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.”

[Rhadaghast]

Thanks for posting that clairification.
I am most gratified that the RCC uses no scripture to back up these edicts. Because there is non.

[dollars_for_dogma]

Neither will you find the word "Trinity"....but, nonetheless, you believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, don't you?

Sure, and I can find "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" in the bible without much effort.

But you do refer to the three persons as the Trinity, and the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Just responding to your claim that "I couldn't find Mr. (Saint) Boniface in my bible."

But you will find the word Saint.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"The Catholic Church at the end of the 1st century is certainly not the same church we see today."

It seems that you are confusing property with the Catholic Church.

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are immutable. They are the same ones that the Lord himself gave us 2000 years ago.

[Sopater]

But you do refer to the three persons as the Trinity, and the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Just responding to your claim that "I couldn't find Mr. (Saint) Boniface in my bible."

But you will find the word Saint.

I really don't see what this has to do with Pope Boniface VIII declaring that salvation comes through the Church, when the Bible says it comes through faith, unless you hold the statements of a 14th century Pope, one who has been suspected of other heretical comments, in higher regard than those of the gospels.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"So then how do we keep our salvation after we sin???"

Through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20: 22-23

Who is our Lord speaking to? The Apostles, the first Priests/Bishops of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

(quotes from the King James Bible)

[dollars_for_dogma]

"I really don't see what this has to do with Pope Boniface VIII declaring that salvation comes through the Church, when the Bible says it comes through faith...."


"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24. (King James Version)

[Campion]

You ought to try reading some of your own church history...

You ought to try reading some church history written by people who are actual historians, instead of propagandists for a particular point of view.

[Sopater]

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:28-29

We're right back to faith my brother, nothing about salvation through the Catholic Church. Keep trying.

[Iscool]

You ought to try reading some church history written by people who are actual historians, instead of propagandists for a particular point of view.

Ya, I know...All negative Catholic history is wrong...Even if it's put out by the Church...

[Iscool]

Who is our Lord speaking to? The Apostles, the first Priests/Bishops of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

He was speaking to the only Apostles that ever lived (excluding Paul, of course)...The same Apostles that cast out devils, healed the sick and were immune to poisonous snakes...Let's see a Pope or a Bishop or Priest or Pastor try that one...

[dollars_for_dogma]

"We're right back to faith my brother, nothing about salvation through the Catholic Church. Keep trying."

No, we are not back to your claim of faith alone.

Please continue to read all of John 6.

You will see that our Lord hammers home the point--at the risk of losing his followers (John 6:60,61,66)--that "...I am the bread of life".... "...he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...." "For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed."

This is the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist given to His people through His Church for Salvation.
(from the King James bible)

[dollars_for_dogma]

"The same Apostles that cast out devils, healed the sick and were immune to poisonous snakes...Let's see a Pope or a Bishop or Priest or Pastor try that one..."

The Catholic Bishops--that includes the Pope, Bishop of Rome-- can trace their lineage all the way back to the original Apostles.

And an exorcism is the casting out of demons; they are still being performed by Catholic priests.

With modern medicine and antivenin serum available, why would our Lord need to immunize his priests from snake venom?

Curious why you ignored the questions in post#52 and post#57?

[Iscool]

And an exorcism is the casting out of demons; they are still being performed by Catholic priests.

These fall under 'signs and wonders' as was the snake bite deal...The signs were for non believing Jews...Not Christians...Has nothing to do with snake bite serum

[Iscool]

He was aware of the crowd's thoughts and concerns because John 6:52 and John 6:67 state this. So why risk alienating his followers?

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Obviously He did not risk anything...He already knew who wouldn't follow Him...

Why didn't the Lord just say "I'm speaking figuratively here"?

Maybe He wants us to study so we can figure it out for ourselves...

You ask these questions but refuse to answer mine...So what do you do with vs 35???

[Sopater]

No, we are not back to your claim of faith alone

I never made a claim of "faith alone". I simply said that salvation does not come through the church, but through faith in Jesus Christ, just as the Bible says. James is making the point that if you have a saving faith, the works of that faith will follow. Faith without works is dead.

This is the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist given to His people through His Church for Salvation.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe."

-John 6:63-64a

Jesus was being figurative, speaking in spiritual terms not physical, literal terms. He explains this to the disciples.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"He already knew who wouldn't follow Him..."

Of course he knew; he's God.

The point is why did the Lord continue throughout (John 6:25-71) to refer to Himself (to his followers) as "the bread from Heaven" "....manna..." "...my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink?" if He were merely speaking figuratively? Why risk alienating his disciples?

It is because the Lord, never being at a loss for words, meant exactly what He was saying.

So, the ones who wouldn't follow were those who could or would not accept what the Church calls the Eucharist.

Verse 35....he is referring to Himself as "the bread of life" so, this is leading up v48 where again "I am the bread of life"....v51 "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. Who came from Heaven? Our Lord did.

Continuing in John 6...."...he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Our Lord is not talking about faith alone here.

[Iscool]

It is because the Lord, never being at a loss for words, meant exactly what He was saying.

So you haven't been hungry or thirsty for years, eh??? If you get a drink of water, does that mean Jesus was lying??? Or does that mean you aren't saved because you're thirsty???

[dollars_for_dogma]

"I never made a claim of "faith alone"

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.

"Jesus was being figurative, speaking in spiritual terms not physical, literal terms. He explains this to the disciples."

No, He is not speaking figuratively, because He then asks His apostles in v67 "Will you also go away?"

There is the "flesh" of our Lord's body and blood and then the "flesh" referring to human nature.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"So you haven't been hungry or thirsty for years, eh??? If you get a drink of water, does that mean Jesus was lying???"

I fail to see the connection.

John 6:26-71 is about the partaking of the Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist.

How does a protestant interpret these verses?

[ScubieNuc]

"Philllipians 2:12

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation."

Alot of people misread that as to mean secure your own salvation through your works. Kind of like if my child says that his fishing line is all tangled up, and I say "work it out." I'm telling him to fix it himself. However, a closer look at Philippians, the word katergazomai, and the whole of what is written about salvation, shows that we aren't being told to "secure our salvation through works."

Katergazomai is the greek word that gets translated "work out." Katergazomai means to perform or show it. When you read verse 13...

Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.

you see that Paul is saying show or perform on the outside what God is doing on the inside.

Philipians is written to the "saints at Philipi." These are Christian believers. Plus, a major theme of Philippians is about suffering for Christ. Some Philippians where probably afraid to show their Christianity for fear of reprisals, but Paul is exhorting them to go ahead and get out there.

When you combine this with Paul's other writtings, you know that Paul isn't advocating salvation through works.

Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Why would Paul advocate works of the flesh to earn salvation in Chapter 2, and then in the very next chapter say that there is NO confidence in the flesh? Obviously, he's not.

Here's a couple of quotes from Paul in Romans...

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

This is not a salvation of works.

Sincerely