Is Hell a Basic Christian Tenet?

[FerventGodSeeker]

Or "Sheol." This illustrates that the Christian belief is that one is either a) alive or b) dead. The basic Christian tenet is unconcerned with hell, per se. Why? Because Christ came to the place where the dead are and released them to life.

Can you tell me where in Scripture it is seen that those in torment in Sheol are released out of torment in Sheol by Christ?

"Judge the living and the dead." I don't see any mention of sending anyone anywhere in that statement, whether they be people, sheep, goats, or pink unicorns.

You agree, I hope, that Matthew 25 is a description of that judgment. Refer to that passage if you want to know what I'm referring to.

In what way is it not "accurate?"

Well, in neither Greek nor Latin is the word there "the dead," as the translation you're advocating states.

Your post intended to hold Episcopalians to some sort of professed, standard, creedal belief. I stated what our Creed says.

"Our" Creed? The Apostles' Creed is hardly the POV of one denomination. If you claim to believe in the Creed, I hope you mean more than, "I believe in the English translation of it that the ECUSA published." As you admit yourself, the ECUSA has obviously revised it's translation of the Creed at least once...it is possible that it mistranslates it, wouldn't you say?

I can't help it if you don't like it

And I can't help it if it's mistranslated in the BCP

but that's really your issue, and not an issue for the ECUSA. What I must admit is that we believe what we believe, not what you think we "should" believe.

If you're claiming to believe in the Creed (not just your version of it), then it does become your issue, when you flatly deny one of the clauses therein.

 

[joeboonda]

So, if you're eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ, how can you sahre in the joy of the Lord?

Then what do you mena by this:

Not sure what you mean on the first question, but I will answer the 2nd. All born-again believers in Christ have been freely saved by having trusted in Christ. Their salvation is not the issue here, all who have called upon the name of the Lord, have trusted in Christ are saved and have eternal life with Christ. But we will be judged, not for salvation, for Christ took that judgement for us, but we will be judged for more rewards past salvation, at the Judgement Seat of Christ which is a believers only judgement. Some people who are saved really yield to the Holy Spirit and produce fruit, and some do not. Those who have served well will receive greater rewards in Heaven than others who will suffer loss--of rewards. The Bible speaks of five crowns we can earn, and it describes our works as either wood, hay and stubble, which will burn up under the inspection of God, and some are gold, silver and precious stones which will survive the 'fire', or inspection of God. It also says those who do receive crowns will cast them at Jesus' feet in worship. We must be sure to build our teaching, our doctrine, on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ crucified, buried and risen, also. Some will be given a special name only they and the Lord will know. This Judgement Seat of Christ will also determine our position in the Kingdom, for sure the Millenial Reign of Christ on earth, and perhaps in eternity when the City of the New Jerusalem comes to a new heaven and earth. I think perhaps every Christian will receive some reward, I hope so at least. But, although it is not so bad to be motivated by these, the true motivation we have is love for others. We definetely do not want to see our friends and loved ones, or anyone, miss Heaven because we did not tell them about Jesus. We certainly want to have great compassion not only for the lost, but also the sick, hungry, weak, depressed, and anyone in bad circumstances. Jesus said if we give a cup of water to one of these we will receive reward. He said to seek our treasure in Heaven, not on earth where moth and dust corrupts and thieves break in and steal. Anyway, that is just my beliefs.
Peace and Love,
Mike

 

[sojourner]

Can you tell me where in Scripture it is seen that those in torment in Sheol are released out of torment in Sheol by Christ?

Revelation.

You agree, I hope, that Matthew 25 is a description of that judgment. Refer to that passage if you want to know what I'm referring to.

Is it? That parable tells the party-goers to be ready. It says nothing to those who are not in the wedding party.

Well, in neither Greek nor Latin is the word there "the dead," as the translation you're advocating states.

So? That's the version I say on Sunday morning -- that's the version most Episcopalians say on Sunday morning, that's the one that's in the BCP, so that's what Episcopalians embrace. What's your problem with that?

The Apostles' Creed is hardly the POV of one denomination.

No, but it is our standard "take" on the Creed. Are you going to tell us that what we espouse is "wrong?"

And I can't help it if it's mistranslated in the BCP

It's not a mistranslation, it's a choice.

If you're claiming to believe in the Creed (not just your version of it), then it does become your issue, when you flatly deny one of the clauses therein.

How does it become an issue for me? I don't have an issue with it...but you seem to have. As Episcopalians, we are free to believe what we deem to be true -- not what someone says we "must."
You cannot hold the Episcopal Church (nor its members) accountable for something they do not profess.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Revelation.

Can you give me a chapter and verse?

Is it?

You tell me.

That parable tells the party-goers to be ready.

Define "party-goer."

It says nothing to those who are not in the wedding party.

The goats certainly aren't, so I'd disagree with you there.

So? That's the version I say on Sunday morning -- that's the version most Episcopalians say on Sunday morning, that's the one that's in the BCP, so that's what Episcopalians embrace. What's your problem with that?

It's a mistranslation. I would think the problem would be obvious.

No, but it is our standard "take" on the Creed. Are you going to tell us that what we espouse is "wrong?"

Yes.

It's not a mistranslation, it's a choice.

A choice to believe in a mistranslation, yes. That's what I said. I'm just telling you it's mistaken.

How does it become an issue for me? I don't have an issue with it...but you seem to have. As Episcopalians, we are free to believe what we deem to be true -- not what someone says we "must."
You cannot hold the Episcopal Church (nor its members) accountable for something they do not profess

I can hold you accountable for what you do profess...the Apostles' Creed. I hope you're aware that the Apostles' Creed wasn't written in English originally, right? Thus restricting your belief in the Creed to one rather odd translation of the Creed into English seems rather arbitrary and ahistorical. Thus my confusion as to the reasoning behind your stance.

 

[applewuud]

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Revelation 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

One gospel reference, and four from the book of the New Testament received as a dream about 150 years after Jesus' time. As I said on July 15th:

Despite the citations well mentioned in the thread above, when I began to study the Bible as a whole document, in context, instead of quoted in sermons and in threads like this, I was honestly surprised how little "hell" there is, especially out of the lips of Jesus of Nazareth, compared to the amount some Christians talk and think about hell. It doesn't seem to me to be the focus of Jesus' life and teaching as reflected in the Gospels. Those fire and brimstone passages exist, but so do many more grace and mercy passages. (Matthew Fox's "Original Blessing" is a wonderful theological exploration of these ideas.) I came to the conclusion that it is our culture, descended from Roman pagan culture, that emphasizes hellish punishment passages.

I'm not as familiar with chapter and verse as I once was, but if scripture is your basis, it emphasizes justice and compassion in this life, in the present day, much more than in a far-off end time. The Judaism of New Testament times had been influenced by Greek ideas about an afterlife, but the Old Testament is not very afterlife-centered. It is law-centered and historical Judaism was concerned about right practice in this world, not so much with an explicit description of heaven and hell.

The gospel citations a few pages ago are another great example. Verse after verse about the bread of life, and Jesus trying to wake his disciples up to the grace that is walking among them in that moment. Finally, a mention of punishment. Heaven is given much more weight than hell in this text.

 

[applewuud]

I can role with that. What I can't role with is someone saying that Hell was somehow a latter invention within Christendom. But if that isn't what you mean, then I guess we agree.

It's healthy to examine how our contemporary view of "hell" may be different from that of the original readers and writers in biblical times. It's a question of emphasis within the message as well. Latter influences on Western thought and pagan misunderstandings of Jewish ideas, concepts and theology should be examined as reasons why traditions may depart from text.

 

[Kcnorwood]

I can't say I believe in the christian hell I do think everyone has thire version of what hell is. Some believe hell is here on earth others believe hell is where you'll go when you die I guess it all depends on what you were raised on.

 

[sojourner]

I can hold you accountable for what you do profess...the Apostles' Creed.

You can only hold us accountable for professing the Creed as it has meaning for us...and then, only if you are in authority over us, which, obviously, you are not.

 

[Quiddity]

It's healthy to examine how our contemporary view of "hell" may be different from that of the original readers and writers in biblical times. It's a question of emphasis within the message as well. Latter influences on Western thought and pagan misunderstandings of Jewish ideas, concepts and theology should be examined as reasons why traditions may depart from text.

Certainly possible...but it's easier said then done. It's really stretching it to conclude that Hell is a latter innovation within Chritendom.

 

[joeboonda]

One gospel reference, and four from the book of the New Testament received as a dream about 150 years after Jesus' time. As I said on July 15th:



The gospel citations a few pages ago are another great example. Verse after verse about the bread of life, and Jesus trying to wake his disciples up to the grace that is walking among them in that moment. Finally, a mention of punishment. Heaven is given much more weight than hell in this text.

Revelation was much closer to Jesus' time than you say here. Jesus warned of eternal punishment much more than He taught of Heaven. He also died that we may not go there, as a free gift, paying for our sins in our place on the cross--for the wages of sin is death, so He died. This is what He kept telling the disciples He must do. He went to a lot of trouble, i.e. left Heaven, became a man, died and rose again, to save us from something, eh? He did not lie, He warned us of Hell, and freely offers eternal life to all who would trust in Him, that His death was sufficient payment for our sin. He gives all who believe in Him His Robe of Righteousness in place of our own filthy rags and died in our place that we may live eternaly with Him. This is the truth, the clear Gospel Truth.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Revelation was much closer to Jesus' time than you say here. Jesus warned of eternal punishment much more than He taught of Heaven. He also died that we may not go there, as a free gift, paying for our sins in our place on the cross--for the wages of sin is death, so He died. This is what He kept telling the disciples He must do. He went to a lot of trouble, i.e. left Heaven, became a man, died and rose again, to save us from something, eh? He did not lie, He warned us of Hell, and freely offers eternal life to all who would trust in Him, that His death was sufficient payment for our sin. He gives all who believe in Him His Robe of Righteousness in place of our own filthy rags and died in our place that we may live eternaly with Him. This is the truth, the clear Gospel Truth.

Exactly how--not why, but how--does Jesus' being executed on a set of perpendicular wooden planks somehow set in motion the potential salvation for everybody on the planet?

I.e., what is the working mechanism here?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

You can only hold us accountable for professing the Creed as it has meaning for us...and then, only if you are in authority over us, which, obviously, you are not.

If you'd like to interpret certain words to have meanings that they've never had, that's your call. If you want to read the words, "See Spot run," and think, "that means that dogs can fly," it's your internal prerogative to do so; you can believe what you want. I'm just pointing out that, in both examples, it's odd and unorthodox to do so, and in the final analysis it's being dishonest with the text.

 

[joeboonda]

Exactly how--not why, but how--does Jesus' being executed on a set of perpendicular wooden planks somehow set in motion the potential salvation for everybody on the planet?

I.e., what is the working mechanism here?

The Bible sets forth certain spiritual principles or laws. It also states that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. One of these laws is that the wages or penalty, result, of sin is death. Jesus paid the wages of our sins, He died. The Bible says God was satisfied with the payment. It says Jesus died in our place, He paid for all our sins so we never have to. Anyone who believes in Him has their sins paid for, forgiven and forgotten, and we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us in place of our own which is as filthy rags to a holy God. Really, if you do not have any understanding of the Gospel I kindly suggest you read the New Testament for yourself, it explains it far better and in greater detail than I have time to.

 

[MaddLlama]

The Bible sets forth certain spiritual principles or laws. It also states that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. One of these laws is that the wages or penalty, result, of sin is death. Jesus paid the wages of our sins, He died. The Bible says God was satisfied with the payment. It says Jesus died in our place, He paid for all our sins so we never have to. Anyone who believes in Him has their sins paid for, forgiven and forgotten, and we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us in place of our own which is as filthy rags to a holy God. Really, if you do not have any understanding of the Gospel I kindly suggest you read the New Testament for yourself, it explains it far better and in greater detail than I have time to.

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?

 

[sojourner]

If you'd like to interpret certain words to have meanings that they've never had, that's your call. If you want to read the words, "See Spot run," and think, "that means that dogs can fly," it's your internal prerogative to do so; you can believe what you want. I'm just pointing out that, in both examples, it's odd and unorthodox to do so, and in the final analysis it's being dishonest with the text.

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

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.

 

[Quiddity]

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

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.

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus paid the wages of our sins, He died. The Bible says God was satisfied with the payment. It says Jesus died in our place, He paid for all our sins so we never have to. Anyone who believes in Him has their sins paid for, forgiven and forgotten, and we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us in place of our own which is as filthy rags to a holy God.

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?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

The Bible sets forth certain spiritual principles or laws. It also states that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. One of these laws is that the wages or penalty, result, of sin is death. Jesus paid the wages of our sins, He died. The Bible says God was satisfied with the payment. It says Jesus died in our place, He paid for all our sins so we never have to. Anyone who believes in Him has their sins paid for, forgiven and forgotten, and we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us in place of our own which is as filthy rags to a holy God. Really, if you do not have any understanding of the Gospel I kindly suggest you read the New Testament for yourself, it explains it far better and in greater detail than I have time to.

FYI, I have read the New Testament. Many, many times, in the near and distant past.

 

[logician]

Boy, are Xians ready to punish people for eternity for sins they themselves commit.

 

[Quiddity]

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 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.