Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell?

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell?

Post by thrombomodulin » 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,
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.
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,

Pete

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by steve7150 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:14 am

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,








But they did preach about a judgment by God which probably came across as a scary event. I don't think we can even process eternal anything , particularly initially when we hear the gospel. What draws people is the pathway to have a relationship with God IMO, so initially I wouldn't get into what judgment entails unless asked. If I were asked I would say what I believe which is that unbelievers die in their sins and my understanding is that it may be possible for salvation after death but there are no guarantees and the unsaved left at the end (if any) are destroyed.
If I were asked about ECT I would address it as a traditional belief but I would explain why I think it's inaccurate.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by Singalphile » Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:34 am

Good question. When I listen to or read some people - Christians who place importance on a lot of theology - I wonder how they deal with evangelism. How much do they require a potential convert to understand?

One could add all sorts of other views and -isms to the question, insofar as a lot of people think they know what Christianity says about certain things.

(I knew a non-Christian who was complaining about having to take some sort of course on Christianity at a local Catholic university. He had attended a Christian secondary school and he figured he already knew all that stuff. I, having attended the same Christian school, found that to be funny and sad.)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:40 pm

Singalphile wrote:When I listen to or read some people - Christians who place importance on a lot of theology - I wonder how they deal with evangelism. How much do they require a potential convert to understand?
That is a different topic. I am concerned that non christians will view God as a monster because they have been previously informed that ECT is the only view that exists. If we say nothing about hell when sharing the gospel, we implicity affirm that idea, and allow this difficulty to remain an unnecessary obstacle to their belief. This is why I am perplexed as to why Steve advises not raising this topic when presenting the gospel in the circumstances that exist in our culture.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by Singalphile » Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:51 pm

Yes, "hell" is perhaps unique in that regard, thrombomodulin. I look forward to any response.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by steve7150 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:06 pm

If we say nothing about hell when sharing the gospel, we implicity affirm that idea, and allow this difficulty to remain an unnecessary obstacle to their belief. This is why I am perplexed as to why Steve advises not raising this topic when presenting the gospel in the circumstances that exist in our culture.









I don't think it's a real obstacle unless someone says it is. For some academics it may be but the average person is just trying to make it through the week, so hell to them might be their life.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by Homer » Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:05 pm

That is a different topic. I am concerned that non christians will view God as a monster because they have been previously informed that ECT is the only view that exists. If we say nothing about hell when sharing the gospel, we implicity affirm that idea, and allow this difficulty to remain an unnecessary obstacle to their belief. This is why I am perplexed as to why Steve advises not raising this topic when presenting the gospel in the circumstances that exist in our culture.
And I have long seen universalism as an obstacle to both belief and being faithful after becoming a Christian. If a person believes that hell is a place of reformation, and as soon as one yields to Christ (a "free will" conversion while being tortured) they will get a pass out of hell, that is certainly going to be considered when severe temptation comes. And for the unbeliever they can say "well, even if this God thing is true I'll just convert in hell and get out.

Once they are in hell, if not annihilated, there isn't one shred of scripture that says they will stay there for any particular length of time if their stay is not eternal.

dizerner

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by dizerner » Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:22 pm

Flee the coming annihilation/eventual reconciliation just doesn't have the same ring to it.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by steve » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:32 am

Hi thrombomodulin,

I know this OP was addressed to me, but I have had a houseful of guests for five days, and very little time for responding. In the meantime, steve7150 has answered essentially as I would.

When I say that there is no view of hell that is inherent in the gospel presentation, that does not mean that there would never, in some conversations with unbelievers, be any reason to discuss the different views of hell. I also don't think that the problem of suffering—though vexing to many—is an inherent part of the evangelist's message. This doesn't mean that we would never discuss the Christian view of such things with an unbeliever. We might feel that we know what God will do with those in hell, or what is the best explanation for the problem of suffering, but the gospel can be fully preached without reference to either. They are not part of the call into the Kingdom, which is what the gospel entails.

This does not mean that such subjects are irrelevant to the task of the educator or the apologist. If someone is having problems with the question of hell, I am more than willing to clarify to them that the only view they have heard is not the most probable view, according to scriptural evidence. However, I would not tell them which of the alternatives is more probable, since, if I knew that, I would be more inclined to espouse one of them. It is enough that there is better evidence from scripture for the two alternatives than for the traditional view. It is not my place to preach one view of hell or another in my presentation of the claims of Christ to the unbeliever. It may become, in conversation, my duty to inform him that the opinion of hell that he has heard and assumed to be true is never affirmed clearly in scripture, and need not be a stumblingblock to him.

Homer,
And I have long seen universalism as an obstacle to both belief and being faithful after becoming a Christian. If a person believes that hell is a place of reformation, and as soon as one yields to Christ (a "free will" conversion while being tortured) they will get a pass out of hell, that is certainly going to be considered when severe temptation comes. And for the unbeliever they can say "well, even if this God thing is true I'll just convert in hell and get out.
I wonder if this is a theoretical position, or one that you have seen to be true. If someone says, "I won't follow Christ now, because I can make that decision in hell," then I think he has given us excellent evidence that he is in no state of mind to be saved today. People who are convicted of their sin, and ready to do the kind of business with God that will result in salvation, do not talk that way. They, instead, cry out, "What must I do to be saved?" At least, that is what the Book of Acts indicates. No one is in the mindset to be saved who does not think that God is more important than anything else.
Once they are in hell, if not annihilated, there isn't one shred of scripture that says they will stay there for any particular length of time if their stay is not eternal.
I have to agree with you. But what does this prove? The Bible doesn't tell us anything about the specific duration of one's suffering in hell. Why should it? Do you think God wants to put that information out there as kind of a "bargaining chip" for those deciding whether or not to hedge their bets? In my understanding of scripture, God is not the least bit interested in bargaining with sinners. He offers ultimatums, not negotiations.

dizerner,

You wrote:
Flee the coming annihilation/eventual reconciliation just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Is this an exegetical argument about something? John the Baptist's question, "Who warned you to flee the wrath to come?" Does not specify what form that wrath might take (though I am quite certain that he is referring to the destruction of the Jewish state and religion, in AD70).

Most people would find a credible threat of death or annihilation to be a very persuasive thing. It was the general observation made by Satan (a most shrewd observer of human motivations!): "All that a man has will he give for his life" (Job 2:4). Jesus seemed to agree that this is generally the case (Luke 9:25). A gun to the head will induce most anyone to comply with the wishes of the one whose finger is on the trigger.

In fact, in ordinary life, most intelligent people even seem to be persuaded to rein in their worst impulses by the threat of merely corrective punishments—whether it be their father's belt or a prison sentence. Neither of these expressions of "wrath" result in death or eternal torment, but what a fool a man would be to be unmotivated by their threat!

If one would object that these threats do not induce most people to become Christians, the obvious reply would be that the threat of eternal torment, preached almost exclusively for the past 1500 years, has similarly failed to persuade most men to be saved. The problem is that most sinners do not believe, or take seriously, the threat. Those who don't believe in hell will not be motivated by threats of hell—no matter how it is described to them. One reason that most people don't believe in hell is that they have only heard a version of it that is manifestly so out of sync with the character of God that we have preached as to make it seem surreal. A more biblical presentation of the subject is also, by nature, a more believable one.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Gospel message should include or exclude 3 views of hell

Post by thrombomodulin » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:51 am

Hi Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to answer this question. Given that it was a holiday weekend, and a small hint in the other thread, I thought you were probably busy with other things. That answer is satisfactory and answers my question - thanks!

Homer,
Steve wrote:
Homer wrote:And I have long seen universalism as an obstacle to both belief and being faithful after becoming a Christian. If a person believes that hell is a place of reformation, and as soon as one yields to Christ (a "free will" conversion while being tortured) they will get a pass out of hell, that is certainly going to be considered when severe temptation comes. And for the unbeliever they can say "well, even if this God thing is true I'll just convert in hell and get out.
I wonder if this is a theoretical position, or one that you have seen to be true.
I know an example which is not exactly the same, but should suffice to make Homer's point. You might recall a thread I started a few years ago called "If eternal conscious torment is false, then its 'party time'". At the time I was attending a bible study where we went through Francis Chan's book "erasing hell". Another man who was attending affirmed this position using almost exactly the words I used to create the title of that thread. He never became convinced of either alternative view of hell and, as far as I am aware, he remains faithful to Christ - if only out of fear of ECT.

Pete

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”