Sin and Hell; Joined at the Hip

It is just amazing how many new articles pop up every day about the new concept being preached by the “emerging church” about sin and hell.  This is the concept that being condemned to hell by sin is not permanent–that Jesus accepts us all.

The articles, at least the ones I read, condemn this emerging theology. The Christian right has major heartburn over the idea that doing sin does not condemn people to hell.  It cannot tolerate the idea that they themselves will not end up the winners in the afterlife.

I have to give some of these hellbangers credit for creativity.  Charles Coalson wrote that people need the concept of being condemned to hell for their self esteem.  It had never occurred to me that I might need to realize that thinking the proper and orthodox way would let me believe I am going to heaven and this, in turn, will allow me to think I am a good person.  Here, I thought I was a happy person and now learn I am not.

Then, there was the article by the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, Albert Mohler, who said the Western concept of justice, being punished, would be thrown out by such theology.  Living in a world where Chrisitanity is no longer about sin, followed by judgement and punishment is a very foreign world to the right.

Judging by all the articles condemning this new theology, it must represent an important threat.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Sin and Hell; Joined at the Hip

  1. Wanna B Sure says:

    Jon; Coalson nor Mohler speak for all Christianity. I can see why, if what you say is accurate, they are alarmed.
    What you call orthodox is really heterodoxy, or syncretism. I think we’ve been here before.

  2. doubtful says:

    This is not a new theology. It predates the theology you see it replacing by many centuries.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      doubtful 1:00 Why, then, is it so alarming to the establishment of the religious right?

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Jon;–sorry to intrude on this subject, but to possibly answer your question of “Why then is it so alarming to the establishment of the religious right?” Key words- religious right. Due to the influence of pietism in the right, it could be difficult to seperate self from the “chain of command” (so to speak), in the saving of souls. The temptation by implication then is, “if I can’t do it, and be more right than anyone else, God won’t succeed.” This is also evidenced in the term “hurry up the coming of the Lord”, and the introduction of the “peranthesis” in the eschatology of the millenialism in the right leaning Christians. It would seem that “letting go, and let God” is a hard thing to do. This does not mean that it is not the responsibility of Christians to be “evangelical”, but to be a Christian is to be a messenger of the Gospel, not a part of the Gospel itself. Just say’n.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Wanna 3:05 That’s interesting. But might it also be they, that is the pundits, commentators and others who profit from the status quo, are simply worried about their paychecks. (I don’t know is a theologian and an economist can have a meaningful conversation or not?) :)

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I think it is pretty obvious that there are some miscreants that use this as a “business opportunity”, and have self-deluded thamselves.
            As for the “meaningfull conversation”, very difficult due to the different world view, context, and talking past each other. I think that currently, there is a bigger problem between politicians and economists.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; The “dissies” came up with the “gap” so as to explain problems in timelines in this system . It of course has some unintended ramifications. These are the same people that say that Jesus couldn’t have come again before now, and the Bible says that everyone will see him coming—not possible before TV and the internet.

        • entech says:

          Mt give up. What means “peranthesis”

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; sorry on the spelling. parentheses. AKA “gap”. I preffer to call it the “OOPS factor”. According to dispenstational premillenialism, When Jesus came the first time, his intention was to set up his kingdom on earth. Because that didn’t happen due to his being prematurely murdered/killed, mankind has had to make do until a new start up on his return. 1948 appears to be the key date on the new startup, (when the nation of Israel was created). So it is with the dispensational premilli%^&^*(*^such a horrid word to spell.) The majority of Christians do not go along with this , although in their own little world, the dissies think everyone believes them. So this time around, they are sure God can’t arrive unless we do all the prior procedure correctly.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 11:55 So, Jesus was “murdered” prematurely according to this group. I thought he “died for our sins”. In the latter concept it was sort of a suicide. Was it one or the other or both to them?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I guess you will have to ask them. They are all over the place on this. As I have said b/4 , this whole “gap” thing came along late, and I don’t think even the advocates of it have the ramifications ironed out. I certainly won’t defend it.

          • entech says:

            Ok. Just for once I wasn’t being picky, I really thought in context that is was a theological term that I did not (and, perhaps, could not) know.

  3. doubtful says:

    The people who are bothered by it are bothered because it does not match their belief. They too think that theirs is the traditional way. It is not only scientists that prefer not to change, but religious people as well, especially when creature comforts are involved.

    • entech says:

      Many scientists became almost wedded to their views, especially if they were the originators of a particular hypothesis. Eventually they would be obliged to change because science depends on something being demonstrable and repeatable. Unfortunately some traditional views can simple change the rules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>