Atonement, Hell, and the Presence of God

[Wicked Willow]

Now, this thread is aimed at Christians who believe that hell is "merely" the absence of God, and that people need to be saved by Christ in order to be able to be in the presence of the Almighty.
I suppose you know the drill: "No one is good but God", "sin cannot be in the presence of God, so the unsaved choose to be without him forever", etc. etc.
The long and short of it is: the ONLY way to avoid eternal separation from God is to appeal to Jesus as a replacement sacrifice, (or, if you happen to live in the times of the Old Covenant, to keep all of the laws, always). Else, God can do nothing for you.

Now, how does that fit in with what the Bible tells us about Enoch? He lived long before either the Old or the New Covenant was established, even prior to the Flood, which was pretty much God's first attempt at taking care of sin by means of a "tabula rasa"-strategy. And yet, this Enoch was not only in the presence of God, but bodily taken into heaven, never dying an ordinary mortal's death! How does that fit in with this particular Christian approach to hell, sin and atonement?
If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

 

[ephraimanesti]

If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

MY SISTER,

What it ACTUALLY means my "pagan" friend, is that, as Paul states, "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO SIN."(Romans 5:15b)

The whole pupose of the Law--given much later--was to put a name to those things which God considered sin from the Garden on, but did not count or punish as such before the Law was handed down through Moses--like in the days of Enoch, for example.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[salida]

Enoch wasn't without sin. Show me where that is in the Bible? God knew Enoch before he was born and that this is how his fate would be- being taken to heaven. This is the exception not the rule. Another one is Mary - she had a virgin birth - this doesn't mean that we all have virgin births. The apostle Paul had a Damacus experience- do all have this? No. Thus, whats your point?

 

[ebia]

Now, this thread is aimed at Christians who believe that hell is "merely" the absence of God, and that people need to be saved by Christ in order to be able to be in the presence of the Almighty.
I suppose you know the drill: "No one is good but God", "sin cannot be in the presence of God, so the unsaved choose to be without him forever", etc. etc.
The long and short of it is: the ONLY way to avoid eternal separation from God is to appeal to Jesus as a replacement sacrifice, (or, if you happen to live in the times of the Old Covenant, to keep all of the laws, always). Else, God can do nothing for you.

Now, how does that fit in with what the Bible tells us about Enoch? He lived long before either the Old or the New Covenant was established, even prior to the Flood, which was pretty much God's first attempt at taking care of sin by means of a "tabula rasa"-strategy. And yet, this Enoch was not only in the presence of God, but bodily taken into heaven, never dying an ordinary mortal's death! How does that fit in with this particular Christian approach to hell, sin and atonement?
If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

I think your problem is that your question - and the viewpoint that prompted it -comes at the thing from completely the wrong direction.

Scripture is not a thinly disguised psuedo-scientific formula for how individuals go to heaven when they die (or before they die in the case of Enoch). That's not what scripture means by salvation.

Scripture is the story of what God is doing to put right what is wrong with all creation. It focuses on humanity because humanity is the cause of the problem, representative of the whole problem, and the means through which God will sort out the problem. Individuals exist within that, but scripture is not primarily concerned with explaining how each individual in past is saved but how the key figures of the past are involved in the problem and/or God's solution (which starts with the call of Abraham). The point is salvation - ie healing, redemption and restoration - of all creation with humanity in and for that.

 

[Wicked Willow]

MY SISTER,

What it ACTUALLY means my "pagan" friend, is that, as Paul states, "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO SIN."(Romans 5:15b)

The whole pupose of the Law--given much later--was to put a name to those things which God considered sin from the Garden on, but did not count or punish as such before the Law was handed down through Moses--like in the days of Enoch, for example.

If there was no sin before the law, what was it that prompted the Flood? If the only law that had been given (and broken) at the time was "Do not eat of the Tree", and the tree was no longer within reach - then, by your (or Paul's) logic, people were incapable of sinning.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Enoch wasn't without sin. Show me where that is in the Bible?

If he wasn't without sin, yet lives in heaven, then the claim that sinful Man cannot go to heaven without being covered by the blood of Christ does not hold water, and that particular rationalisation of hell must be discarded.

God knew Enoch before he was born and that this is how his fate would be- being taken to heaven. This is the exception not the rule. Another one is Mary - she had a virgin birth - this doesn't mean that we all have virgin births. The apostle Paul had a Damacus experience- do all have this? No. Thus, whats your point?

See above.

 

[brinny]

Now, this thread is aimed at Christians who believe that hell is "merely" the absence of God, and that people need to be saved by Christ in order to be able to be in the presence of the Almighty.
I suppose you know the drill: "No one is good but God", "sin cannot be in the presence of God, so the unsaved choose to be without him forever", etc. etc.
The long and short of it is: the ONLY way to avoid eternal separation from God is to appeal to Jesus as a replacement sacrifice, (or, if you happen to live in the times of the Old Covenant, to keep all of the laws, always). Else, God can do nothing for you.

Now, how does that fit in with what the Bible tells us about Enoch? He lived long before either the Old or the New Covenant was established, even prior to the Flood, which was pretty much God's first attempt at taking care of sin by means of a "tabula rasa"-strategy. And yet, this Enoch was not only in the presence of God, but bodily taken into heaven, never dying an ordinary mortal's death! How does that fit in with this particular Christian approach to hell, sin and atonement?
If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

What is your point, and why do you ask? You do not believe in the God we believe in, do you?

Unless you are genuinely searching, sincerely, i find your post insulting and ridiculing.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I think your problem is that your question - and the viewpoint that prompted it -comes at the thing from completely the wrong direction.

Scripture is not a thinly disguised psuedo-scientific formula for how individuals go to heaven when they die (or before they die in the case of Enoch). That's not what scripture means by salvation.

Scripture is the story of what God is doing to put right what is wrong with all creation. It focuses on humanity because humanity is the cause of the problem, representative of the whole problem, and the means through which God will sort out the problem. Individuals exist within that, but scripture is not primarily concerned with explaining how each individual in past is saved but how the key figures of the past are involved in the problem and/or God's solution (which starts with the call of Abraham). The point is salvation - ie healing, redemption and restoration - of all creation with humanity in and for that.

Oh, I can totally relate to that!
The thing is: the viewpoint that prompted these question isn't mine. In particular, it was prompted by a real-life encounter with a proselytizer who felt prompted to tell me the "Good News".
His "Good News", however, did indeed sound like a formula, like "Live eternally in ten easy steps". He might just as well have tried to sell me an insurance policy. It all sounded like mere technicalities, legal requirements.

 

[Van]

Hi Wicked Willow, I see that you offer up yet another of the popular with atheist manufactured problems with Christian beliefs. If you do an analysis of the thread openers of this forum, you will find many recurrent themes.

So lets review, Christian doctrine says the only way to God is through faith in Christ, both as the son of God and the Messiah, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

So you say, if that is true, how about Enoch? He went to heaven, with heaven being the third heaven, which is the spiritual kingdom of God. But is that what the Bible actually says? Nope. What scripture says is God took him, so he did not experience physical death. Where did he go? Scripture does not say, but one would suppose he went to the place of comfort, called Abraham's bosom in Luke. This was a spiritual "holding cell" where all the Old Testament "saints" went before Jesus died on the cross. Then they joined the New Testament saints and entered Paradise, the third heaven. See Hebrews 11:39-40.

And since the next hit on this pagan play list is Elijah, and being taken up to "heaven" in a whirlwind, lets think about that one too. Again, the heaven in view is the first heaven, earth's atmosphere, where the birds fly and wind exists. So he too did not go to "heaven" meaning the third heaven, but also was taken to "Abraham's bosom." How can I be sure it was the first heaven and not the third heaven, since only the word heaven appears in the text? Because Jesus said no one had ascended to heaven before Him. John 3:13.

 

[brinny]

Van has excellent points, wickedwillow. Do you even read the Bible?

 

[brinny]

Oh, I can totally relate to that!
The thing is: the viewpoint that prompted these question isn't mine. In particular, it was prompted by a real-life encounter with a proselytizer who felt prompted to tell me the "Good News".
His "Good News", however, did indeed sound like a formula, like "Live eternally in ten easy steps". He might just as well have tried to sell me an insurance policy. It all sounded like mere technicalities, legal requirements.

give a listen to Paul Washer. He tells it like it is.

 

[ephraimanesti]

If there was no sin before the law, what was it that prompted the Flood? If the only law that had been given (and broken) at the time was "Do not eat of the Tree", and the tree was no longer within reach - then, by your (or Paul's) logic, people were incapable of sinning.

MY SISTER,

You seem to have misunderstood (intentionally, i suspect) what Paul's declaration that before the Law was given sin was not labeled or punished by God as such means. (Perhaps "witches" should not pontificate on spiritual matters?)

Eating of the Tree led to a state where mankind no longer heeded God's directives regarding how life should be lived, but instead chose to decide, on their own, what was good and what was evil, and act according to their own whims and desires rather than follow God's directives. Because of this self-willed rebellion against God, mankind had lost its spiritual connection with God and, as a consequence, "The earth was corrupt before God and filled with unrighteousness." Because He saw that mankind was beyond redemption due to the fact that they were under the complete control of evil with the exception of Noah and his family--for example, the first act recorded after the expulsion from the Garden was the fratricide of Cain against Abel--He decided that the best course of action would be to wipe the slate clean and begin again--ergo the flood.

Peter refers to this time before the flood and before the Law by saying, "[Jesus] was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit, through whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."(I Peter 3:18b-21a) (This process works equally well for witches, by the way.)

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[ebia]

Oh, I can totally relate to that!
The thing is: the viewpoint that prompted these question isn't mine.

Oh, I realise that.

In particular, it was prompted by a real-life encounter with a proselytizer who felt prompted to tell me the "Good News".
His "Good News", however, did indeed sound like a formula, like "Live eternally in ten easy steps". He might just as well have tried to sell me an insurance policy. It all sounded like mere technicalities, legal requirements.

Mmm. I'm quite aware how sub-biblical and most 20th Christian's concept of salvation is, how much it lacks compared with the richness found in scripture, and how their "gospel" is often neither good nor news.

 

[Wicked Willow]

What is your point, and why do you ask?

Both should be perfectly clear in the light of my OP, and subsequent responses: I was confronted with a Christian claim that, in the light of the Bible, doesn't really seem to add up. So, I went to a sub-forum that offers me the possibility of asking questions, and having believers clear up the matter, if possible. ebia did quite a good job at it, I might add.

You do not believe in the God we believe in, do you?

If I remember correctly, this particular sub-forum is designed for NON-Christians asking Christians questions about Christianity. So, it's kind of a moot point if you expect your audience to consist of people who share your faith.

Unless you are genuinely searching, sincerely, i find your post insulting and ridiculing.

That, frankly speaking, is your problem. I cannot possibly gauge what you may read into my posts. Judging by your hostility, I have a slight suspicion that you are judging my posts based on my faith icon.
I'm not interested in factionalism, or the theist/atheist trench war. I'm only interested in the truth, wherever I may find it.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Van has excellent points, wickedwillow. Do you even read the Bible?

Both privately and in an academic setting. What has that got to do with anything, though?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Both privately and in an academic setting. What has that got to do with anything, though?

MY DEAR sister,

Because, dear one, what we are discussing is Christianity; the primary basis of Christianity is to be found in the Bible; ergo--to intelligently discuss Christianity, one must be familiar with the Bible.

Come on now!

WITH PUZZLED LOVE,
ephraim

 

[brinny]

Wicked Willow, your questions, i suspect, are NOT based on a genuine curiousity or a sincere searching of the God we, Christians believe in. You say you have, or do read the Bible. Yet you still maintain a confusion or misconception, for instance in why there was a flood.

God is holy. Surely you have read that. It is dcelared countless times throughout the Bible. That is why Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of the living God, the God of the living, died. To reunite sinful man to Himself, a holy God.

Surely you know this if you read the Bible. It is written.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Van has excellent points, wickedwillow. Do you even read the Bible?

Both privately and in an academic setting. What has that got to do with anything, though?

 

[Wicked Willow]

Do you think that people who read the Bible automatically arrive at the same conclusions as yourself, or that there aren't any questions left to puzzle over or debate?
Even (or should I say: especially) "Sola Scriptura"-Christians hardly agree on all points, neither with regards to ethics, theology, or even their understanding of what "inspired" means with regards to the Bible.
As an anthology, the Bible is a collection of very heterogeneous texts, allowing for a multitude of possible interpretations. The Church has tried to curb that pretty early on by appealing to the Apostolic Succession, but even that didn't put an end to divergent interpretations of Scripture.
Calvinists, Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or even really unorthodox Christians like Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians, The Christian Community - they all rely on the Bible, believing that they have figured it all out.

So, I repeat: what does the question whether or not I read the Bible have to do with anything? It should be pretty obvious that I do, but that hardly means that I cannot have any questions, especially if these questions are aimed at particular interpretations of the text rather than the text itself.
Comprende?

 

[Jpark]

Now, this thread is aimed at Christians who believe that hell is "merely" the absence of God, and that people need to be saved by Christ in order to be able to be in the presence of the Almighty.
I suppose you know the drill: "No one is good but God", "sin cannot be in the presence of God, so the unsaved choose to be without him forever", etc. etc.
The long and short of it is: the ONLY way to avoid eternal separation from God is to appeal to Jesus as a replacement sacrifice, (or, if you happen to live in the times of the Old Covenant, to keep all of the laws, always). Else, God can do nothing for you.

Now, how does that fit in with what the Bible tells us about Enoch? He lived long before either the Old or the New Covenant was established, even prior to the Flood, which was pretty much God's first attempt at taking care of sin by means of a "tabula rasa"-strategy. And yet, this Enoch was not only in the presence of God, but bodily taken into heaven, never dying an ordinary mortal's death! How does that fit in with this particular Christian approach to hell, sin and atonement?
If Enoch was without sin - does that mean that Jesus is not the only way, and that ordinary human beings can enter heaven without the blood of the Lamb? And if he was without sin, doesn't that render his achievement even more spectacular that Jesus's, who was fully God and thus, basically, incapable of succumbing to sin?

Romans 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Those who are in the flesh characterizes people's very nature and is a stronger description than the activity of walking according to the flesh. The phrase therefore refers to unbelievers who cannot please God.

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

To walk according to the Spirit is to follow the desires of the Holy Spirit, to live in a way pleasing to Him.

Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not found, for God had taken him.

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus

Confidence to enter God's presence is founded on the blood of Jesus and His high priestly ministry.

Comment:

Enoch was in the Spirit.

Enoch was not without sin. Romans 3:23 says for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God