led some to begin teaching that nothing at all was required of them. James eventually addressed it and explained it a James 2, concluding that "a man is justified by works and not by faith only".

The writer of 2 Peter also warned against the same at 2 Peter 3:15-17.

Der Alte · Feb 7, 2020

Lazarus Short said:
Actually, the exact word "hell" is not found in Latin, Greek or Hebrew. It comes from the languages of then-pagan north Europe. I have found it in Norse mythology and in "Beowulf."

That another country, 100s of years ago, had a word that sounded like "hell" is irrelevant. Lexical fallacy, "root fallacy."
In English when we say "truck" we think of a large, boxy vehicle for carrying large heavy loads. "Truck" originally meant vegetables.
As I have shown multiple times, and have never been refuted, in Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of fiery, eternal punishment they called it both "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" written in the 225 BC LXX and the NT "hades" and "Gehinnom." Note how willing you are to believe that "hell" in the NT originated in pagan north Europe but refuse to believe that it is more closely associated with the Jewish belief.

Lazarus Short · Feb 7, 2020

Der Alter said:
That another country, 100s of years ago, had a word that sounded like "hell" is irrelevant. Lexical fallacy, "root fallacy."
In English when we say "truck" we think of a large, boxy vehicle for carrying large heavy loads. "Truck" originally meant vegetables.
As I have shown multiple times, and have never been refuted, in Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of fiery, eternal punishment they called it both "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" written in the 225 BC LXX and the NT "hades" and "Gehinnom." Note how willing you are to believe that "hell" in the NT originated in pagan north Europe but refuse to believe that it is more closely associated with the Jewish belief.

My point is that the word "hell," has been loaded with theo-illogical baggage. I am well aware of your "truck" example, and have given considerable study to the history of "hell" the word and "Hell" the concept. I think you are trying to cover up its origins by ignoring that "hel" and "hell" are certainly not found the Latin, Greek or Hebrew languages. The word "infernum" follows just such a course, a perfectly good word at one time, with a meaning close to "sheol" or "hades." Most folks think "inferno," but the original meaning is still there in phrases like "infernal regions," which is to say, under the grass.

Der Alte · Feb 7, 2020

Lazarus Short said:
My point is that the word "hell," has been loaded with theo-illogical baggage. I am well aware of your "truck" example, and have given considerable study to the history of "hell" the word and "Hell" the concept. I think you are trying to cover up its origins by ignoring that "hel" and "hell" are certainly not found the Latin, Greek or Hebrew languages. The word "infernum" follows just such a course, a perfectly good word at one time, with a meaning close to "sheol" or "hades." Most folks think "inferno," but the original meaning is still there in phrases like "infernal regions," which is to say, under the grass.

To most people the word "hell" has absolutely no "theo-illogical" or any other kind of loading. To most people "hell" means the place of eternal, fiery punishment.
I am trying to cover up nothing. Your argument is irrelevant. It is a concocted argument simply to support UR.

DNB · Feb 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
Well let's begin with sola fide. It's very very old. It was a heresy of the first century based on a misunderstanding of Paul. Paul taught that we enter in to salvation not as a reward for anything we may have done in the past. It is the unmerited grace of God. He wrote to the Ephesians in Ephesians 2:1-10 that they were previously dead in sin and trespass yet God chose to save them anyway. He said to them "it is not of works that no man can boast". Then after the Ephesians entered into salvation they were required to, echoing the words of John the Baptist, do works consistent with their repentance. Even that God had preordained those works, see Ephesians 2:10.

All that "not of works" combined with his teaching also on "the works of the law" as he mentioned at Colossians 2:21-22 led some to begin teaching that nothing at all was required of them. James eventually addressed it and explained it a James 2, concluding that "a man is justified by works and not by faith only".

The writer of 2 Peter also warned against the same at 2 Peter 3:15-17.

Fundamentally speaking, grace is unmerited reward, whereas works lead to duly warranted recognition. One is antithetical to the other when discussing things pertaining to Christian soteriology.
Therefore, context becomes imperative. You already justified the principle of grace that exists within Christian theology, so there is no need to substantiate that point (we both agree). But, as far as works are concerned, for one, James was solely speaking about those who exploit Christian freedom and grace, in order to justify their licentious acts. Therefore, works are critical in verifying one's faith, not in establishing one's salvation.
Secondly, God's grace should, without exception, elicit the desire to please him, and also, instill within us the principle that righteousness is the power and truth i.e. there is no strength or peace in iniquity.
Thus, grace and good works go hand in hand in that sense. And therefore, this is the ideal and walk of the Christian adherent, to become perfect as Christ was perfect (also acts as a testimony to others).
So, all the New Testament allusions to the necessity of works, is invariably referring to them as either a testimony to one's faith, or as a manner to please God (not towards salvation), man (towards salvation), and oneself (to peace and fortitude).

HTacianas · Feb 7, 2020

DNB said:
Fundamentally speaking, grace is unmerited reward, whereas works lead to duly warranted recognition. One is antithetical to the other when discussing things pertaining to Christian soteriology.
Therefore, context becomes imperative. You already justified the principle of grace that exists within Christian theology, so there is no need to substantiate that point (we both agree). But, as far as works are concerned, for one, James was solely speaking about those who exploit Christian freedom and grace, in order to justify their licentious acts. Therefore, works are critical in verifying one's faith, not in establishing one's salvation.
Secondly, God's grace should, without exception, elicit the desire to please him, and also, instill within us the principle that righteousness is the power and truth i.e. there is no strength or peace in iniquity.
Thus, grace and good works go hand in hand in that sense. And therefore, this is the ideal and walk of the Christian adherent, to become perfect as Christ was perfect (also acts as a testimony to others).
So, all the New Testament allusions to the necessity of works, is invariably referring to them as either a testimony to one's faith, or as a manner to please God (not towards salvation), man (towards salvation), and oneself (to peace and fortitude).

If all of that were true, James would not have stated it as plainly as he did. All of that you've just said is merely a way of rationalizing sola fide when met with scripture that refutes it.

The "two ways" set before us after baptism are the path of sin leading to death and obedience leading to righteousness:

Rom 6:16 - Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

That is perfectly consistent throughout the new testament. After baptism removes our prior sins it is up to us to cooperate with grace through our works to attain salvation:

Rom 2:6 - who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:

Rom 2:7 - eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

It is through doing good that we seek eternal life.

DNB · Feb 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
If all of that were true, James would not have stated it as plainly as he did. All of that you've just said is merely a way of rationalizing sola fide when met with scripture that refutes it.

The "two ways" set before us after baptism are the path of sin leading to death and obedience leading to righteousness:

Rom 6:16 - Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

That is perfectly consistent throughout the new testament. After baptism removes our prior sins it is up to us to cooperate with grace through our works to attain salvation:

Rom 2:6 - who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:

Rom 2:7 - eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

It is through doing good that we seek eternal life.

No, I am attempting to appreciate context, ...especially when two principles oppose one another.
This is imperative in exegesis. Grace and works are not compatible, therefore we are forced to apply a certain amount of wisdom when interpreting 'difficult' passages. And I believe that i have done so prudently. In other words, James cannot be contradicting Romans, there must be a resolve that harmonizes them, which I did.
You, on the other hand, simply stuck them together and said, accept God's grace, but you better work for it.
Didn't you?

HTacianas · Feb 7, 2020

DNB said:
No, I am attempting to appreciate context, ...especially when two principles oppose one another.
This is imperative in exegesis. Grace and works are not compatible, therefore we are forced to apply a certain amount of wisdom when interpreting 'difficult' passages. And I believe that i have done so prudently. In other words, James cannot be contradicting Romans, there must be a resolve that harmonizes them, which I did.
You, on the other hand, simply stuck them together and said, accept God's grace, but you better work for it.
Didn't you?

There is no need to harmonize them. It is consistent throughout. Harmonizing is only necessary to resolve a conflict created when someone has some extrabiblical idea that conflicts with what the bible says.

And no, I haven't needlessly stuck anything together.

DNB · Feb 8, 2020

HTacianas said:
There is no need to harmonize them. It is consistent throughout. Harmonizing is only necessary to resolve a conflict created when someone has some extrabiblical idea that conflicts with what the bible says.

And no, I haven't needlessly stuck anything together.

I didn't say 'needlessly', I said haphazardly.
Harmonizing is always necessary, with all scripture, how in the world do you think otherwise, or that it only pertains to extra-biblical sources?
Can you not see the contradiction between grace & works?
Like I said HTacianas, you're showing either a real peculiarity/incompetence in your manner of exegeting scripture, or you are extremely indoctrinated, ...or both?

Hazelelponi · Feb 8, 2020

HTacianas said:
Mat 25:44 - “Then they also will answer Him,[fn] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

Mat 25:45 - “Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

Mat 25:46 - “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

In the end:

Jas 2:24 - You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Check James 2:26 it's speaking of needing both. In a converted man, faith and works are coupled together.

Antinomiamism is heresy, but also so is legalism. We aren't working our way into heaven, we are saved individuals who, through faith and by faith in the finished Work of Christ, by the Grace of God submit ourselves to the Lordship of Christ.

Salvation. cannot exist without faith. Works do not exist without salvation.

Do you see where the "cannot" stands - that's why it's emphasized so strongly. Salvation cannot exist without faith, works do not exist without salvation. (Otherwise, the works are worthless.)

What gets someone thrown into hell?

The Librarian

The Librarian

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

:sighing:

Similar threads