Is Hell a Basic Christian Tenet?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because only the offering of a God can atone for perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God. This is all that God desires of them.

IOW, Jesus was the greatest and final sacrificial lamb?

 

[Quiddity]

IOW, Jesus was the greatest and final sacrificial lamb?

We believe so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We believe so.

And with that we arrive at one of the major stumbling blocks between Christianity and me.

 

[sojourner]

Soj,
I'm not sure if you are denying the existance of Hell or embracing it...

Unless I'm misundertanding you, you seem to be accepting that Hell exist but that this place is not eternal, but rather temporary. That right?

I suppose that depends on what you think "hell" means. I don't think it's a place of eternal punishment. I think it's a state of being in which those who have not embraced the eternal life that is theirs, exist in a state of death. But I don't think that mortal death is the "last call for Jesus." I think God waits for us until.

I think that, even though Jesus is quoted as mentioning hell as a place of eternal torment, it is not a basic tenet of Christianity, because the basic tenet of Christianity is the reconciliation of all God's children to God. Hell plays no part in that dynamic. Rather, it is anathema to it.

 

[sojourner]

I know you were asking Joe, but for catholics (and most Christians I'd say) it's not necessarily the death on the cross but just the fact that he died that makes it possible for humanity to be in a perfect relationship with God. Why? Because only the offering of a God can atone for perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God. This is all that God desires of them.

I agree with you, and this is a beautiful statement. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the word "atone," though.

 

[sojourner]

A God who, at the prospect of leaving the guilty unpunished, would inflict unthinkable suffering on the one being in all of existence who is truly innocent sounds to me to be almost infinitely unjust.

What would you think of a mortal judge who, in the course of a capital case, declared "I don't care who I send to the chair, but somebody's gonna fry!"? Does this become any more just when the magnitude is increase many billion-fold?

The theology only becomes convoluted like this when one accepts the concept of "substitutionary atonement." I don't think the cross was penal in nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The theology only becomes convoluted like this when one accepts the concept of "substitutionary atonement." I don't think the cross was penal in nature.

IMO, this concept is common to most of the denominations that I'm personally familiar with; what other teachings are out there? Would you say that Jesus was necessary for salvation at all?

 

[sojourner]

IMO, this concept is common to most of the denominations that I'm personally familiar with; what other teachings are out there? Would you say that Jesus was necessary for salvation at all?

Try the Orthodox, for one. Try the Episcopalians for another.

Yes. Jesus was necessary for salvation, because Jesus was God Incarnate. God became one of us, thereby reconciling us to God's self.

Most of the denominations you're probably familiar with are Protestant, who subscribe to the "classic" Protestant theology, which is rooted in the substitutionary atonement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Try the Orthodox, for one. Try the Episcopalians for another.

Yes. Jesus was necessary for salvation, because Jesus was God Incarnate. God became one of us, thereby reconciling us to God's self.

IOW, since God became a human, God knows better what it's like to be human and can hence understand humanity and its failings better?

Most of the denominations you're probably familiar with are Protestant, who subscribe to the "classic" Protestant theology, which is rooted in the substitutionary atonement.

Some Protestant, but mostly Catholicism, though many of the Catholics I know aren't that up on their theology.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I disagree with your last statement. I don't think it's being dishonest with the text. I think it further clarifies the text. "Hell" is such an emotionally-loaded term for us.

Who's "us"? Episcopalians, perhaps, particularly the universalist ones...but not for the authors of the Creed itself in the early Church.

using "the dead" instead of "hell" takes the emotional baggage off of a theological statement, so that it is not clouded by the emotion.

What emotion? No more emotion than "heaven"...should we eliminate that term?

Who goes to hell? Sinners. Vile, unrepentent, disagreeable, nasty, evil people. At least, that's what we've been taught to think. And only good people go to heaven. But That's not the truth. The truth is that sinners go to hell and sinners go to heaven. All of us are sinners. No one is good, but God. The concept of hell is that it is really a place for "the dead." Heaven is a place for "the living." So, rather than saying that Jesus went to hell to release vile, nasty people, we say that Jesus went to bring life to the dead. Which makes a whole lot more sense to me, and is a more theologicallt solid statement to make

I see your point, but to me it's just side-stepping the obvious. You are a universalist (or so it seems), and thus you cannot fathom in your theological framework a place of everlasting conscious punishment, and thus when you discover things like "Hell" in early Christian writings, you radically re-interpret them.
In truth, everyone is going to be resurrected, everyone is going to be brought back to life. Some, however, will be brought back to a resurrection of condemnation. They will still be living, but it's the quality of life that is at issue. The simple fact is, that in neither the Greek nor the Latin does the Creed warrant a translation of simply "the dead" in English.

 

[joeboonda]

That doesn't really answer the question though. All you've done is repeated the "what" of salvation, which you've done dozens of times before.
The question is how does a person being nailed to a cross actually accomplish this feat of salvation? Magic blood? Just because God says so?

I think I did explain it, lets try again. Magic blood? Almost! More than that, really.
There is a simple formula based on spiritual laws set forth in the Bible:

The Bible says all have sinned.

The wages of sin is death.

So Jesus paid the wages of sin, He died.

The Bible says God was satisfied with the payment and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, as the wages, results, penalty of sin is death.

Look at the underlined verses in Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

I've used this illustration before, ignore if you have read it: In the middle east when a seller is satisfied with the amount of money the buyer has laid down, he snatches it up and the item has been paid in full. God showed He was satisfied with the payment Christ made on the cross because He snatched Him up, Christ rose from the grave. Isaiah says God is satisfied. Only Christ could pay for all our sins as He alone was sinless, a lamb without blemish. Can I offer more insight into how this accomplished our salvation, perhaps, but the simple truth of the Bible is that Jesus paid the penalty of sin and God was satisfied. Our debt has been paid in full, it is as if we are standing in court and have been condemned to death and Jesus steps up and says I already paid your penalty, the judge accepts my payment, do you?

 

[logician]

Does a Christian need to believe in hell?

Minister Questions Hell, Loses Flock

If they believe the apostles creed, yes. The idea of a blood sacrifice to save us from some eternal torment is the epitamy of barbarism.