|
Post by Azrael on Mar 3, 2011 14:41:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 3, 2011 15:33:44 GMT -5
I wish I knew the full context of what's going on here. Hell is a troubling teaching within Christianity, and I can't blame anyone for questioning it. However, the question isn't whether it's troubling or not, but whether it's true or not. I recently returned to Christianity after being disillusioned with my faith. Hell was one of the things that I had the hardest time accepting. I couldn't see why God would send perfectly decent people (i.e. people who are not generally hurtful to others) to Hell. And I still can't see why He would.
All I know, is that I can now see why He would send me to Hell, and why I need a Savior. It is clear the Gospel is a Heaven and Hell message, and it confronts us with the harsh truth that we are leading a life that will send us to Hell. I still can't see why God would send someone like Ghandi, or many of the wonderful non-Christians I know to Hell. All I can say is that they should have an open-mind to Christianity, and perhaps one day it will dawn on them that they need a Savior.
That said, I don't like when people try to change the nature of a particular belief system. There's something to be said for tradition, and tinkering with beliefs held for centuries ought to be a fearful thing. I can understand why a person would question Christianity. I can even understand why someone would leave his or her faith. But what I don't understand, and what I believe ought to be fought are those who wish to change Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 3, 2011 17:04:41 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Mar 3, 2011 20:20:00 GMT -5
I don't understand what's contradictory or wrong about people being condemned to Hell. Didn't Adam and Eve become condemned to death for only one sin? Didn't Jesus say the only one who was good was God? Didn't the Pharisees teach us about those who do good deeds for their own sake or to be noticed and how they are worthless in their deeds? Isn't the greatest commandment to love God with all your heart, soul and mind? Gandhi didn't do that, your friends didn't do that, you didn't do that, I haven't even come close to doing that. Only Jesus has done that. Everyone else deserves hell because they've missed the mark. Jesus and heaven can have nothing to do with sin, and in your sin you want nothing to do with good, or Jesus or even heaven. "People love the idea of paradise, they just don't want God to be there when they get there." -a poor paraphrase of Mark Driscoll or Paul Washer or someone Also, more on topic, I've never liked Bell's stuff anyway, and it isn't too surprising if he is a Universalist. Though if it is just some silly bait and switch I'm sure all his critics will still find plenty to disapprove (and that probably includes me). +1
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 4, 2011 12:52:28 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Mar 4, 2011 15:42:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Mar 4, 2011 22:25:31 GMT -5
In Isaiah 64, our righteousness is compared to menstrual rags, lol.
That Greg Boyd article was atrocious. He spent a whole page saying nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 4, 2011 23:00:20 GMT -5
I don't understand what's contradictory or wrong about people being condemned to Hell. Didn't Adam and Eve become condemned to death for only one sin? Didn't Jesus say the only one who was good was God? Didn't the Pharisees teach us about those who do good deeds for their own sake or to be noticed and how they are worthless in their deeds? Isn't the greatest commandment to love God with all your heart, soul and mind? Gandhi didn't do that, your friends didn't do that, you didn't do that, I haven't even come close to doing that. Only Jesus has done that. Everyone else deserves hell because they've missed the mark. Jesus and heaven can have nothing to do with sin, and in your sin you want nothing to do with good, or Jesus or even heaven. "People love the idea of paradise, they just don't want God to be there when they get there." -a poor paraphrase of Mark Driscoll or Paul Washer or someone Also, more on topic, I've never liked Bell's stuff anyway, and it isn't too surprising if he is a Universalist. Though if it is just some silly bait and switch I'm sure all his critics will still find plenty to disapprove (and that probably includes me). Bravo! You have a nearly flawless theological argument. The only thing wrong with your argument theologically is that Genesis doesn't mention Hell. If Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten of the fruit, they would've lived forever. When God said, "If you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die.", He meant it in a literal sense. Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, we all grow old and die (otherwise we would live forever on Earth). Christians believe in Heaven and Hell because the New Testament teaches that they exist. So, I agree: Heaven and Hell play an essential role in Christianity. But you must understand: to people without the traditional Christian understanding you have (and even some with it), the God of the Bible sounds like a tyrant for having standards like that. He sounds completely unrealistic and out of touch with the human condition. That is why Hell is such a difficult teaching. It doesn't seem fair that God would eternally punish people just because they aren't entirely perfect and they don't believe right.
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Mar 4, 2011 23:09:52 GMT -5
I wonder what would have happened before "the fall", if Adam fell off a tree, would he be capable of breaking his arm or even dying?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 5, 2011 0:19:56 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 5, 2011 2:35:56 GMT -5
God is righteous>you are sin>sin=you go hell>God=love>God=just>God's justice must be fulfilled>God treats his perfect Son (who is also God) as sinful in your place (see: propitiation)>God can now treat you as righteous (imputation!)>you surrender your will to God's (see: repent)>sanctification>heaven The point was that there is a logical progression of the gospel. If you start with hell or your emphasis is hell, or all you tell people is "HEY you should save yourself from hell," their view of God will be bad. The progression is theologically correct, but there are some practical problems with it. No one (unsaved or not), is all sin. Take Hitler, the most infamous tyrant in history. Even he wasn't all sin. He loved his dog, he was an artist, and he was brilliant. He was about as wicked as wicked can get, but he still had a couple excellent qualities about him. For all practical intents and purposes, people aren't sin. Each person is a mixed bag (and that doesn't entirlely change after someone accepts Christ). Perhaps if every man and woman were a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Jezebel; the Gospel would seem more realistic. It would be clear that we have terrible problems that we cannot solve ourselves, and that we desperately need help. When the Bible says that without God, we are creatures of wrath; it would be obvious to everyone. We don't live in said theoretical world though. For the most part, we live in a World where people have to, they often times can and do figure it out for themselves. So yes, hell is the unpopular part of the gospel, but anyone who is made to understand the other points of the gospel, they should be able to at least understand the logic of hell, whether or not they like it. And I propose that it is unlikely that you are being regenerated/saved if you have gone great lengths of time as a "Christian" and still haven't come to terms with hell Yep, anyone can understand the logic of Hell. What is harder to understand is how it would comport with reality seeing that people (Christian or not) are generally mixed bags of good and evil, and few of us are cured from that by accepting Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Mar 5, 2011 9:00:24 GMT -5
The thing is, humans arn't a mix between good and evil. Every man is born enslaved by sin and at enmity with God. Whether his outward appearence may be not too bad compared to all the other people, man is still at enmity with God. The act of rejecting Christ in itself is more than enough reason for anybody to suffer the wrath of God.
Now all of this might seem odd to the unbeliever who does not have any other standard to compare mankind to. As for the believer however; he sees the bigger picture and when relative to God, humans cannot be perceived but utterly depraved, God hating, and enslaved by sin.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 5, 2011 14:07:19 GMT -5
.d.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Apr 5, 2011 20:01:10 GMT -5
At this point in this continuing discussion I would just like to point out that it is easy for us to sit here on a theological foundation 20 centuries thick and pontificate on 'obvious theological truths,' 'the clear, logical progression of the gospel,' and similar veins of thought; however, it might behoove us all to step back a moment and actually reflect on from where these views come ("The Bible of course" is an incorrect, or more aptly stated, an insufficient answer). Before I'm called down as a heretic, I just want to say that as I have in other posts at other times I still hold to ideas such as original sin. I just sometimes wonder how 'obvious' our 'obvious truths of the gospel' are actually. We have a tendency to act as if our interpretation of Scripture (because that is what it ultimately is, our interpretation) were the clear, unavoidable, and only honest one to which a person (if truly seeking) can come. In example, original sin keeps popping up as a justification for our depraved, deserving-ness of hell. I am quoting this piece, not to call him out, nor to call him down, but simply because the wording summarily encapsulates the theme prevalent throughtout the discussion. Every man is born enslaved by sin and at enmity with God. Whether his outward appearence may be not too bad compared to all the other people, man is still at enmity with God. The act of rejecting Christ in itself is more than enough reason for anybody to suffer the wrath of God. Really? Why? None of that is in the Bible. I see the necessary constituents from which someone could through the interpretive process come to said conclusion (though if I interpret Jesus to be God the last sentence can be questioned as having any legitimacy as Jesus seems to want the people who have rejected him to be forgiven rather than to face divine wrath, and if Jesus, who is God rejects that notion then who am I to put it forward?). Then again, if I with fresh eyes read the Bible cover to cover I could come to several conclusions about the nature of the gospel of Christ that differed substantially from what has been said here. Seriously, people, as an experiment, you should deliberately set aside your theological biases and understandings and reread Genesis 2-6. We get so busy "knowing" what the Scripture says that we ignore the words that are actually there. I see an explanation of why women dislike snakes... I see an explanation of the origins of marriage... I see people who made a mistake and will die... I see a couple of kids, one of whom kills the other which is bad... I see another kid who does what is right and therefore gets to be the progression of the family genealogy (a bigger deal in ancient societies than in ours today to be sure, but interestingly could be a strike against original sin because despite sinful parents Seth isn't a homicidal maniac)... People got very old... After something weird about God's boys "knowing" the daughters of men people are multiplying and more and more are choosing to do bad things... Is this original sin? Is this increasing evil a rational or even mathematical phenomenon as only two of the first five people don't have mistakes reported (one of whom was murdered). Since the people are no longer walking and talking with God are they just making bad choices because they don't have direct discourse with the Creator to point them in the right direction? Is this the influence of those weird sons of God that came down to impregnate women? All that to say what we take for "the obvious theological truth of Scripture" is more often than not a human inference on Scripture through the process of human interpretation. The Bible did not make up 'original sin' as we know it, St. Augustine did. We wouldn't have it if Luther and in turn the Magisterial Reformers did not hop on Augustine's bandwagon. The funny thing about Augustine is that people disagreed with him and were still Christians...even still orthodox Christians (well, Pelagius got the shaft, but he wasn't even really given a chance to defend himself and the manner in which we depict him is largely a caricature). The funny thing about Christianity is that it existed for between 3 and 4 centuries before Augustine stumbled across the "obvious" conclusion of original sin...which by the way he explained as being passed on through the process of intercourse. You see it is impossible to conceive the next generation without sex and well he argued that you can't have sex (even with your spouse) without sinning. Therefore the actual act of conceiving a child happens in sin which imprints the sin on the kid before he is born and well you can see where that is going. The funny thing about Augustine that we forget is that he was a human...not God. Which is to say that his interpretation of Scripture which we now hold (albeit in a form modified over time) is a human interpretation of Scripture...prone to the same issues to which all things human are prone...such as error. I also wonder if Augustine's historical context and personal context (i.e. he was a sex-fiend before and even for a duration after his conversion to Christianity) had any influence on his understanding of Scripture such as the innate sinfulness of all things sexy, the manner in which he espoused the continuation of original sin, etc. Is original sin so obvious? Again, I do hold to the idea so don't excommunicate me. I just wonder if we don't make too much of human interpretations and doctrines, as if we have somehow 'figured God out.' If we accept doctrine without question, without the cross-referencing of Scripture, then we do ourselves a disservice (not to mention the disservice to God and to Scripture). If original sin is so obvious, then why don't Jews accept the doctrine. Judaism has a much more favorable view of the human condition, one focused on creation in the image of God, rather than a depraved state of existence. If you take the traditional stance in which Moses is author of the Pentateuch, then Jews had Genesis in some for 1,400-1,600 years before Jesus came and didn't come to that 'obvious conclusion.' Nor have they come to that 'obvious conclusion' in the 2,000 years since. Why haven't they reached this obvious conclusion from Scripture in 3.5 millenia? I summarily reject an argument along the lines of "well the Jews didn't 'get' Jesus so I'm not surprised that they didn't get original sin. lOL!" Considering in a community of Orthodox Jews it is a man my age without the Torah memorized is the exception, rather than the other way around, I also doubt it is because 'they aren't focused on Scripture enough.' An argument that "well their eyes are clouded by original sin so they don't get it" does not work here, because the logic is circular and thus invalid, and given the emphasis on tracing ideas to logical ends and setting up systematic understandings prevalent in the Reformation this is unacceptable. Perhaps you see another answer but the only conclusion I can come to is that our 'obvious theological truth' is less than 'obvious' without a two-thousand year thick theological foundation; this is to say that it is less obvious without the non-divine voice of countless humans, all of whom were privy to the same original sin we take for granted in the doctrine we are espousing. Two final statements: 1. If you ever reach a point where you understand God, Scripture, and the minutia of the God's story interacting with humans and the rest his creation throughout redemptive history, and it isn't a paradoxical mess that seems beyond you, then you are wrong and need a reality check. 2. We ought always approach God's Word with a deep and profound sense of humility.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Apr 7, 2011 4:35:54 GMT -5
Every man is born enslaved by sin and at enmity with God. Whether his outward appearence may be not too bad compared to all the other people, man is still at enmity with God. The act of rejecting Christ in itself is more than enough reason for anybody to suffer the wrath of God. Really? Why? None of that is in the Bible. Uhmmmmm Psalm 51? Romans 5? Ephesians 2? "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--" Romans 5:12 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, ...." Romans 5:14 "among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:" Ephesians 2:3 All of this and more seems to be a pretty solid biblical foundation for the doctrine that all man are born evil and that this is a result of the fall. If you take the traditional stance in which Moses is author of the Pentateuch, then Jews had Genesis in some for 1,400-1,600 years before Jesus came and didn't come to that 'obvious conclusion.' Nor have they come to that 'obvious conclusion' in the 2,000 years since. Why haven't they reached this obvious conclusion from Scripture in 3.5 millenia? This is a very good question to ask and I don't really have an answer. I'm sure I could try to think of a way to talk myself out of this, but this is a good question that ought to be asked. A question to which I don't really have a satisfying answer. When it comes down to it however, I don't want to follow a tradition, but rather the bible. As far as I can see the bible does teach that as a result of the fall man is born evil, this teaching being most clearly expressed in the bible by Paul. If I have to choose between Paul's interpretation and the traditional Jewish interpretation of scripture; I'll go with Paul.
|
|