• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians--Do Evangelicals Believe Everyone Else Going to Hell?

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
So where does that put me? I have heard of Christ and fully expect to be judged according to what I "do in fact know".
Am I a Christian, in YOUR opinion? Some Christians say I am, some say I'm not. What am I? Who is right?

I'll leave that sort of determination up to God (or uss_bigd).
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Read what I said. The name isn't important, understanding who Christ is and what he did is. If a Muslim converts to Christianity, but out of habit still refers to Christ as Isa, then he will still be saved because he/she has faith that Christ bore the punishment of his/her sins. Now most people who refer to Christ as Isa are Muslims, so they aren't saved, but it isn't because they call him Isa, it's because they don't trust him for their salvation.

It's also quite a predicament that Mormons are in right now. You say that you believe in the same Christ as Biblical Christians, but yet Joseph Smith's testimony about his vision stats that he was told that all current religions were wrong, that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." (The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith). Gordon B. Hinckley, your "prophet", also said these things:
Your religion's own prophets have said that they do not believe in the same Christ, and your religion is founded upon the idea that all other Christs are wrong. So to say you believe in the same Christ would be tantamount to condemning yourself as an apostate. Joseph Smith testified that in his vision that God told him that all current religions were wrong, which is the reason he used to found Mormonism. So if you believe that he actually had this vision, how can you now say that you believe in the same Christ as Biblical Christians, even excluding the vast number of contradictions between the Bible and the D&C?


Just in case anyone would like some help understanding what Latter-Day Saints believe about Jesus Christ:

JesusChrist.lds.org
 

Izdaari

Emergent Anglo-Catholic
Am I a Christian, in YOUR opinion? Some Christians say I am, some say I'm not. What am I? Who is right?
I would say you are a Christian, albeit a heretical one... but to be a heretic, you must first be a Christian. LDS have, in the opinion of we Nicene Christians, some rather odd beliefs about Christ and various other matters. But according to Romans 10:9-10, if you confess Him as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you are saved. It doesn't say "confess Him as Lord and have an orthodox theological understanding of His divine nature and of the Trinity". God does not expect us all to be theologians, much less perfectly correct theologians. It is enough that we do our best to follow Him, according to our best understanding.

Just my opinion of course. Only God's opinion really counts on this. :angel2:
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
I would say you are a Christian, albeit a heretical one... but to be a heretic, you must first be a Christian. LDS have, in the opinion of we Nicene Christians, some rather odd beliefs about Christ and various other matters. But according to Romans 10:9-10, if you confess Him as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you are saved. It doesn't say "confess Him as Lord and have an orthodox theological understanding of His divine nature and of the Trinity". God does not expect us all to be theologians, much less perfectly correct theologians. It is enough that we do our best to follow Him, according to our best understanding.

Just my opinion of course. Only God's opinion really counts on this. :angel2:
As I understand it, the Southern Baptist Convention says that LDS are not Christians, therefore hell-bound. If you are correct, does that discredit the SBC? Do you see the problem of inconsistency within the traditional Christian community?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I would say you are a Christian, albeit a heretical one... but to be a heretic, you must first be a Christian.
Well, I guess that beats the alternative point of view. ;)

LDS have, in the opinion of we Nicene Christians, some rather odd beliefs about Christ and various other matters.
What do Nicene Christians have to say about pre-Nicene Christians?
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
What do Nicene Christians have to say about pre-Nicene Christians?

Good bunch, baked good cookies. :) jk

Before the creeds were formulated and endorsed, the nature of the relationship between the divine in Christ to the divine in the Father was an open question. So Arians and Athanasians (as unitarians and trinitarians would come to be called) would both be considered more or less orthodox. Interesting question!
 

Izdaari

Emergent Anglo-Catholic
As I understand it, the Southern Baptist Convention says that LDS are not Christians, therefore hell-bound. If you are correct, does that discredit the SBC? Do you see the problem of inconsistency within the traditional Christian community?
From my PoV, I think the SBC is incorrect about many things. Overall, they don't differ from Izdaarian orthodoxy nearly as much as LDS, but I'd still call them heretical on a few points... in a loving way. And I'm sure they'd say the same about my unique brand of Emergent Pentecostalism. But despite our differences, I still call us (you, me and the SBC) brothers and sisters in Christ.

Certainly traditional Christians don't agree on everything, but I don't see that there's any real need for us to. We agree on the most important things, and I see that as sufficient.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Good bunch, baked good cookies. :) jk

Before the creeds were formulated and endorsed, the nature of the relationship between the divine in Christ to the divine in the Father was an open question. So Arians and Athanasians (as unitarians and trinitarians would come to be called) would both be considered more or less orthodox. Interesting question!

So, before a group of men had humbly laid down their glorious opinion about the nature of God, God could accept believers of either christian group but once mighty man had spoken, God had to respect those wise men and their determination and only "save" the Nicene christians.

Aint that kinda backwards?

All this time I thought it was God's job to do the explaining and ours to listen rather than the other way around...


Hey! God!... It's Comprehend down here.... I want a pony!!!
 

uss_bigd

Well-Known Member
Acts 26:17-18

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Why would Christ send Paul to the gentiles if they were already condemned?
hence, they are not condemned. The important question then is, who is considered a gentile?:angel2:
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
So, before a group of men had humbly laid down their glorious opinion about the nature of God, God could accept believers of either christian group but once mighty man had spoken, God had to respect those wise men and their determination and only "save" the Nicene christians.

That's not what I said. Read what I said again and lose the attitude.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
That's not what I said. Read what I said again and lose the attitude.

There was no attitude, it was humerous. Maybe you should try to lighten up a bit.

Also, my reading comprehension is just fine. Maybe you could take another whack at explaining it...
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
There was no attitude, it was humerous. Maybe you should try to lighten up a bit.

Whatever...

Also, my reading comprehension is just fine. Maybe you could take another whack at explaining it...

I beg to differ. If you think what I said implies your parody, you should get back to your Grade 1 English primers for a review. Besides, since you've already shown me that you're not all that interested in anything but parody, why should I bother?

For a good example of how to disagree with dignity and respect, look at almost anything written by Katzpur.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Whatever...

I beg to differ. If you think what I said implies your parody, you should get back to your Grade 1 English primers for a review. Besides, since you've already shown me that you're not all that interested in anything but parody, why should I bother?

For a good example of how to disagree with dignity and respect, look at almost anything written by Katzpur.

If you don't like someone making a point with humor, you shouldn't go outside, or on the internet anymore.

Like I said before, if you think my characterization is incorrect, maybe you could explain where I got it wrong... :)

Since I'm brand new here, thanks for showing me the ropes. I can see that you are a wise RF veteran. I'll look up that Katzpur fellow when I get a chance but that guy looks like he is a cat lover and I like dogs more so I couldn't be friends with him. (of course the guy is soft on you, he is a cat lover for crikey sakes, real men love dogs... uh, that came out wrong.)

If you REALLY want to argue about what you wrote, I'll be happy to. You said (implicity or explicitly) that before the Nicene creed, either understanding would be "orthodox", or, in other words, get one into heaven (in your opinion). BUT, after the creed, one must adhere to the Nicene understanding in order to be considered "orthodox", which means as I pointed out in my parody, that man had just dictated to God, rather than the other way around.

I still want a pony. :cool:

ps. I got a perfect score on the reading comprehension portion of the LSAT, what did you get?
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
f you REALLY want to argue about what you wrote, I'll be happy to. You said (implicity or explicitly) that before the Nicene creed, either understanding would be "orthodox", or, in other words, get one into heaven (in your opinion). BUT, after the creed, one must adhere to the Nicene understanding in order to be considered "orthodox", which means as I pointed out in my parody, that man had just dictated to God, rather than the other way around.

"Orthodox" does not mean "get into heaven." And "getting into heaven" is not a matter of being fully "orthodox".

Before Nicene, the question of the relation of the divine in the father and that of the divine in the son hadn't been fully worked out. The disputants would all have been regarded as being equally orthodox. The whole point of the debate (and the council of Nicea) was to settle this question (only partially successful -- another council was needed). Post Nicene, the issue had been decided. Thus, to be fully in communion with the church, and to be regarded as fully orthodox, one must hold a Nicene understanding of God.

That said, NOTHING follows about a person's status as "saved" or whatever. A non-Nicene Christian might well be saved. If she is, it's not because she is (or isn't) Nicene. It's because she confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in her heart that God raised her from the dead. However, because she holds to a different notion of what the words "Jesus" and "God" mean, she won't enjoy full communion with the church.

Being saved is a matter of placing one's whole future in the hands of God and thus obeying Jesus as your Master. Being a member of the church is different. If you don't hold to the Nicene faith, you are out of fellowship with the historic Christian church. Salvation has to do with your fellowship with God. Conformity to the creeds is a matter of fellowship with the church. These are different points.
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
"Orthodox" does not mean "get into heaven." And "getting into heaven" is not a matter of being fully "orthodox".

Before Nicene, the question of the relation of the divine in the father and that of the divine in the son hadn't been fully worked out. The disputants would all have been regarded as being equally orthodox. The whole point of the debate (and the council of Nicea) was to settle this question (only partially successful -- another council was needed). Post Nicene, the issue had been decided. Thus, to be fully in communion with the church, and to be regarded as fully orthodox, one must hold a Nicene understanding of God.

That said, NOTHING follows about a person's status as "saved" or whatever. A non-Nicene Christian might well be saved. If she is, it's not because she is (or isn't) Nicene. It's because she confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in her heart that God raised her from the dead. However, because she holds to a different notion of what the words "Jesus" and "God" mean, she won't enjoy full communion with the church.

Being saved is a matter of placing one's whole future in the hands of God and thus obeying Jesus as your Master. Being a member of the church is different. If you don't hold to the Nicene faith, you are out of fellowship with the historic Christian church. Salvation has to do with your fellowship with God. Conformity to the creeds is a matter of fellowship with the church. These are different points.
If a non-Nicene Christian can be saved (assuming 'being saved' means you are admitted into heaven), what are the reasons for being in "full communion with the church"?
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
"Orthodox" does not mean "get into heaven." And "getting into heaven" is not a matter of being fully "orthodox".

If that isn't what you meant by it, then how was your response an answer to katzpur's question? The topic of this thread *does* happen to be "whether evangelicals believe everyone else is going to hell" so if you were not making that distinction with your orthodox designation, you weren't saying much of anything at all.

Before Nicene, the question of the relation of the divine in the father and that of the divine in the son hadn't been fully worked out. The disputants would all have been regarded as being equally orthodox. The whole point of the debate (and the council of Nicea) was to settle this question (only partially successful -- another council was needed). Post Nicene, the issue had been decided.

hmm. I disagree, I think Jesus did a fine job of explaining the relationship before the pagans got to doing it.

Thus, to be fully in communion with the church, and to be regarded as fully orthodox, one must hold a Nicene understanding of God.

That said, NOTHING follows about a person's status as "saved" or whatever.
Bummer, that was kind of the point of the thread...

A non-Nicene Christian might well be saved. If she is, it's not because she is (or isn't) Nicene. It's because she confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in her heart that God raised her from the dead. However, because she holds to a different notion of what the words "Jesus" and "God" mean, she won't enjoy full communion with the church.

Somehow I doubt it would matter much to one who is "saved" that they do not enjoy "full communion" with the church...

Being saved is a matter of placing one's whole future in the hands of God and thus obeying Jesus as your Master. Being a member of the church is different. If you don't hold to the Nicene faith, you are out of fellowship with the historic Christian church. Salvation has to do with your fellowship with God. Conformity to the creeds is a matter of fellowship with the church. These are different points.

ok... but the thread isn't asking about anyone's fellowship with the church so if that was your point, I would have to ask *why* you bothered to make it when the topic is salvation, not fellowship in a church? :shrug:
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
ok... but the thread isn't asking about anyone's fellowship with the church so if that was your point, I would have to ask *why* you bothered to make it when the topic is salvation, not fellowship in a church? :shrug:
No, but the conversation went that way. Sorry to have confused you.
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
Mainstream Christians tell us repeatedly that the Bible is enough and that we need nothing beyond it. Then why did we need the Nicene Creed?
 
Top