Hell…an unpopular concept to be sure. But is it necessary to preach about hell in order to spread the gospel? Or to put it another way, is the fact that something is unpopular a justifiable reason to ignore, gloss over, or re-interpret portions of Scripture?
Food for thought. And while you’re thinking, here’s an article by Al Mohler worth reading: Alert the Media — A Pastor Believes in Hell
An excellent book – “Hell Under Fire” – a compilation of articles about the truth of eternal separation from God. I wonder if some of the reaction to the subject (other than the overarching fact that no one wants to think of himself or others as accountable to God) has been the tendency to be lazy about putting together the whole counsel of God regarding the place. I’m encouraged that men of your generation are turning off the air conditioner of apostasy on the subject.
Thanks for the recommendation. I think the reaction includes what you state, but also comes as a reaction to “tradition.” You state that men of “my generation” are turning off the air conditioner of apostasy on the subject, but alas, it I see many men of my generation seeking to be so culturally relevant that they end up watering down anything that is deemed to be offensive by the culture they’re trying to please.
But…there are some! Though I definitely wouldn’t put Al Mohler in my generation.
True – there are many who try to be too culturally relevant. Diane West in her book “Death of the Grown-Up” does a good job attacking this. However, that’s to be expected. When there is a move out of apathy there also tends to be polarization. The PC folks (not meaning Pastor Comings) is bent on mental mush. However, it seems to me that there are more and more articulate voices such as Al Mohler’s who are taking them to task. Yes, the government is dedicated to the philosophies of Neville Chamberlain, but there are more Churchillian types beginning to be heard. Keep up the good work.
hhcomings, can you please explain the churchill/ chamberlain analogy.
It was, after all Chamberlain that decalred war of Germany, not Churchill. Chamberlain bought England 1.5 vital years for rearmamment in 1938. Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty during the horrific Gallipoli campaign that wasted the lives of so many ANZACs.
I’m not sure we can immediately demand a rise in Churchills when Cahmberlains may actually serve a vital role. . ..
“Peace in our Time”
Hi Phil! About Chamberlain/Churchill
<< It was, after all Chamberlain that decalred war of Germany, not Churchill.
Churchill was in no position as an MP to declare war, but he had been calling for that declaration (and suffering abuse for that) for years.
<< Chamberlain bought England 1.5 vital years for rearmamment in 1938.
That wasn’t his goal. When Germany invaded Poland and England was compelled to declare war the British people were not armed or prepared. It was Churchill’s behind-the-scenes preparations which enabled him to set the wheels in motion to play catchup as soon as he was moved into leadership.
<< Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty during the horrific Gallipoli campaign that wasted the lives of so many ANZACs.
That was in 1916. “Lord! Remember not the sins of my youth.” (Psalm 25:7)
<< I’m not sure we can immediately demand a rise in Churchills when Cahmberlains may actually serve a vital role. . .
There is some truth to the cliche – the best defense is an adequate offense. Actually, both are necessary and should work in harmony. However, today’s effort to seek peace from worldviews which do not have peace at the core of their belief system is folly is not a harmonious working of offense and defense.
I agree, in that is it necessary to preach about hell in order to spread the gospel. Otherwise, when the question comes up as to whether a person is saved or not, the first question should be “Saved from what?” For the most part, people don’t understand that, if you have not received Christ, you don’t need to do anything to get to hell, as you are already on your way. Also, many do not have an understanding of hell, that is, that there is a difference between, Hades and Geenna. Hades being a place located in the heart of the earth, the abode of the lost dead who are in torment. After that, they are resurrected out at the end of the millennium only to stand before God at the great white throne judgment and from there to be cast into the lake of fire (Geenna). Jesus made it clear when He said:
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Geenna/Lake of Fire)
There is also another place translated ‘hell’, the word Tartaroo, which is used only once in the NT to describe the place that those angels who sinned where sent. Those who took wives from the progeny of men and produced giants and taught mankind sorcery, divination, the dividing of roots and trees, how make weapons of war, astrology, etc. Enter the flood!
We must learn to preach the Gospel without using hell as the motivation. The problem is that as soon as someone questions the existance of hell our entire Gospel falls to pieces, “well then why even be a Christian if there’s no hell?” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a universalist, but to preach hell as the reason we ought to love God is completely unBiblical. We love God for no other reason than the fact that He loved us. Loving God simply to “secure a nice after-life” is not love after all. That’s western consumerism…selling eternal insurance. I personally fear that many who “came to Jesus” out of a fear of hell alone will dreadfully discover upon death that they, in all reality, had no love for God, simply a fear of personal pain.
“I personally fear that many who “came to Jesus” out of a fear of hell alone will dreadfully discover upon death that they, in all reality, had no love for God, simply a fear of personal pain.”
So very well put! I actually was just at a huge, well known, evangelistic event where the “gospel” message was more about getting to heaven / escaping hell, than loving God. I know some people are genuinely saved from such preaching…which is more evidence of the fact that the Holy Spirit does the saving than anything else. But I agree that the thrust of the message misses the main point!
As to what role Hell plays in the gospel? One cannot adequately communicate the love of God without a proper understanding of the wrath of God.
Another thought – could it be said that if one does not love God, then even Heaven would be Hell?
That last point is a doozy. Let me give that some thought.
“One cannot adequately communicate the love of God without a proper understanding of the wrath of God.”
I agree. Too many nowadays are leaving that out when talking to others about God’s love. People don’t really understand that we deserve God’s wrath because most people think they are “good” people. God’s love becomes even more amazing when we see how wicked we are in His eyes, even though I don’t think we will ever fully grasp it..
I always enjoy your blog Daniel. Thanks.
you shoul read the story satan By Kahlil Gibran. Its a good story about a preacher who preached alot about hell and satan.