Do you go to hell for having the wrong theory of atonement?

Just before Easter I began a critique concerning a particular understanding of atonement, that encapsulated in the legal metaphor of Christ paying our debt of sin, as well as the penal substitutionary metaphor of Christ dying in our place. It is not that I deny these are metaphors of scripture. Rather, I deny that they provide a theoretical account of how the atonement worked.

There is more I was hoping to say on developing this critique. But some of my readers who are skeptics to Christianity have been only to anxious for me to "seal the deal". Among the most persistent (or faithful) are TheOtherSorcero and AcesLucky. Here is how the latter lays down the gauntlet for me in my last thread:

"Christ dying on the cross for our sins is inherent to being Christian. It is the single most "must believe" in order to be considered a Christian. It is the basis of Christianity so much so that if one DOESN'T believe it, the punishment is eternal hell (so we are told), and you are NOT considered a Christian no matter what else you believe!"

There is a complex mixture of truth and error in this statement. Belief in the atonement is obviously central for Christian identity, although Christian identity is about so much more than a set of beliefs. Indeed, Christians disagree about whether Christian identity is located in belief, or practice, or covenant, or what. But let's leave that aside for now and instead focus on two significant mistakes in AcesLucky's statement.

First, it implies that there is one theoretical understanding of atonement (the one I critiqued). 

Sorry. There is not, and never has been, unanimity among Christians on how to understand the doctrine of atonement. For the first thousand years the dominant theoretical understanding was a ransom model, with a dash of christus victor and glimmers of penal substitution and satisfaction. But satisfaction as a theoretical account was not filled out until Anselm, and continues to be revised today by scholars like Richard Swinburne. Penal substitution was not developed significantly until the Reformation. Eastern Orthodoxy has always had a very different understanding of atonement again. And my preferred theoretical understanding, the Girardean view, is a token of the thousand year old Abelardean tradition.

A Christian who holds to any one of these views as a theoretical account may embrace the entire biblical record of images and metaphors in accord with their view. And this is not unique to the atonement. There is also diversity in the church concerning one's doctrine of the Trinity, incarnation, and virtually all other major doctrines. Some hold to a Latin view of the Trinity, others to a social view. Some hold to a kenotic incarnation, others to a fully Chalcedonian view. The unanimity that exists encompasses a staggering degree of diversity.

Sadly, the incredible diversity among all these various theoretical views are lost on the untutored outsider who sees "atonement", "Trinity" and "incarnation" and thinks there is one single view of each of these doctrines which is held by all Christians. That's like assuming that all Republicans would vote for Sarah Palin.

Now for my second criticism. AcesLucky insists that failing to believe in the atonement is a first class ticket to hell. Sure you could find some Christian who would say that not believing in their understanding of a particular doctrine will send you to hell. And if you want to equate the teaching of the Christian church with that person, you're free to do so. But remember you're just knocking down a strawman. Jesus talked a lot about hell. And he never said that failing to believe in a particular view of his as yet future atoning death will send you there. But he did have a lot to say about those who fail to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit the sick in prison.