Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell?
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:40 am
I originally placed this question on the thread "Church fathers view of hell", but it was not answered. It would have changed the topic. Therefore, I have moved it here.
Steve,
Pete
Steve,
The eternal conscious torment view has been the most popular view among Christians for quite a few centuries. As such, I think it is a correct assessment to say that most of the unbelievers who live among us are well aware of the ECT view, but they are not aware that any alternatives exist. If someone should present the gospel to such a person and if he fails to mention that other views exist, then isn't this tantamount to asking the person to accept both the gospel and by implication the ECT view also? Given the likelihood, as described above, that ECT hinders men from belief it seems prudent for anyone who is unconvinced of ECT to raise the topic when presenting the gospel. However, you are suggesting this should not be done. Why not? The apostles, of course, cannot be relied upon for a precedent here because they did not preach to an audience that believed that ECT was an essential part of the Christianity they were being asked to accept. Thanks,Steve wrote:Do you equally object to the preaching of eternal conscious torment in evangelistic settings? If not, why not? It is a much more damaging view of the biblical God than is universalism. Neither view can be proven conclusively, but, if wrong, the traditional doctrine slanders a good God by making Him a monster. It tends to leave the unbeliever with the impression of an unreasonable and vengeful deity, toward whom they feel revulsion and anger. By contrast, if restorationism preached, but is wrong, it at least presents a God who resembles the God presented in the teachings and example of Jesus. The same people who were drawn to Jesus would be drawn to this kind of God, since they are alike—like Father, like Son.
Pete