Q: Ok, before I always thought that sinners go to hell, but then I found out as long as you accept Jesus your sins will be forgiven. I've also roamed around this one other Q&A site (yahoo answers) and heard from some people that sinning does not lead to hell but to death, now I'm not sure about this so can anyone clarify this?
------------------------
A: We would not put it this way: "Your sins are forgiven as long as you...". Not only might that sound like one is trivializing sin, it also makes it sound as though avoiding hell depends on something we do. Expressions like "accept Jesus," "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior," and "invite Jesus into your heart" are typical of decision theology, which views believing both as our decision and as our contribution to the salvation "transaction."That's not Scripture's approach.
We would prefer to say, "Your sins are forgiven! Believe it!" Jesus' work is objectively true; it's finished, and it applies to all. By emphasizing what Jesus has done, we encourage and strengthen faith by giving people something solid to believe in.
We would also not be comfortable with "Sinning does not lead to hell but to death." For an answer to why the condemned are in hell, please see the previous post at:
WELS contradicts this post, but quotes August Pieper, UOJist.
***
GJ - One aspect of WELS confused thinking is consistent with Moravian Pietism - start with the Gospel and move to the Law. In fact, their chief theologian and xerox artist, Paul Kelm, has advocated that approach in those words. Megatron, my ready-to-go database, remembers.
Luther said that teaching the Gospel without the Law will make people look at us the way a cow stares at a newly painted fence. How can anyone grasp the Gospel without a knowledge of sin?
UOJ advocates vacillate between universalism (implied or explicit) and decision theology. In fact, someone at the Sausage Factory was teaching Josh McDowell's moronic "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" to innocent young seminarians in 1987. Josh is not a Lutheran, but that seminary professor is not one either.
As the fuzz-merchants of WELS always say, "This answer c-a-n (draw out the word slowly) be understood properly." But it can also be misunderstood. The linked answer is edging closer to the truth. More clarity is definitely needed.
WELS and the ELS will have to repudiate UOJ, General Justification, the Kokomo Statements, and J. P. Meyer to achieve doctrinal clarity on the topic of justification by faith.
I see an effort to avoid the pratfalls of the past. That is commendable. Notice that the recently-favorite term of UOJ is missing. That is another good idea. Newly invented toxic terms do not add to the discussion.
