Heaven and hell seem to be forgotten

Press Telegram ^ | 06/16/2006 | Richard N. Ostling

[Between the Lines]

Belief in hell is going to you-know-where. And belief in heaven is in trouble, too.

That's the concern of some Christian thinkers, including Jeffrey Burton Russell, an emeritus professor of history at UC Santa Barbara, and author of the new book “Paradise Mislaid: How We Lost Heaven and How We Can Regain It” (Oxford).

Russell and other fretters aren't impressed by fads like the sudden popularity of the girl's name Naveah (heaven spelled backward) or polls that show most Americans believe in some sort of heaven.

The growing problem, according to Russell and others, is that the way U.S. Christians conceive of both heaven and hell is so feeble and vague that it's almost meaningless — vague “superstition.”

It's “not that heaven is deteriorating,” he says. “But we are.”

Gallup reported in 2004 that 81 percent of Americans believed in heaven and 70 percent in hell. An earlier Gallup Poll said 77 percent of ever-optimistic Americans rated their odds of making heaven as “good” or “excellent.” Few saw themselves as hellbound.

“The percentage who say they believe in heaven has remained pretty constant the past 50 years, but what people mean by it has changed an awful lot,” Russell said in an interview.

Some people are so confused they believe in heaven but not God — “I suppose it's a New Age thing,” Russell said.

But if today's notion of paradise is off base, and sentimental images of clouds, harps and cherubs are the stuff of magazine cartoons, then what's the best way to think of heaven?

“For Christians, basically, heaven underneath all of the decorations means living in harmony with God and the cosmos and your neighbors and being grateful,” said Russell, who studied hell and Satan for 15 years before first turning his attention to heaven in a 1997 book.

To Russell, it's healthiest to see heaven as starting on earth, not an existence that “suddenly happens when you die.”

What about hell and its fire and brimstone? “There is a tendency to over-dramatize hell in order to get (it) across to people,” he said, but it's simply “the absence of God, the absence of heaven.”

“Heaven has gradually been shut away in a closet by the dominant intellectual trends,” Russell writes. Likewise with hell: Russell cannot remember the last time he's heard that unhappy subject treated in church or in religious literature.

What happened? Russell's book is largely a heartfelt appeal against “physicalism,” the modern claim that knowledge comes only through the physical senses and empirical science.

Such an outlook is arrogant and unprovable, Russell believes, because it ignores humans' moral sense and the supernatural— including heaven and hell.

Among Protestants who share Russell's angst, perhaps the most outspoken is the Rev. David F. Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts. He has spent years bemoaning the erosion of Christian teaching, through books like last fall's “Above All Earthly Pow'rs: Christ in a Postmodern World.”

Wells said in an interview that western Christianity is on the defensive against religious skepticism, secularism, materialism and consumerism.

He said that when Christian truth collides with the dominant cultural belief, promoted by psychology, that individuals should choose whatever they want, then “something has to give. And in our world today, in America and much of the West, what is giving is Christianity.” That includes the faith in “ultimate right and wrong” that undergirds heaven and hell.

So, many who say they believe in heaven are “projecting from their very best therapeutic experiences into eternity,” not meeting God “on his own terms,” he thinks.

A related question is who enters heaven.

On that, Americans are predictably expansive. A Newsweek/beliefnet.com poll last year asked, “Can a good person who isn't of your religious faith go to heaven or attain salvation?” Fully 79 percent said yes, with somewhat lower percentages among evangelicals and among non-Christians.

In Catholicism, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) declared that persons who do not know the Christian gospel but sincerely seek God “can attain to everlasting salvation.” The church decided that requiring explicit Christian faith was too pessimistic, said U.S. theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles, writing in First Things magazine.

But now, he cautioned, “thoughtless optimism is the more prevalent error,” with many Christians mistakenly assuming that “everyone, or practically everyone, must be saved.”

Still, the New Testament teaches “the absolute necessity of faith for salvation” and says that each of us faces just two possibilities, either “everlasting happiness in the presence of God” or “everlasting torment in the absence of God.”

[Iscool]

I fail to see the connection.

I see...You just want to ignore that and other verses...Pretend they are not there...That's alright...

I and others on this thread have served 'my' purpose which is to show any unsaved folks that might wander onto this thread that Salvation is NOT thru your church, but it comes ONLY from the Grace of God thru Jesus Christ to the individual sinner...

[Sopater]

What is the difference between saying "faith alone" or "salvation does not come through the church, but through faith in Jesus Christ"?

If one rejects the Sacraments, then one has to rely only on faith.

Friend, you're not even making sense.

He is not speaking figuratively, because He then asks His apostles in v67 "Will you also go away?"

You've gotta stop pulling such small pieces of scripture out to try and make your point. Jesus had stopped talking about eating the bread back in v58.

"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life." -John 6:64-68 (NASB)

[dollars_for_dogma]

"I see...You just want to ignore that and other verses...Pretend they are not there...That's alright..."

I did not ignore you. In fact I responded stating that I did not understand what you meant.

Please explain if you will.

[dollars_for_dogma]

It would make sense to you if you believed that the Sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation (confession of sins), Eucharist (Holy Communion), Confirmation, etc. given to us by our Lord through his Catholic Church are necessary for the salvation of one's soul.

If you don't believe this, then all one has to rely on for salvation of one's soul is faith.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"You've gotta stop pulling such small pieces of scripture out to try and make your point. Jesus had stopped talking about eating the bread back in v58."

It's not "the bread." It's "this bread." Bread that came down from Heaven (Jesus); the bread of life (Jesus); our Lord's body to eat and his blood to drink.

If you read the posts I used all of John 6:26-71 in supporting the Catholic belief that we need the Lord's body and blood for salvation of our soul's.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"....unsaved folks that might wander onto this thread that Salvation is NOT thru your church,.."

That would depend on one's Church. Catholics believe that salvation comes from the Sacraments--outward signs of inward grace--available to all through the Catholic Church.

If you recite the Apostle's Creed at your protestant church, what do you have to say about the following line of the creed:

"I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: the Communion of Saints...."?

[Iscool]

If you recite the Apostle's Creed at your protestant church, what do you have to say about the following line of the creed:

Ha...I'm not trying to be offensive but I wouldn't set foot in a church that recited the apostles creed...

Well, that's not really accurate...I did attend a funeral at a Catholic church as well as an Episcopal church...And about a hundred years ago, I went to a Catholic church once and listened to the Latin service and ate the cracker to impress my girlfriend at the time...

And, I was surprised to see that no one carried a bible...Beautiful church, tho...

[dollars_for_dogma]

"I wouldn't set foot in a church that recited the apostles creed..."

Didn't know that. I thought that during a Protestant church service either the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed was recited.

Many parishioners carry a Daily Missal to Mass. There are also Missalettes in each pew where the prayers, responses and daily scripture readings can be found.

In the Catholic Church, the bible is covered during the course of a three year cycle.

[Diego1618]

but nothing referring to an inspired canon of scripture comprising the old and new testament

To the Apostles, the Canon of Scripture was given by our Lord in [Luke 24:44-45]. He spoke of "The Law, The Prophets and The Psalms". This did not include the Deuterocanonicals and is verified in later first century history by "Josephus" in his Book I Against Apion, Section VIII. The Deuts were added to the Hebrew writings in the Greek Septuagint, were never written in Hebrew, and were not even considered worthy of inclusion in the "Vulgate" by Jerome.....until he encountered pressure from Rome.

To the Apostles, the Canon was closed by Ezra and Nehemiah shortly after the return from Babylon. This was later confirmed by the Council of Jamnia when they removed the Deuterocanonicals from their Canon. The Deuts themselves were not even given full canonization by the Church until The Council of Trent.....1500 years later.

It is interesting to note what God had to say about this. Romans 3:1-2.

Since neither God in the Old Testament, nor God in-the-flesh (Jesus) in the New Testament, said, "Make a book", by your interpretive standards, the Bible itself is unbiblical.

The book of Isaiah tells us the Apostles were to bind up and seal the testimony and the law. The seventh, eighth and ninth chapters are unmistakably written about our Saviour. [Acts 17:10-11] tells us that the first century church knew what was considered scripture....and what was not. Paul says that he had great revelations [2 Corinthians 12:7] and felt the need to share them [Colossians 1:25]. He is presenting this in the form of writing.

Peter tells us [2 Peter 3:15-16] that Paul's writings have been canonized by him (Peter). Paul, on the other hand, shows the importance of keeping most of these books, scrolls and parchments together by asking Timothy to go get Mark, bringing all of Peter's letters (copies), stopping in Troas to get Paul's library, and come to Rome. [2 Timothy 4:9-13]. Since Luke is with Paul in Rome a copy of the book of Acts and Luke's gospel would certainly be available. (The Book of Acts ends as Paul's first imprisonment is ending....63 a.d.)

So.....by the time of Paul's death (68 a.d.) most of what we know to be the New Testament is in the hands of Luke, Mark and soon to be with John and guarded safely by the Greeks. Matthew is felt to have been written by about 60 a.d.; James was martyred in 62 a.d.; Jude is thought to have been written about 63 a.d.; This leaves Hebrews, the books of John and Revelation. Wherever the Apostles traveled.....copies were made. There are over 5000 Greek text copies in existence today.....obviously not all from the first century, but copies were made.

As soon as it became apparent that Jesus would not be returning in their lifetimes the Apostles got busy and began writing their Gospels and letters. Paul, himself, thought he would live to see the return.....[1 Thessolonians 4:15-16] [2Thessalonians 2:1-2] [1 Corinthians 15:51-52].....and got busy when he realized he wouldn't!

The first century Church knew what was Canon.....by at least 68 a.d., 35 years after the crucifixion.

[Iscool]

Didn't know that. I thought that during a Protestant church service either the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed was recited.

Sure thing...There are millions of Christians out there that do not recognize the Catholic church as the 'mother' church, nor the church that Jesus founded...

[Iscool]

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

And at least parts of the 'book' were well established before John got involved with it...

And again it's re-iterated that we shall receive life thru the name of Jesus, NOT the church...

[bannie]

Forgotten?

Naw, and it's ok because I worry about it enough for everyone else.

[ScubieNuc]

"I just want to know how a Bible Christian would interpret John 6."

First, you let Scripture reveal scripture. In other words, don't do a cut and paste. How does the verse or verses in question relate to the chapter and book it's written in? How does the idea in the verse or verses in question relate to how the topic is dealt with in the rest of Scripture?

In John chapter 5, Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath, and it created quite a following. One verse of interest is

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In the beginning of Chapter 6 Jesus does the miracle of the loaves and fishes. The crowd is so excited that they wish to make him king, but Jesus goes up into the mountains. In verse 26, Jesus says that the people were following Him because they got their stomachs filled.

Verse 27, Jesus tells them not to labor after physical food. Verse 29 Jesus repeats that the work of God is to believe on Jesus.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

In verse 31 the crowd is telling Jesus that Moses was followed because of the manna. In verses 32 and 33 Jesus says that the true bread will give life to the world. In 34, the crowd says give us this bread. They are thinking physical bread like manna. Then Jesus flips them out with this verse...

6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus begins to clarify to them the meaning of this in the following verses...

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Jesus is saying that eating physical bread, like manna, will still leave you dead. Belief in the spiritual bread of Jesus and you have everlasting life. In verse 58 Jesus clarifies his statements again...

John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Notice Jesus is saying, "not as your fathers did eat manna." The everlasting bread that Jesus is, is not "eaten" in the same manner as manna. You "eat" it by believing. Jesus does some further clarification in verse 63...

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Notice the life (eternal as in 3:16, 6:58, and many others)is in the words of Jesus, not in the physical or flesh. You get this life by believing not eating.

A major theme all through the book of John is belief in Jesus. John even ends on the topic of belief...

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Obviously, the main point of John is not eating for salvation but believing for salvation. But how does that compare to the other verses dealing with communion?

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

This bread that they were eating was part of the feast of unleavened bread. Leaven represented sin. Jesus is saying that he was without sin. He wasn't saying take a bite out of me physically. The wine represented the blood, and Jesus says that now it represents his blood, the blood of a NEW covenant. Jesus didn't drain any of his physical blood into the disciples cups! Mark 14 repeats this same thing..

Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.

Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

In short, just as the Jews of old didn't save themselves by participating in the passover feast (they were remembering God's great mercy and love), we too are not saving ourselves by having communion, simply remembering the great mercy and love poured out to us by God through Jesus.

Sincerely

[PanzerKardinal]

My Friend,

So let me understand you.

I am so corrupt that I am incapable of doing anything good.

That nothing I can do will contribute to me being saved.

And as long as I believe - I can do anything I want, anything at all - and I'll wind up in heaven.

Well then - Sign me up and let the good times roll!!!!!!

[Iscool]

So let me understand you.

Naw, don't understand me...Understand God...

I am so corrupt that I am incapable of doing anything good.

Well, unless you are a far better person than the Apostle Paul, I'd say that's an accurate statement...

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

If anyone thinks they can do anything to earn salvation, what was Jesus a sacrifice for???

That nothing I can do will contribute to me being saved.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.

This is a quote from the Catholic Douay Rheims bible...

How could it be any clearer???

And as long as I believe - I can do anything I want, anything at all - and I'll wind up in heaven.

You got it...

But I wouldn't press my luck

1Co 11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. Well then - Sign me up and let the good times roll!!!!!!

Sorry, You hafta sign your ownself up...

[dollars_for_dogma]

I should have been more specific....how does a bible Christian interpret John 6:53-57?

v53 "...Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

v54 "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

v55 "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

v56 "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

v57 "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

(These verses were skipped over in your explanation)

[ScubieNuc]

Verses 53-57 don't exist in a vacuum. They must be examined by what comes before and after it. Plus what do the other Gospels say about it, and how do other Scriptures talk about it. I addressed all of that.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Verse 47 says (like alot of John) that belief in Jesus gives you everlasting life. Then in verse 58 Jesus reiterates that by one "eating of" Jesus, which is not the same as the eating of manna, one shall live forever.

Only if you wish to analyze these verses in a vacuum can you possibly come to the idea that Jesus is instituting cannibalism. That would violate these scriptures....

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4

"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12

You choose to put your faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church, while I put my faith in the teachings of the Bible.

Sincerely

[dollars_for_dogma]

"Only if you wish to analyze these verses in a vacuum can you possibly come to the idea that Jesus is instituting cannibalism."

How can you say those verses describe cannibalism? That would be the case if Jesus were just a man.

But the Lord has two natures: human and divine.

The verses preceding are the warm-up to John 6:53-57. Here is where the Lord drives home his point: Partaking of His body and blood are necessary for salvation.

"You choose to put your faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church, while I put my faith in the teachings of the Bible."

Yes I do. It was the Catholic Church that gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture, the Bible.

[Nihil Obstat]

good stuff here -

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

[dollars_for_dogma]

"....the idea that Jesus is instituting cannibalism. That would violate these scriptures....

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4

"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12

Any divine command that comes later modifies a divine command from an earlier time. Jesus declared all foods clean here: Mark 7:19. And his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean Leviticus 11:1-8.

When Jesus commands us to drink his blood in John 6:53-57, this command then supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood. The command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away.

Colossians 2:17 states: "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink."