The Role of Hell in the Gospel Message?

[anochria]

Nice distinctions.

[Paidion]

I'm curious to discuss whether people think the topic of hell (regardless of which classical view you take on it) should have any important part of the gospel message we as Christians present? If so, how much emphasis should be placed on it?

Probably one of the most prolific spreaders of the gospel was the apostle Paul. Yet, in all of his letters, he didn't mention hell even once (though he did warn people of the negative consequences of wrongdoing).

[Jepne]

"Or another way to put it would be is there any place for an appeal to fear in the gospel message?"

When someone comes to you who is aware that he needs help, up to his neck in fear and confusion and sick and tired of being sick and tired, he is already in hell - he doesn't need more of it. He needs to meet the Lover of his soul, his Deliverer.

When we are conversing with someone who does not know he is lost, he needs to be provoked to question the way he has been living and thinking, and I do not think we should be answering questions people are not asking.

[Candlepower]

Concerning the word Gehenna, here are some remarks by Thomas B. Thayer from his work, The Origin and History of The Doctrine of Endless Punishment.

John Baptist, who preached to the most wicked of men, did not use it once. Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and yet never once mentions it. Peter does not name it, nor Jude; and John, who wrote the gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelations, never employs it in a single instance.

The Book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching, and the history of the first planting of the Church among the Jews and Gentiles, and embraces a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the disciples and apostles of Jesus, there is no mention of Gehenna. In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner!

It seems the Apostles set the standard (as given by Jesus) for evangelization and Kingdom building. If they turned the world upside down with hardly a mention of hell, I don't think we can do any better by using it.

[Homer]

In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner!

This claim by Thayer is a real head-scratcher.

So the brief accounts of evangelistic sermons by a few, in the Book of Acts, contain every thought expressed by the apostles as they went about preaching the gospel to the lost? Where does Thayer get his proof that the apostles James, Andrew, Matthew, Bartholomew, Philip, Thomas, Judas son of James, James son of Alphaeus, Simon, and Matthias never preached "the torments of Gehenna"? Thayer proves his assertion with evidence that is non-existent, which proves his assertion!

Quite ironic that, according to evangelical universalists, hell will convert far more souls than the gospel ever will. But it should never be mentioned now, it converts best by experiencing it.

[Singalphile]

It could possibly be an important part of the gospel message to convince people that God will not keep them alive forever for no apparent reason other than to suffer and be hopelessly miserable.

Otherwise, if a non-believer has no notion of hell, then I would have to say that it's not very important based on its lack of mention/clarification in the epistles.

[mattrose]

Quite ironic that, according to evangelical universalists, hell will convert far more souls than the gospel ever will. But it should never be mentioned now, it converts best by experiencing it.

I'm not an evangelical universalist, Homer.... but I think we should be clear: No evangelical universalist believes hell will convert anyone. They believe the gospel (the good news of the kingdom of God) will eventually be received by all. It's not a matter of HOW people are saved (they are all saved by Jesus' blood), but a matter of WHERE they are when they are saved by the 1 true gospel.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but it seems to me it does so via misrepresentation.

[Homer]

Matt wrote:

No evangelical universalist believes hell will convert anyone. They believe the gospel (the good news of the kingdom of God) will eventually be received by all.

I am aware of what they claim. But for those who have heard the gospel now and rejected it, the only difference is hell. How many would repent if left to go their way without hell? Or are they presented with a different gospel?

I am certainly not one who consigns those who have never heard of Jesus to either hell or annihilation; the scriptures, I believe, are almost silent on those.

[mattrose]

Most of us, in this life, did not receive the Gospel the very first time we heard it. It took some time. I think all that the best evangelical universalists are claiming is that some people take more time than others. So the 'difference' is not so much 'hell' as it is 'time'. It's a change of degree and not of kind. Whether they are right ultimately comes down to whether something changes at death that prevents God from continuing to desire their restoration OR them from having any potential desire to repent.

[Candlepower]

Thayer said

In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner!

Matt said

“So the brief accounts of evangelistic sermons by a few, in the Book of Acts, contain every thought expressed by the apostles as they went about preaching the gospel to the lost?”

I agree with you, Matt, that the brief accounts of evangelistic sermons by a few, in the Book of Acts, certainly don’t contain every thought expressed by the apostles as they went about preaching the gospel to the lost. But I don’t think Thayer is saying those brief accounts do contain an exhaustive record of that era.

I, too, scratched my head when I read Thayer's sentence standing alone. But read it in connection with the sentences before it. Here they are:

The Book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching, and the history of the first planting of the Church among the Jews and Gentiles, and embraces a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the disciples and apostles of Jesus, there is no mention of Gehenna. In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner!

Thayer says at the beginning of the paragraph’s first sentence, “The Book of Acts contains the record….” He starts the next sentence with, “In all this history….” In the next sentence (the one you quoted in your post), he begins with, “In thirty years of missionary effort….” I see the “…thirty years of missionary effort…” in terms of the “record” and “history” mentioned in the two preceding sentences. You may be right, but based on its context and its natural flow from the two sentences preceding it, I think Thayer is still speaking, in sentence three, in terms of the history recorded in Acts (as mentioned in sentences one and two) and not to hypothetical history.

I’ll give Thayer the benefit of the doubt and will assume he was not making an “assertion with evidence that is non-existent….” I don’t think he’s actually asserting what you think he’s asserting. I think he was careful to describe Acts as recorded history, and it seems what he said in sentence three is in terms of that recorded history. I don’t think he leaped to the unprovable conclusion that no Apostle ever preached "the torments of Gehenna."

Perhaps Thayer should have started the third sentence this way: “In the thirty years of missionary effort as recorded in Acts….” That may have eliminated all doubt about what he meant when he said, “…these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner!” But based on sentence three’s context, I think that is what Thayer was saying. And based on the facts of Acts alone, that seems like a true statement to me.

Was there never a mention of Gehenna by any of the Apostles as they preached throughout the Empire (and beyond)? I can’t imagine it wasn't ever mentioned. But there’s no record it was, and that’s what it I think Thayer is saying. There’s no record of it. I suppose it is as unprovable to assert the Apostles never preached Gehenna as it is to assert they did. But based on the history we have, it appears to me they didn’t.

An aside: in my early years as a Christian, I sat under “hell-fire & brimstone” preaching… week after week, month after month, year after year (I no longer sit there). So it’s amazing to me that today’s heavy emphasis on hell has such meager Scriptural precedent. “Getting saved” has become synonymous with getting a ticket out of hell, and not much more, usually. I’m afraid that is what much evangelization has been based on for a long time, which makes it quite different from the recorded history of the Apostles’ preaching.