Christians--Do Evangelicals Believe Everyone Else Going to Hell? (Jesus Christ, gospel)

[Orontes]

Dunemeister,

Thanks for the link on Wright. I'll see if I can get my hands on the two books you cite.

Question: what do you (or perhaps Wright) mean by traditional Jewish monotheism? I have used strict monotheism as the basic referent in our discussion. I've done so to clarify a position that recognizes God as one, singular, exclusive etc. This is the view typical to Jewish thought as it exists now (and would correspond with Muslim understanding). Is this what you mean? Of course, such a view is contra any addition to that Divine one and would thus preclude any claims Jesus was also Divine.


The notion of "lesser gods" is telling. The "lesser" notion applies a valuation that isn't found in the grammar. Even so, were one to simply cede the idea, it doesn't really do anything for the base issue of plurality. A simple illustration from the Hebraist Michael Heiser regarding Psalms 82:1

אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט׃

"God stands in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he passes judgment."
"The first אֱלֹהִים is clearly referring to a singular entity (God) due to subject-verb agreement and
other contextual clues. The second אֱלֹהִים is obviously plural due to the preposition ,בְּקֶרב
since God cannot be said to be standing in the midst of a (singular) god or Himself."

The above is a simple illustration of a divine plurality. Moreover, Elohim itself is plural. It is distinct from the singular El or Eloah etc. Therefore something more than one is entailed in the meaning, that more than one undercuts any strict monotheism.

As to plurality as a device to convey royal dignity: I spoke to this in my first post in the thread. "(T)o apply the pluralis majestatis to Hebrew texts would be anachronistic. No such phrasing existed in Antiquity or within Hebrew parlance." The whole notion of pluralis majestatis is derived from aristocratic landed association which has feudal and manorial roots. It is not a concept found in Antiquity.

I can't agree with your stance on textual criticism or any larger point that may reject historical analysis of texts. While I do think there is value in seeing a compilation of text(s) as a whole i.e. the Tanakh as it speaks to the tradition that has kept it one way over another. Even so, within the text(s) there is clear indication of redaction and thus change. The direction of the change is clear given currently held views juxtaposed against other elements of the text. Dating the changes can be seen by comparing with other works/texts that have parallel views from the archeological record. It seems the only reason to reject a critical approach is to preserve a theological stance. This is the dogmatism I referred to earlier.

[IIChr7:14]

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Acts 4:12
New King James Version

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
John 14:6

I have nothing against these verses, Christ is the salvation, He will save men, If your with Christ and Christ is with you then you will saved. But God can also save men if He wants to,

1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

and

I Corinthians 5:13
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

God will judge those from the outside, If it is God's will to save men from the outside, what can we do? If they will obtain God's mercy then it is not for us to question God.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by Starfish

Anyone who has not accepted Christ--the Christ that fits the traditional Nicene definition--is doomed to hell. Is this your belief? Really?

Evangelicals pay no attention to the Nicene definition as a rule - that would be Catholics and Orthodox. Scripture alone is the rule for evangelicals.

We do believe and proclaim without shame or embarrasment that to be saved you must be born again. I find no comfort or hope in the scriptures for those who die without Christ. The wages of sin is death, if your sins are not forgiven but are imputed to you you will be found guilty at your judgement.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Evangelicals pay no attention to the Nicene definition as a rule - that would be Catholics and Orthodox. Scripture alone is the rule for evangelicals.

If only that rule were scriptural, huh?

The scriptures are diverse and contradictory and require considerable interpretation; might it not be more accurate to say that Evangelicals, in their interpretation of scripture, don't worry about adhering to the Nicene Creed?

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

If only that rule were scriptural, huh?

Good point!

The scriptures are diverse and contradictory and require considerable interpretation; might it not be more accurate to say that Evangelicals, in their interpretation of scripture, don't worry about adhering to the Nicene Creed?

It would be better (IMO) to say that evangelicals (most protestants) adhere to what is defined in the Creed, but deny the authority of the Church(s) that defined it.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Scott1

It would be better (IMO) to say that evangelicals (most protestants) adhere to what is defined in the Creed, but deny the authority of the Church(s) that defined it.

Quite so.

[*Paul*]

[quote]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

If only that rule were scriptural, huh?

We find it justifiable that if a teaching comes from God it is authoritative, that goes without saying. If a doctrine does not come from God it is not necessary or essential and is worthless if it contradicts the word of God. Simple commonsense really.

We agree with Gregory of Nyssa:
"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Soul and the Resurrection (St. Gregory of Nyssa)

The scriptures are diverse and contradictory and require considerable interpretation;

Not really.

might it not be more accurate to say that Evangelicals, in their interpretation of scripture, don't worry about adhering to the Nicene Creed?

It's another way of putting it, sure. I like the way I said it better though.