“My hermeneutic of the scripture is one of pluralism and inclusion and yours is one of exclusivism” is a self-defeating statement. Why? EinP believes his viewpoint is true to the exclusion of another. EinP is also an exclusivist. The question still remains, which viewpoint is true? Indeed, truth is exclusive by nature and EinP proves that by saying “my hermeneutic” versus “yours.”

“It is a good and valuable religion that works for many” is the philosophy that whatever works is true. But is this philosophy true? No, not by any means. For example, a lie will work but a lie is a lie, not truth. How many times have you lied to your spouse so that there is not an ensuing argument? It works, but lying does NOT make something true. Similarly, something that works does not automatically make something true.

“God doesn’t burn people forever because of their dogmas. This is inconceivable to me.” Because something is inconceivable does not mean it is not true. In other words, truth is not dependent on what a person can and cannot conceive. This would be arrogance at its finest for, according to this viewpoint, only that which is conceivable is true. Moreover, if I am a Jew and do no good things for my fellow man or my environment, does that mean I am eternally condemned? The key word is “do.” “Do” implies action. The axiom “Judaism is a religion of deeds, not creeds” is very appropriate here. Believing Messiah rose from the dead (to prove His divinity and His exclusivistic message) is vastly different than believing what YOU did to earn eternal salvation. In other words, belief in what the Messiah DID and belief in what you DID are infinitely different. By the way, the gates of hell are locked from the inside (yourself), not the outside (Adonai).

Now, I would be interested, though, in the 12 responses you said you could give. I’d also like to know how my remark is insensitive. Utterly wrong–I think I know the answer to that. We disagree on that one. But how is it insensitive for me to say that I don’t believe that Jews “sizzle and fry in Hell?” I believe if we are going to believe that people go to Hell, then we need to use language that captures that image. Sizzling and Frying certainly paints a clear picture of the fires of Hell.

However, I don’t believe that Jews go to Hell. The God revealed in Jesus Christ, the God who is love, does not engage in cosmic child abuse by burning humans in an eternal flame that never ends. Now, that’s insensitive. And not the Good News. That’s very Bad News.

There are a dozen responses I could give to this insensitive and utterly wrong statement. However, I will only write these words –
“I pray for you and your church.”

But not Jews. Or for that matter, Mahatma Gandhi.

I mean, think about it. Harold Kushner, the emminent rabbi and thinker spends an entire life doing good and helping people through his books, yet all that counts for nothing and when he dies, he is rejected by God and consigned to burn in eternal torture forever and ever in flames that never quit.

But Karla Faye Tucker can murder a person with a pick ax during a drug fueled rage, after a life that has contributed nothing, and go to prison and have a conversion and get to go to Heaven simply because of her dogma.

That is both unjust and not Gospel. It is not the God I proclaim when I preach.

Your friend is not frying and sizzling. A loving and just God doesn’t do that.

My response — You assume incorrectly if you think I find peace in knowing where those who reject Jesus are sending themselves. It breaks my heart and rends my soul into a million pieces. I find myself weeping and in physical pain on more than one occasion. In fact, the eternal destiny of my dear friend who has been gone for more than 5 years still haunts me.

What is amazing about my faith in God is that what you call exclusive I find inclusive. Our sins could have assigned ALL of humanity to perdition but He loved His creation enough to die, as the incarnate Messiah Jesus, for the sins of the world. All He wants is for us to turn to Him in our sinfulness and receive the gift of salvation for which Jesus shed His blood.

That is true biblical inclusivism (because none of us deserve His mercy) if you ask me. And that is the amazing, awesome, loving God that I serve and worship.

I think it is very important to get personal when discussing whether non-Christians go to Hell. That is, we need to think of people we know personally, our personal friends and colleagues who are members of other faiths. We need to move from asking if the Jew goes to Hell to “Does this particular Jew or Buddhist or Muslim–go to Hell.”

I do not think practicing Jews spend eternity in Hell. The Bible has multiple strands of messages–exclusion, inclusion, and pluralism. My hermeneutic is inclusive and my God is inclusive.

This is tragic as is my dear friend, and Holocaust survivor, who died without Jesus. He will not be in heaven when I reach those gates. In addition my heart breaks for the approximately 388 Jewish people who die every day without Christ and spend eternity in hell.

We don’t like to use that last word but it is the tragic reality of those who do not receive Jesus as Messiah, Adonai, and God.

Plain enough praxis for you.

You said, “As to your question–do Jews have to accept Jesus as Messiah to be saved, well the answer depends on the type of Christianity one accepts. I am am pluralist and I say no. It smacks of antisemitism.”

Actually, the answer doesn’t depend on what you or I think, but on what God says. Accepting a “type” of Christianity isn’t what Christ called us to do. He called us to empty ourselves of our own personal beliefs and put our faith on Him, which means taking Him at His word and believing the Holy Spirit, who in John 16, Jesus reveals to be His mouthpiece to the disciples when He is gone. They listened and now we have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Our faith is built upon the witness contained therein. So, as I said, it’s not about what I think, it’s about God has said in His word.

As for whether that is antisemitic, may I ask if you are an anti-DR-ite since you clearly disagree with me and do in some way hope to persuade me to change my view. Or what of Democrats, are they slanderous of Republicans and hate them when they debate and attempt to persude men and women to change their views? Certainly not! You see toleration doesn’t mean accepting everyone’s views as equally valid. It never has. It means being able to coexist with difference and being able to discuss those difference and persuade others without hateful or violent behavior. I personally think the most loving thing I can do is show someone the way to the Father. After all, Jesus did clearly say that “NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.”

Now, as for your comments about two missionaries who possibly contradicted what I said. I could easily produce missionary after missionary that contradicts what these men believe. Two men do not a majority make, nor a consensus, or even a legitimate argument (as it is a logical fallacy – Appeal to Authority). But one man’s opinion is not what counts, but rather the Word of God. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) clearly states that our mission (and that of the apostles before us) is to “19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

You see, Elhanan, we are commanded to baptize and make disciples. We can’t make disciples of Christ from those who don’t believe in Him can we? So to serve without need of making disciples is to toil in vain for we have no purpose (if indeed our command from our Saviour is to make disciples). It makes no sense. Why give your life, as men like Tyndale, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and those thousands who died last year and the year before and the year before that in China, North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere to the preaching of the Gospel if any old belief system will do?

You can reject my statement, but you have to deal with the logic of it, not merely quote people who don’t understand the Great Commission from their Saviour.

Finally, in your rationalization of your position you try to pit religion against religion as if they are equal. You are assuming your argument here. Paul did not believe all religions were the same. This is even admitted by some of the more moderate and liberal scholars of the day. So in order to make such an argument you must prove that either Jesus or Paul or Peter or some Biblical writer actually believes that all religions are of equal stature before God. It is that presupposition on which all of your theology hangs.

First, BDW, if you noticed I did go to the Bible and I showed pretty succinctly that Romans 11 can’t be used for pluralistic or inclusivistic arguments. My secondary argument is that of history and tradition. I use this one often with moderates and liberals because of at least two reasons, 1)I want to show that I am not alone in my understanding of Scripture. There is a thread of Biblical interpretation that runs throughout Church History on many topics, including inclusivism, homosexuality, and the role of women in the Church. In dealing with issues such as these I want to point out that I stand with the Church, not apart from it and that the opposing view is indeed one of a johnny-come-lately nature and not that of the historic Church. 2)I believe, as the Church always has, that the Holy Spirit inspired the text of the Bible and He leads men to understand what He inspired. There are many theological positions that are indeed based upon cultural leanings, but exclusivism (in this case) cuts across not only cultural lines, but chronological times as well. Unfortuantely, those who hold to inclusivism and certainly pluralism must pick and choose individuals here and there (many of which were rebuked by the Church – like Origen) for their views. Additionally, I find it important to establish that exclusivism is certainly not an American theology, as believers in China, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, and a host of other countries with various and sundred cultural perspectives hold to this view. So when one holds to an inclusivisic or pluralistic view, they must be informed that they hold to a position not only in the minority of Christians today, but a massive minority when measured against the backdrop of the Church universal. Thus, one must present a case that rivals no other to overcome this problem.

As for your comment that it is much easier for you to conclude that the Church Fathers were wrong than the Bible, I can concur. The problem comes when you must dismiss BOTH the Bible and the Church Fathers, which is what we have with an acceptance of pluralism and inclusivism.

While he has significant academic standing, though, his confessional standing is pretty thin. I am not imagining that he will have much influence in his own Reformed tradition on the question of whether Messianic Jews are Christians. That question has been settled since 100 CE. Despite the significant differences among the branches of Judaism, they are united in their conclusion that to become a follower of Jesus is to cease to be Jewish. It will be interesting to see if Cohn-Sherbok can persuade Reform Judaism, or the state of Israel, to think differently.