Figuring Out Religion

[Gosso]

Xan,

That was a great summary!  And just to be clear I do believe that church and other christians play an important part of the christian life, but it doesn't have to be a priority for someone kicking the tires of Christianity, IMO.  C.S. Lewis describes the new person as entering the hallway of mere Christianity and can study/reflect in this area, but they must eventually knock on one of the doors which contains the fires, chairs, and meals.

For some reason the "saved by faith alone" doesn't resonate with me.  It seems too easy.  And even if it is true then I don't see how faith plus good works/virtue would hurt anything--it's a kind of Pascal Wager.  I know I can't do everything on my own steam, and will need the help of Christ, but I must show I am willing to learn.  Christ is the master and I am the student.

Here is a really great lecture on this topic called: "C.S. Lewis: A Case for Mere Purgatory with Dr. Jerry Walls" (58 minutes).  I had a very difficult time disagreeing with anything in this lecture.  At the end of the lecture the point is made that grace is not only about forgiveness but also transformation.  This makes sense to me.

There is also the fact that Canada (at least the part I live in) is mostly Roman Catholic, followed by Anglican, and United.  Plus most of the cute french ladies are Catholics, so it has that going for it as well.

I will continue to read, research, pray, and think about this topic.

[Xan]

Gosso,

I would say that the danger is this: when you're asked (either by yourself or somebody else) the question "why are you saved?", and your first response is to examine your own good works rather than what Christ has done for you, then you're in danger of making yourself your own god, and repudiating your need for a Savior.  Not that I'm accusing you or anybody of doing that, but I do think it's a risk.

Also, if you're doing good works in order to hedge your bets, rather than simply because they are good and helpful to your neighbor, then are they really good works?

Totally understood about the French Catholic girls.  :-)  But there may well be some of them in the Lutheran Church—Canada, which seems to have several congregations in Quebec: http://www.lutheranchurch-canada.ca/con ... ocation=QC
The LCC broke from the LCMS in the '80s to form a Canadian church body, but remains in full communion with the LCMS, and a member of the International Lutheran Council.  There's also an LCMS congregation in Montreal: http://locator.lcms.org/nchurches_frm/c ... 06964  According to that page, it's in the SELC district, which means it merged into the LCMS as part of the Slovakian Lutheran Church.  (And probably is why it stayed in its Slovakian LCMS district rather than join the LCC.)  Might be worth a trip just to see what the Slovakians are up to these days!

I'm really not trying to be pushy.  I understand completely where you're coming from, and many of the issues you raise are ones I wrestle with myself on a regular basis.  Best of luck in your search, both for God and a beautiful mademoiselle!

[Gosso]

Desert,

Thanks for the link.  For the most part I agree with Tullian.  There is a great risk in thinking that we can only please God by good works/behavior.  So we then push Christ away and think we can do everything on our own.  This is what Jesus warned the Pharisees of.

But in my mind I think Jesus is still deeply concerned with the development of our character ("Be ye therefore perfect").  Obviously it is impossible to suddenly begin acting perfectly, but I think it is target we can shoot for.  We don't need to be neurotic about it, but rather joyfully recognize the changes that are taking place.  Christ is doing the work within us, but we also need to allow him to do his work (because we have free will to push him away).  So the virtues and ethics are signposts that help give us direction, and teach us how to run the human machine.

***

Xan,

The way I see it is Christ died to both forgive and transform us.  I don't want Christ to forgive me if I am going to continue to act in the same way.  It would be like forgiving the puppy for peeing on the rug, and then not taking steps to reform its actions.  The puppy is corrected because it is deeply loved and we want it to act like a perfect dog.

I think a balance of both forgiveness and transformation are required.

A lot of this stems from my study of Carl Jung's and Joseph Campbell's work, where the main point is "The Process of Individuation".  It is essentially the merging of Christ and the self, to create a unique personality.  This is what Book 4 of Mere Christianity is all about.

So my focus isn't so much "What do I have to do to get into Heaven?", but rather "How do I live a full and rich life, which leads to Heaven now and forever".  I think the latter can still be accomplished within a Protestant Church, but I feel the Catholic Church has a bit better grasp of it.

[Mountaineer]

Desert,

Thanks for the link.  For the most part I agree with Tullian.  There is a great risk in thinking that we can only please God by good works/behavior.  So we then push Christ away and think we can do everything on our own.  This is what Jesus warned the Pharisees of.

But in my mind I think Jesus is still deeply concerned with the development of our character ("Be ye therefore perfect").  Obviously it is impossible to suddenly begin acting perfectly, but I think it is target we can shoot for.  We don't need to be neurotic about it, but rather joyfully recognize the changes that are taking place.  Christ is doing the work within us, but we also need to allow him to do his work (because we have free will to push him away).  So the virtues and ethics are signposts that help give us direction, and teach us how to run the human machine.

***

Xan,

The way I see it is Christ died to both forgive and transform us.  I don't want Christ to forgive me if I am going to continue to act in the same way.  It would be like forgiving the puppy for peeing on the rug, and then not taking steps to reform its actions.  The puppy is corrected because it is deeply loved and we want it to act like a perfect dog.

I think a balance of both forgiveness and transformation are required.

A lot of this stems from my study of Carl Jung's and Joseph Campbell's work, where the main point is "The Process of Individuation".  It is essentially the merging of Christ and the self, to create a unique personality.  This is what Book 4 of Mere Christianity is all about.

So my focus isn't so much "What do I have to do to get into Heaven?", but rather "How do I live a full and rich life, which leads to Heaven now and forever".  I think the latter can still be accomplished within a Protestant Church, but I feel the Catholic Church has a bit better grasp of it.

Gosso,

My perspective, which may only be semantics re. some of the other views is:

Christ came to earth, became man, suffered, took on all mankind's sins, died and rose again to defeat death for all time and to atone for our sins - we mortal men are incapable of a sin free life.  All are forgiven for Christ's sake, what He did for us, and will rise - perfect body and soul - to be with Jesus on the last day.  I was declared a Child of God in my Baptism (justification by faith and justified, even though we deserve death, because God declares us so)

As a response to and thanks for that incredible gift, we do our best to do God's will for mankind, mainly by loving our neighbors as Christ loves us.  God gives us vocations (e.g. spouse, father, mother, uncle, aunt, worker, supervisor, friend) as a mechanism to do those good things and spread the Gospel to our neighbors (good works).  God gives us the gift of the church (Body of Christ) so we can receive Jesus in Word and Sacrament and so the Holy Spirit can strengthen our faith (sanctification - perhaps this is what you are calling transformation).

Thus, we mortal men, sinners all, are called to a life of continual repentance and loving and serving God by loving and serving neighbor.

Faith and works are both essential.  Faith for us to be saved, works to love and serve our neighbor.

As Luther famously said: I go to Sunday worship service to fill my sack with gifts from God (Word and Sacrament).  Throughout the week when I see someone in need, I help them, giving out some of the sacks' gift contents to each who needs it.  By Sunday, the sack is empty and I go get it refilled once more by God.  Repeat weekly.  This process, in my opinion, leads us to a very serving, fulfilling, rewarding, peaceful, and Jesus focused life.

I do not want to beat a dead horse, but I believe this is where the Lutheran understanding of Law and Gospel and the two kingdoms is so very useful.  It keeps me from mixing apples and oranges and agonizing over trying to determine if Faith or Works is better - I know some people who consternate over whether to pay more attention to Romans or James - the answer is both.  Faith saves me.  Works express my thanks for God's gifts.  As Xan says, it is very, very tempting to us mortals to view works as something we do to please God so He will save us - then we are in grave danger of becoming our own gods as we elevate ourselves by thinking we are helping God to do His will.  Even thinking we must have do something to help out God, no matter how small the action is, is sin and dangerous when you stop to really think about it - it is very easy to make an idol of our well intended efforts.

Let me add my best wishes and prayers that Jesus finds you a good place to receive Him on a frequent basis and finds you a beautiful "Frenchie woman" to share in that experience.

Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fides!

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Xan,

The way I see it is Christ died to both forgive and transform us.  I don't want Christ to forgive me if I am going to continue to act in the same way.  It would be like forgiving the puppy for peeing on the rug, and then not taking steps to reform its actions.  The puppy is corrected because it is deeply loved and we want it to act like a perfect dog.

I think a balance of both forgiveness and transformation are required.

A lot of this stems from my study of Carl Jung's and Joseph Campbell's work, where the main point is "The Process of Individuation".  It is essentially the merging of Christ and the self, to create a unique personality.  This is what Book 4 of Mere Christianity is all about.

So my focus isn't so much "What do I have to do to get into Heaven?", but rather "How do I live a full and rich life, which leads to Heaven now and forever".  I think the latter can still be accomplished within a Protestant Church, but I feel the Catholic Church has a bit better grasp of it.

Gosso,

I hope I haven't come across as anti-good-works.  Absolutely Christ came both to forgive and transform.  We simply see the transformation as a result of the forgiveness, rather than the cause.  Maybe that's really one of the fundamental differences.

We are all for sanctification, which is the transformation you're talking about.  There's an entire section in the hymnal about exactly that topic, we pray for it in countless ways and times throughout the liturgy.  But it isn't a source of our salvation.  It's a result.

My goal here really isn't to convince you that my church is better than your church; I'm just trying to make sure I've put the case forward before you truly decide.  If you feel that you are in the right place, then that's where you should be.

[Gosso]

Mountaineer & Xan,

Thanks guys.  You have given me a nice contrast to my current opinion, and I think I understand the debate a bit better.

[Libertarian666]

I'm not sure I understand how it's possible to believe that the Bible was written to be read literally while simultaneously believing that much of it is intended to be read metaphorically and admitting that you interpret various things to determine the meaning behind the words. That's the very opposite of a literal reading, no?

Only if you put logic ahead of faith.
But you knew that.

[ns3]

I think it's possible everyone will be saved (in this life or the next), but they must accept it. 

I'm pretty well convinced from the Bible that everyone will be saved eventually. Lots of scriptures speak to this and you can weigh them all side by side for yourself with the help of Google - just like we do with charts about the PP. In my own mind, to think anything less would be to believe that Jesus failed in his mission of reconciling the world (cosmos) to himself and I don't believe that.

[Tortoise]

I think it's possible everyone will be saved (in this life or the next), but they must accept it. 

I'm pretty well convinced from the Bible that everyone will be saved eventually. Lots of scriptures speak to this and you can weigh them all side by side for yourself with the help of Google - just like we do with charts about the PP. In my own mind, to think anything less would be to believe that Jesus failed in his mission of reconciling the world (cosmos) to himself and I don't believe that.

That's a fascinating idea, and I'd like to explore it a bit further if anyone is interested. I had always been under the impression that most people would not be saved, based on Bible passages such as "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV) It seems like the only way to interpret that statement--"few find it"--is that most people will not truly accept Christ's gift and thereby gain eternal life. But I am open to hearing other interpretations.

I suppose one passage that might support the idea that most people will be saved is in Matthew 19:24, in which Jesus says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. His disciples reply with surprise, asking how, then, anyone could possibly enter the Kingdom of God (since most people are not completely destitute). Jesus responds by saying, "Through God all things are possible." It almost seems like Jesus is contradicting himself there, but an alternative interpretation is that he's saying it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God without Christ. Maybe the real message is that, with Christ's gift, even the worst sinners and hypocrites might be saved--regardless of what they choose?

I don't know... I'm confused.

[Mountaineer]

I think it's possible everyone will be saved (in this life or the next), but they must accept it. 

I'm pretty well convinced from the Bible that everyone will be saved eventually. Lots of scriptures speak to this and you can weigh them all side by side for yourself with the help of Google - just like we do with charts about the PP. In my own mind, to think anything less would be to believe that Jesus failed in his mission of reconciling the world (cosmos) to himself and I don't believe that.

That's a fascinating idea, and I'd like to explore it a bit further if anyone is interested. I had always been under the impression that most people would not be saved, based on Bible passages such as "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV) It seems like the only way to interpret that statement--"few find it"--is that most people will not truly accept Christ's gift and thereby gain eternal life. But I am open to hearing other interpretations.

I suppose one passage that might support the idea that most people will be saved is in Matthew 19:24, in which Jesus says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. His disciples reply with surprise, asking how, then, anyone could possibly enter the Kingdom of God (since most people are not completely destitute). Jesus responds by saying, "Through God all things are possible." It almost seems like Jesus is contradicting himself there, but an alternative interpretation is that he's saying it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God without Christ. Maybe the real message is that, with Christ's gift, even the worst sinners and hypocrites might be saved--regardless of what they choose?

I don't know... I'm confused.

It can be very confusing, especially when we look within ourselves for the answers.  If we look outside ourselves and trust the promises of the God-man Jesus, it is simple.  I believe all the various Bible stories and Jesus' parables are to make us realize how totally impossible it is to do what God requires of us - be perfect in every way in thought, word and deed - and to make us realize how much we need to trust the promises of the God-man Jesus who said "it is finished" - his entire reason for coming to earth was to fulfill what we ourselves could not do.  He did it all, atoned for our sins, conquered death, fulfilled the Law, for all of us who do not reject the gift. 

For me, I do not know whether many or few will be saved because I cannot really understand what is in anyones heart other than my own.  When I read Scripture through the lens of "Law" I realize how far I fall short of God's requirements and then say I'm so very sorry and humbly ask God for mercy and read through the lens of "Gospel" I how very blessed I am.  I guess what I'm saying is, speculating on whether everyone will be saved is the wrong question to ask.  We should stay focused on God's promises, hungrily consume His Word and Sacrament, and then thankfully do what He told us to do: 
Mt 28:18-20  And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”?

Beyond that, we are in danger of dabbling into the mind of God, trying to understand what He understands - in other words, we are trying to elevate ourselves to be on an equivalent plane with God.  Man wanting to become like God, knowing what God knows, is the original sin.

Here is a similar discussion you might find useful.  This is probably a lot better than my babbling 
http://www.ds-indy.com/how-many-will-be-saved-2/

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

I think it's possible everyone will be saved (in this life or the next), but they must accept it. 

I'm pretty well convinced from the Bible that everyone will be saved eventually. Lots of scriptures speak to this and you can weigh them all side by side for yourself with the help of Google - just like we do with charts about the PP. In my own mind, to think anything less would be to believe that Jesus failed in his mission of reconciling the world (cosmos) to himself and I don't believe that.

That's a fascinating idea, and I'd like to explore it a bit further if anyone is interested. I had always been under the impression that most people would not be saved, based on Bible passages such as "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV) It seems like the only way to interpret that statement--"few find it"--is that most people will not truly accept Christ's gift and thereby gain eternal life. But I am open to hearing other interpretations.

I suppose one passage that might support the idea that most people will be saved is in Matthew 19:24, in which Jesus says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. His disciples reply with surprise, asking how, then, anyone could possibly enter the Kingdom of God (since most people are not completely destitute). Jesus responds by saying, "Through God all things are possible." It almost seems like Jesus is contradicting himself there, but an alternative interpretation is that he's saying it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God without Christ. Maybe the real message is that, with Christ's gift, even the worst sinners and hypocrites might be saved--regardless of what they choose?

I don't know... I'm confused.

I posted this YouTube clip about 30 pages ago, but I think it answers your questions pretty well: "Fr. Barron - Is Hell Crowded or Empty" (9 minutes)

Basically what it boils down to is human freedom.  We can choose to love or hate/ignore God.  If we hate God then we will hate heaven.  I think it was John Henry Newman that said "heaven would be hell for the irreligious person."

Edit: Fixed typo

[ns3]

I'm pretty well convinced from the Bible that everyone will be saved eventually. Lots of scriptures speak to this and you can weigh them all side by side for yourself with the help of Google - just like we do with charts about the PP. In my own mind, to think anything less would be to believe that Jesus failed in his mission of reconciling the world (cosmos) to himself and I don't believe that.

That's a fascinating idea, and I'd like to explore it a bit further if anyone is interested. I had always been under the impression that most people would not be saved, based on Bible passages such as "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV) It seems like the only way to interpret that statement--"few find it"--is that most people will not truly accept Christ's gift and thereby gain eternal life. But I am open to hearing other interpretations.

I suppose one passage that might support the idea that most people will be saved is in Matthew 19:24, in which Jesus says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. His disciples reply with surprise, asking how, then, anyone could possibly enter the Kingdom of God (since most people are not completely destitute). Jesus responds by saying, "Through God all things are possible." It almost seems like Jesus is contradicting himself there, but an alternative interpretation is that he's saying it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God without Christ. Maybe the real message is that, with Christ's gift, even the worst sinners and hypocrites might be saved--regardless of what they choose?

I don't know... I'm confused.

I posted this YouTube clip about 30 pages ago, but I think it answers your questions pretty well: "Fr. Barron - Is Hell Crowded or Empty" (9 minutes)

Basically what it boils down to his human freedom.  We can choose to love or hate/ignore God.  If we hate God then we will hate heaven.  I think it was John Henry Newman that said "heaven would be hell for the irreligious person."

I could take the Bible and make an excellent case that hell (eternal torment and punishment) will be the ultimate destination of most of humanity if I was given the role of state prosecutor ( I wouldn't accept the role today, out of conscience, but maybe some time in the past I would have).

In the course of time I have been convinced otherwise and I would even credit the Bible with convincing me despite what others say about it. I just don't believe that God is as big an asshole as they say and I'm now willing to testify for the defense. It's a difficult challenge because the jury pool has been tainted but ultimately I put my faith in the judge of all humanity to insure a fair trial and I think I'm ready to make a good case for the defense.

(And I think that leaves me in some fairly good company, Biblically speaking,  BTW).

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

[Tortoise]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Mountaineer, Gosso, and ns3. You've given me a lot of food for thought.

Even if Hell is of man's own making--locked from the inside, as C.S. Lewis said--I think this question remains: If a soul is not saved, and it never will be, why keep it around for all eternity? What is the inherent purpose of an eternally suffering soul? Why not just extinguish it and put it out of its misery?

Why wouldn't God have the mercy to simply extinguish evil souls who have permanently rejected him after the Day of Judgment? Does the Bible support the idea that all souls--good and evil--are eternal?

This, to me, is more than a technicality. To a lot of non-Christians on the outside looking in, the idea of a God willing to keep those who reject him alive for all eternity to suffer--even if their torture is of their own making--is sufficiently distasteful that it steers them away from the faith. I think we as Christians probably should have a more unified front, so to speak, on the question of Hell. Is it an eternal state of separation from God, or is its mention in the Bible merely symbolic for the extinguishing of those souls who reject Christ?

[Tortoise]

By the way, for those of you who may have been to a Christian church but didn't feel particularly moved by the Spirit, you might check out a sermon or two by T.D. Jakes. Here is part of a particularly good one (30 mins):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2jFFQm2O1k

I'd be interested to hear what some of you think about his messages.

[Mountaineer]

By the way, for those of you who may have been to a Christian church but didn't feel particularly moved by the Spirit, you might check out a sermon or two by T.D. Jakes. Here is part of a particularly good one (30 mins):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2jFFQm2O1k

I'd be interested to hear what some of you think about his messages.

Tortoise,

You might want to check out what Chris Roseborough has to say about Jakes; it may help you discern a faithful interpretation of Scripture (focuses on God and what He has done for us) versus a slanted interpretation (it is all about you).  Do a google search of "Chris Roseborough T D Jakes".  Roseborough does a podcast on Pirate Christian Radio called Fighting for the Faith.  Typically, he analyzes various sermons and comments by prominant "TV Preachers" or authors.  Warning, listening to a lot of Roseborough can get tedious and repetitive, even though he has a good message.

My personal opinion is that T D Jakes is a slick presenter but he twists Scripture to fit his agenda (heavily slanted toward getting you to send money to him).  He seems to focus on a "Theology of Glory" versus a "Theology of the Cross".  He typically will take verses out of context to prove his preconceived idea.  I think for an accurate Scripture interpretation, it is essential to understand the CONTEXT of the passage (e.g. read the whole section or Chapter, understand who the message is addressed to and who is saying it, what was going on in the area at the time, are there alternate translations that would be helpful, etc.).  Most TV preachers and many "self-educated" brick and mortar preachers are not so good at that in my humble opinion.  Some other TV preachers that I would put in the "Theology of Glory" category are Joel Olsteen, Joyce Meyers, and relative newcomer Steven Furtick.  That is why it is such a good idea to hear the Word live and in person via a well trained Pastor, i.e. trained in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, systematic theology and exegesis.  I do not mean that one should not read their Bible in the quiet of their home, but that should not be the only way to understand what God tells us   Again, just my opinion.

Link to an interview that discusses Steven Furtick:
http://issuesetc.org/2014/02/20/2-steve ... ugh-22014/

Link to an interview that discusses T D Jakes and also a simple process for how to evaluate a sermon:
http://issuesetc.org/2012/02/14/1-sermo ... o-2142012/

... Mountaineer

Edited to add links re. Steven Furtick and T D Jakes

[ns3]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Mountaineer, Gosso, and ns3. You've given me a lot of food for thought.

Even if Hell is of man's own making--locked from the inside, as C.S. Lewis said--I think this question remains: If a soul is not saved, and it never will be, why keep it around for all eternity? What is the inherent purpose of an eternally suffering soul? Why not just extinguish it and put it out of its misery?

Why wouldn't God have the mercy to simply extinguish evil souls who have permanently rejected him after the Day of Judgment? Does the Bible support the idea that all souls--good and evil--are eternal?

This, to me, is more than a technicality. To a lot of non-Christians on the outside looking in, the idea of a God willing to keep those who reject him alive for all eternity to suffer--even if their torture is of their own making--is sufficiently distasteful that it steers them away from the faith. I think we as Christians probably should have a more unified front, so to speak, on the question of Hell. Is it an eternal state of separation from God, or is its mention in the Bible merely symbolic for the extinguishing of those souls who reject Christ?

I contend that the Bible does not support the Christian doctrine of hell. The King James translators seemed to be in love with the concept and used the word many times but if you look at the Greek words they were actually translating as Hell you will see that it is not as clear as they are trying to make it seem. I suggest Young's Literal translation. You won't find it there even one time (don't hold me to that but I think it is true).

Somebody here (Gosso) made the oft-repeated claim that Jesus gave us the doctrine (and if he did he was the ONLY one because it is not contained in the Old Testament nor in any of the apostolic letters). There are references to hell and the lake of fire in the Book of Revelations but that book also speaks of four horsemen of the apocalypse and I don't take it literally.

And in defense of Jesus, I don't see any place where he ever stated that if you don't believe in him you are going to hell. I think if you look at every time he used the word hell, as translated by the King James translators, he was speaking metaphorically. If you can find Jesus' sermon on hell in the Bible, please share it with me because I can't find it.

(And furthermore, why ISN'T that sermon by Jesus in the Bible if it is indeed true that if you don't believe in him you are going to hell? What kind of person would not warn humanity of that fact if he knew it to be true?).

[Xan]

I do love Young's Literal Translation!  It's fun to pick out the meaning from a really literal translation rather than have it spoon-fed.

[Mountaineer]

I contend that the Bible does not support the Christian doctrine of hell. The King James translators seemed to be in love with the concept and used the word many times but if you look at the Greek words they were actually translating as Hell you will see that it is not as clear as they are trying to make it seem. I suggest Young's Literal translation. You won't find it there even one time (don't hold me to that but I think it is true).

Somebody here (Gosso) made the oft-repeated claim that Jesus gave us the doctrine (and if he did he was the ONLY one because it is not contained in the Old Testament nor in any of the apostolic letters). There are references to hell and the lake of fire in the Book of Revelations but that book also speaks of four horsemen of the apocalypse and I don't take it literally.

And in defense of Jesus, I don't see any place where he ever stated that if you don't believe in him you are going to hell. I think if you look at every time he used the word hell, as translated by the King James translators, he was speaking metaphorically. If you can find Jesus' sermon on hell in the Bible, please share it with me because I can't find it.

(And furthermore, why ISN'T that sermon by Jesus in the Bible if it is indeed true that if you don't believe in him you are going to hell? What kind of person would not warn humanity of that fact if he knew it to be true?).

This may be of interest.  You may wish to interpret the referenced Scriptures differently however.  They do seem very clear to me that regardless of what you wish to call it, e.g. hell, separation from God, etc., being an unbeliever does not seem to have a very favorable outcome.

... Mountaineer

Q: In our Bible study today we discussed if there are degrees or levels in heaven and hell. It was also suggested that hell is not eternal. Are there scriptural references to support these points?

A: In its report on The End Times: A Study of Eschatology and Millennialism, the Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations says regarding hell: "In both "body and soul" unbelievers will suffer eternal separation and condemnation in hell (Matt 18:8; 25:46; Mark 9:43; John 3:36; 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 13; Rev. 14:11).[40] Indescribable torment will be experienced consciously, the degree determined by the nature of the sins to be punished (Matt. 11:20-24; 23:15; Luke 12:47-48)."

Regarding heaven and "degrees of glory" the Commission says: "Eternal life is pictured in the Scriptures as a state of never-ending "blessedness." This means, on the one hand, that Christians will live forever in perfect freedom from sin, death, and every evil (Is. 25:8; 49:10; 1 Cor. 15:26, 55-57; Rev. 2:7, 11; 20:14; 21:4). At the same time, they will experience the unending joy of being with God in the new heavens and new earth (e.g., Revelation 21-22; Ps. 16:11). Forever eliminated is the possibility of falling away from God. This blessedness will bring with it the joy of being in eternal communion with fellow believers, whom we have reason to believe we shall recognize (cf. Matt. 17:3). And, there will be no limitations or degrees attached to the enjoyment of the happiness to be experienced, though there will be degrees of glory corresponding to differences of work and fidelity here on earth, producing praise to God but no envy (see 2 Cor. 9:6; Matt. 20:23)."

[Gosso]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Mountaineer, Gosso, and ns3. You've given me a lot of food for thought.

Even if Hell is of man's own making--locked from the inside, as C.S. Lewis said--I think this question remains: If a soul is not saved, and it never will be, why keep it around for all eternity? What is the inherent purpose of an eternally suffering soul? Why not just extinguish it and put it out of its misery?

Why wouldn't God have the mercy to simply extinguish evil souls who have permanently rejected him after the Day of Judgment? Does the Bible support the idea that all souls--good and evil--are eternal?

This, to me, is more than a technicality. To a lot of non-Christians on the outside looking in, the idea of a God willing to keep those who reject him alive for all eternity to suffer--even if their torture is of their own making--is sufficiently distasteful that it steers them away from the faith. I think we as Christians probably should have a more unified front, so to speak, on the question of Hell. Is it an eternal state of separation from God, or is its mention in the Bible merely symbolic for the extinguishing of those souls who reject Christ?

One way that I think of hell is not as something God does to us but rather the natural path that we follow throughout life.  It is almost automatic to give into temptations/laziness/anger/etc.  We somehow need to be snapped out of this downward spiral, and strangely a belief in a higher power seems to really help people.

As for extinguishing lost souls, well, it is possible.  Jesus does describe Hell as a place of destruction, but God will likely be attempting to woo us for as long as possible (assuming we can still turn to God after death, which I think is possible as long as we still have free will).  Once we are completely lost then God might go "Old Yeller" on us.  But this is all speculation on my part.

[ns3]

This may be of interest.  You may wish to interpret the referenced Scriptures differently however.  They do seem very clear to me that regardless of what you wish to call it, e.g. hell, separation from God, etc., being an unbeliever does not seem to have a very favorable outcome.

"And it came to pass when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem and sent messengers before his face; and they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him. And they did not receive him because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elijah did? But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to lose men’s souls, but to save them. And they went to another village."

I believe that is a true story and that it reveals the true nature of God in Jesus Christ.

And also to those that even drove nails in his hands he said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Scriptures you may find to the contrary to prove your prosecutorial case for condemning souls to hell (and even bodies it seems, though I have a hard time figuring that out) do not interest me as I no longer believe that every word in what we know as the Bible is divinely inspired. I believe the Bible contains divine inspiration but I also think much of it is of imperfect human origin, mixed with divine inspiration, as are many Christian doctrines.

Your own dogmas may consign me to the hottest pits of hell for believing what I believe. I guess only time will tell. Perhaps God will be totally pissed at me for believing me he was kinder and gentler and more merciful than I came to believe, having totally misjudged his true nature - bit the basis of my defense will be that I got this concept from the Bible.

[Mountaineer]

This may be of interest.  You may wish to interpret the referenced Scriptures differently however.  They do seem very clear to me that regardless of what you wish to call it, e.g. hell, separation from God, etc., being an unbeliever does not seem to have a very favorable outcome.

"And it came to pass when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem and sent messengers before his face; and they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him. And they did not receive him because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elijah did? But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to lose men’s souls, but to save them. And they went to another village."

I believe that is a true story and that it reveals the true nature of God in Jesus Christ.

And also to those that even drove nails in his hands he said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Scriptures you may find to the contrary to prove your prosecutorial case for condemning souls (and even bodies it seems) to hell do not interest me as I no longer believe that every word in what we know as the Bible is divinely inspired. I believe the Bible contains divine inspiration but I also think much of it is of imperfect human origin, mixed with divine inspiration, as are many Christian doctrines.

Your own dogmas may consign me to hell for believing this. I guess only time will tell.

ns3,

I also believe that is a true story and Jesus said those words.  I interpret those words in the context of WHY God came to earth, took on flesh, lived, had to die as atonement for our sins, and rose from the dead - to save us because we are incapable of saving ourselves.  If you believe Jesus the God-Man did that, have no fear, you are forgiven.  If you do not, then the various Scriptures I put in the earlier post about hell ........ we will find out on the Last Day when Jesus returns.  Your beliefs about some Scripture being divine inspiration and some not, I'm not sure where it will cause you to end up because it is not up to me to determine exactly where the line is between a believing Christian and an unbelieving heretic; that is God's role.  I have decided that I cannot pick and choose which Scripture I will believe because the Scriptures say it is all God breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16); for me, it is all or nothing and I go with the all ... otherwise I'm trying to be God; my opinion.

I do appreciate your honesty for stating how you see it.

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

Your beliefs about some Scripture being divine inspiration and some not, I'm not sure where it will cause you to end up because it is not up to me to determine exactly where the line is between a believing Christian and an unbelieving heretic; that is God's role.  I have decided that I cannot pick and choose which Scripture I will believe because the Scriptures say it is all God breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16); for me, it is all or nothing and I go with the all ... otherwise I'm trying to be God; my opinion.

I do appreciate your honesty for stating how you see it.

... Mountaineer

I would have probably said exactly the same thing in response to myself some years ago.

Personally, I think God probably has better things to do in the Universe than sort through people's beliefs to determine whether they are heretics are not. Reminds me of a lot of the stuff I have to work with in corporate Bureaucracy.  Personally, I think he would be much more interested in how we lived our lives, not in the purity of our beliefs.

But maybe that's just me. Maybe only the Quality Assurance team makes it to heaven. The rest of us are totally fucked - forever - soul AND body forever and ever and maybe even longer if possible.

[Mountaineer]

Your beliefs about some Scripture being divine inspiration and some not, I'm not sure where it will cause you to end up because it is not up to me to determine exactly where the line is between a believing Christian and an unbelieving heretic; that is God's role.  I have decided that I cannot pick and choose which Scripture I will believe because the Scriptures say it is all God breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16); for me, it is all or nothing and I go with the all ... otherwise I'm trying to be God; my opinion.

I do appreciate your honesty for stating how you see it.

... Mountaineer

I would have probably said exactly the same thing in response to myself some years ago.

Personally, I think God probably has better things to do in the Universe than sort through people's beliefs to determine whether they are heretics are not. Reminds me of a lot of the stuff I have to work with in corporate Bureaucracy.  Personally, I think he would be much more interested in how we lived our lives, not in the purity of our beliefs.

But maybe that's just me. Maybe only the Quality Assurance team makes it to heaven. The rest of us are fucked.

ns3,

Interesting where you and I are in our beliefs - we have apparently changed places.  Many years ago, I would have said what you did about good works being what God cared about and got you saved (I was raised in a "works righteousness" type church).  I have now come to understand the brilliance of Martin Luther rediscovering via intensive Scripture study that "justification by faith" is the way and is what the Scriptures have always said (read through the lens of the entire Scriptures being about Jesus - OT pointing out the need for Jesus, NT about what Jesus did for us).  I do tend to think the end result of an Evangelical (e.g. Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic) works righteousness interpretation of Scripture is usually despair or pride; despair when one finally determines he can never do enough or questions how much is enough, and pride if you fall out on the side of thinking you know it all and why doesn't everyone else "get it".  That is unless the Evangelical "jumps ship" to justification by faith, the other option besides pride or despair.

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

Your beliefs about some Scripture being divine inspiration and some not, I'm not sure where it will cause you to end up because it is not up to me to determine exactly where the line is between a believing Christian and an unbelieving heretic; that is God's role.  I have decided that I cannot pick and choose which Scripture I will believe because the Scriptures say it is all God breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16); for me, it is all or nothing and I go with the all ... otherwise I'm trying to be God; my opinion.

I do appreciate your honesty for stating how you see it.

... Mountaineer

I would have probably said exactly the same thing in response to myself some years ago.

Personally, I think God probably has better things to do in the Universe than sort through people's beliefs to determine whether they are heretics are not. Reminds me of a lot of the stuff I have to work with in corporate Bureaucracy.  Personally, I think he would be much more interested in how we lived our lives, not in the purity of our beliefs.

But maybe that's just me. Maybe only the Quality Assurance team makes it to heaven. The rest of us are fucked.

ns3,

Interesting where you and I are in our beliefs - we have apparently changed places.  Many years ago, I would have said what you did about good works being what God cared about and got you saved (I was raised in a "works righteousness" type church).  I have now come to understand the brilliance of Martin Luther rediscovering via intensive Scripture study that "justification by faith" is the way and is what the Scriptures have always said (read through the lens of the entire Scriptures being about Jesus - OT pointing out the need for Jesus, NT about what Jesus did for us).  I do tend to think the end result of an Evangelical (e.g. Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic) works righteousness interpretation of Scripture is usually despair or pride; despair when one finally determines he can never do enough or questions how much is enough, and pride if you fall out on the side of thinking you know it all and why doesn't everyone else "get it".  That is unless the Evangelical "jumps ship" to justification by faith, the other option besides pride or despair.

... Mountaineer

I was raised in the Quaker Church, as was Richard Nixon. Actually, the pastor of the church I attended (Richard Ball) gave the invocation at Nixon's inauguration.

In 1969-70 I served the Christian cause in Vietnam, helping to kill communists for Christ but ending up in jail in protest when I came home and eventually receiving a dishonorable discharge from the Navy.  Today my "service" in Vietnam is a source of shame that I keep to myself, especially when people try to honor me for it, which is often. I struggle to be polite when they do.

Despite all this I was an unbeliever until I got "saved" (said a prayer) during the Jesus movement in the 70's.

I spent nearly every waking minute reading the Bible for a very long period in my life. And I have no regrets about it.

Long about 1978 I was sitting in a Bible study in a Lutheran church when the pastor walked up to me and spoke a word of prophesy that I had been called as an Apostle (mind you, I said this was a Lutheran Church - a very mainstream protestant denomination not given to such dramatic things as prophecy).

I took this as a call to "the ministry" but despite my best efforts it never happened, although I was officially ordained as a Southern Baptist minister during a period of having a Bible study in my home.

My first wife died of cancer and today I am married to a wonderful Catholic lady from the Philippines who is the best thing to ever happen to me and I never go to church. Church sucks.

That is my testimony.

Do with it what you will.

[Xan]

Personally, I think God probably has better things to do in the Universe than sort through people's beliefs to determine whether they are heretics are not.

ns3, I totally understand that position.  My take on it (for what it's worth) is that it's not so much a matter of God sorting through people's beliefs, as it is a matter of who each individual trusts to save him.  Those who trust in Christ, ask for his help, and depend on his merit and not their own are saved, not because their doctrine is correct, but because for people to do otherwise is to think of themselves as God and to refuse the gift of salvation.

So it's not a game where God sees how well people's beliefs line up with some standard.  It's a matter of whether you are accepting the gift or trying to do it yourself.