Sinners are gonna go to Hell!

[benedictine]

they wore brown, woolen robes, with round hoods. Course then, they might think you were a round head! (Puritan.)

 

[ZiSunka]

My point is that just wearing a robe and acting holy isn't going to reach anyone. We already pretty much do that, and it isn't working.

Now if you had said that he told the brothers to go into the village and help them hoe their gardens, unclog their toilets, teach the children to read and give them hope for a better future, THEN I would agree with his teachings. But just dressing differently and acting holy puts people off, it doesn't draw them near and it certainly doesn't show them the love of God. In fact, holier-than-thou behavior like that instills fear and hatred more than love.

 

[benedictine]

It's not holier-than thou behaviour. They knew who they were. IT was ministry by example.

 

[ZiSunka]

It's not holier-than thou behaviour. They knew who they were. IT was ministry by example.

How do you figure that walking through town showing off their robes but doing nothing else to show the love of God wasn't holier-than-thou? It's like saying, "See my robe? I'm holier than you are because I have one of these and you don't. Better not do anything bad while I'm around or I'll tell God on you!"

 

[Abbadon]

At that time pretty much anyone involved with religion was wearing a robe. Benedictine's point wasn't about the robes, it was about action vs. beating people across the head with your denominational beliefs.

Wait... I haven't done any Jack Chick bashing in this thread yet!

We shouldn't live our lives the way Jack Chick would want us, like unthinking zombies that attack people with different religious beliefs, and then flee to home schools when you don't agree with anything out there an don't want your kids to know a bit about those "lies".

Actually, I'm not bashing Jack Chick, just his philosophy.

Sorry, I just had to get my daily Jack Chick bashing.

 

[ZiSunka]

At that time pretty much anyone involved with religion was wearing a robe. Benedictine's point wasn't about the robes, it was about action vs. beating people across the head with your denominational beliefs.

Wait... I haven't done any Jack Chick bashing in this thread yet!

We shouldn't live our lives the way Jack Chick would want us, like unthinking zombies that attack people with different religious beliefs, and then flee to home schools when you don't agree with anything out there an don't want your kids to know a bit about those "lies".

Actually, I'm not bashing Jack Chick, just his philosophy.

Sorry, I just had to get my daily Jack Chick bashing.

Walking through town with a religious robe on is not faith in action, it's smacking people in the face with your religiosity. It doesn't tell them anything about Christ, it tells them that you are a religious person higher on the ladder than they are. It's more about being seen than it is about loving and helping. What is loving or helpful about walking through town in a religious robe?

And for goodness sake, why do we have to bring up Chick. This thread is about preaching about hell, not about comparing one brand of tracts with another. Open a new thread for that!

 

[Abbadon]

Ultimately, we have the same message, just different ways of saying it.

 

[ZiSunka]

My message is that we need to show people the love of Christ by interacting with unsaved people in helpful and loving ways so they will be drawn to our Savior, and your point is that if you show people how holy you are, they will feel guilty and want to be like you. Not the same message.

 

[clonenomore]

Ultimately, we have the same message, just different ways of saying it.

I agree, and this is a good thing. The message of the Gospel is simple, and can be summed up in possibly the best known scripture of all time:

"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life." John 3:16 (The Message)

Jesus loves us, He died for us and arose from the dead, and He wants us to be saved. Pretty simple, and the end result for us is the same, not matter how we present the Gospel.

Different people have different needs. Some need to hear that hell awaits a sinner -- BUT others don't need to hear that up front. Folks like me and LambsLove obviously fall into the latter category. I was alienated from the church for 23 years, partially because of the "hellfire and brimstone" approach of beating people over the head with theology. The repeated "beatings" chased me away, until I was approached with love.

On the other hand, I spoke with a preacher who had invited his friend to a very contemporary chuch several times. The friend refused each time. They lost touch, and several years later ran into each other. The friend was involved in a "hellfire and brimstone" kind of primitive church, but that's what he needed to hear.

The destination is the same, the goal is the same. How we get there is different because God wants ALL people to hear and listen to the Gospel. Then they can make a choice on whether to believe or not.

God will send people to us that need to hear the Gospel in our special style. We need to be ready for them.

 

[Alice the Sister]

-on original post-


because they're afraid of not being politically correct, scaring someone, or getting a bad image.

 

[ZiSunka]

I agree, and this is a good thing. The message of the Gospel is simple, and can be summed up in possibly the best known scripture of all time:



Jesus loves us, He died for us and arose from the dead, and He wants us to be saved. Pretty simple, and the end result for us is the same, not matter how we present the Gospel.

Different people have different needs. Some need to hear that hell awaits a sinner -- BUT others don't need to hear that up front. Folks like me and LambsLove obviously fall into the latter category. I was alienated from the church for 23 years, partially because of the "hellfire and brimstone" approach of beating people over the head with theology. The repeated "beatings" chased me away, until I was approached with love.

On the other hand, I spoke with a preacher who had invited his friend to a very contemporary chuch several times. The friend refused each time. They lost touch, and several years later ran into each other. The friend was involved in a "hellfire and brimstone" kind of primitive church, but that's what he needed to hear.

The destination is the same, the goal is the same. How we get there is different because God wants ALL people to hear and listen to the Gospel. Then they can make a choice on whether to believe or not.

God will send people to us that need to hear the Gospel in our special style. We need to be ready for them.

So who gets saved by seeing men in religious garb? Can religious clothing convey the message of the gospel? Can it help others understand the concepts of grace and redemption? If I wore a religious robe and walked through your town, would people turn away from their sin and run to Christ because they can see from my clothing that he is loving and forgiving of even the most horrible sins?

 

[Abbadon]

Benedictine was the one who mentioned the religious garb, I talked about hypocrites in the church using religion as an excuse to complain about young people.

 

[ElElohe]

How come most churches don't teach about sinners going to Hell anymore? It seems they encourage us to be nice to others, shake hands, put money in the basket, and finally offer a joke or amusing anecdote before sending us on our way... Is there a reason scaring people of Hell has fallen out of fashion, and is it correlated to emptier pews, rampant divorce, and open homosexuality among self professed Christians?

Pardon me for butting into the middle of this thread without reading the 6 pages prior, but I caught the title out of the corner of my eye and had to post!

Firstly, let me say this is a great question, and the "problem" of an apathetic church is not one that I would usually let go without a few comments. However, I want to make a slight redirect here (It may even have been mentioned in the 6 pages I just don't have time to read).

A question, in response to the one posed here, is this:

How come churches don't preach that the saved are going to heaven???

The idea is that we shouldn't just be trying to avoid hell. Nor should we just be trying to get other people to avoid hell. Instead,

we should be anticipating heaven.

I just began a new book by an author I very much like (Heaven, by Randy Alcorn). In the first chapter he details how the subject of Heaven is almost always slighted, if not ignored. However hell was, in classic theological works, talked of at length. Seminaries rarely if ever offer classes on Heaven. And Revelation 21-22, the most intricate description of the New World, often gets left off of the New Testement survey classes just because prof's run out of time.

So I pose this challege: Let us walk towards Heaven, not just away from hell. The "I have fire insurance" bumper sticker is cute, but not theologically sound. Let us anticipate the unspeakable wonders that the God we honor has given us a fortaste of in this creation we travel through, on our way towards home.

 

[clonenomore]

So who gets saved by seeing men in religious garb? Can religious clothing convey the message of the gospel? Can it help others understand the concepts of grace and redemption? If I wore a religious robe and walked through your town, would people turn away from their sin and run to Christ because they can see from my clothing that he is loving and forgiving of even the most horrible sins?

I don't believe that anyone would get saved by merely seeing a person in religious garb -- but that may plant a seed for some folks. That's what I was saying. It wouldn't work for me -- I'd probably think, "What's up with that?" But others may see that in an entirely different way -- we are ALL different.

Having said that, in the above example, it's not enough. Wearing those types of clothes should only be part of their witness. We are to live with the heart and mind of Christ (actions) and to share our faith with non-believers (words). So our witness is 2-part: actions and words.

I still go back to my original statement that we have to reach out in love -- not condemnation.

How come churches don't preach that the saved are going to heaven???

The idea is that we shouldn't just be trying to avoid hell. Nor should we just be trying to get other people to avoid hell. Instead,

we should be anticipating heaven.

I love the way that you put this. As I stated in an earlier post, I heard a preacher one time say that we spend way too much time trying to scare people out of hell, and not enough time trying to love them into Heaven.

 

[Abbadon]

I wish to thank ElElohe for his post.

I think it's greedy when people only go to church to avoid hell. Actually, it could be argued that it's greedy to go to church just to get into heaven, either.

Maybe that's why the first five books of the Bible don't even mention the afterlife, that we're meant to do good without reward.

I dunno. I just rambling.

 

[AngelusSax]

Maybe that's why the first five books of the Bible don't even mention the afterlife, that we're meant to do good without reward.

I think you're onto something here. We are to live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be. Not for reward, but just because it's the right thing to do.

 

[kbanv]

How come most churches don't teach about sinners going to Hell anymore? It seems they encourage us to be nice to others, shake hands, put money in the basket, and finally offer a joke or amusing anecdote before sending us on our way... Is there a reason scaring people of Hell has fallen out of fashion, and is it correlated to emptier pews, rampant divorce, and open homosexuality among self professed Christians?

You answered your question in your own post: "put money in the basket,"

In most cases money is the issue! If there is a big budget for the church to function this causes pastors to tailor their message to bring in money. Big wonderful church buildings don't help either with huge mortgage payments! Land and buildings should be paid for up front to reduce the monthly budget.

 

[desi]

You answered your question in your own post: "put money in the basket,"

In most cases money is the issue! If there is a big budget for the church to function this causes pastors to tailor their message to bring in money. Big wonderful church buildings don't help either with huge mortgage payments! Land and buildings should be paid for up front to reduce the monthly budget.

But most people want to know the truth or they are wasting time. Churches who water down the message pay the price in tithe. I know I don't tithe ten percent because the message is edited.

 

[AngelusSax]

But most people want to know the truth or they are wasting time. Churches who water down the message pay the price in tithe. I know I don't tithe ten percent because the message is edited.

You may not, but lots of others do. That is quite possibly the problem.

 

[Abbadon]

Ever watch INSP? Or local televangelists? I don't know if the televangelists in y'all's areas (gee, guess where I'm from) preach for tithes, but they do here.

We could eliminate the need to tithe period, and just meet in a congregation member's house every week, or weirder places. Like they used to have to during persecution.

Oh, wait, that would encourage people to read the Bible by themselves and with thier own thoughts, wouldn't it? That would also put a lot of televangelists out of jobs. Wow, I guess they wouldn't like that too much.