Preaching Hell

[aspen]

Is Hell a reality for some? yes. Should it be the focus of witnessing or our walk with Christ? NO! Hell is a real place where people end up who fail to submit their entire self to Christ for justification and sanctification. It is a place filled with the fire of regret and the burning of shame - it is a place filled with people and angels who have been given over to arrogance, radical individualism, and bitterness. So how should Christians deal with the reality of such a harsh doctrine?

I believe that Hell should be discussed as a condition of a heart, which has not been submitted to Christ and therefore has failed to be redeemed. It is a natural consequence of not submitting ourselves to Christ, rather than a death sentence that could be enforced at any moment by a blood thirsting, vengeful God. I would argue that choosing to view Hell as punishment that God will enjoy giving to His creation, encourages some Christians to dwell too much on Hell - using it to scare people into the Kingdom. I also think Christian boards end up turning into a place where some Christians run around pantsing the heretic with glee in their hearts, instead of preaching the good news of Christ. Freedom is the message of Christ and Paul - not condemnation. Yet, after reading some of the threads around here filled with fear and conspiracy theories, one would think that God really hates us, but has chosen to tolerate some just so He can keep His good reputation. Someone mentioned that it seems funny to them that liberals talk about fear all the time - I think liberals only talk about fear when they are describing a conservative message.

In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul approaches the people as a partner in Christ, not as a leader looking down on his people. He constantly appeals to common sense when correcting the people. He says things like - some of the behaviors being allow to happen in the church would not even be allowed outside the church! He has the authority of an apostle, but does not use it to crush the Corinthians, but instead, he approaches them in love and as an equal. The crazy thing about it is that in his second letter to the church he addresses a complaint from the Corinthians about how harsh he sounds in his first letter - just think what the Corinthians would think if they saw the correction some people without the authority of an apostle try to make on this board - they would most certainly flip out. Another complaint they made to Paul was that his letters seemed harsh, but he seemed like a weakling when he appeared in person and they accused him of hiding behind his writing. I think we have a lot to learn from Paul about correcting other Christians.

So, I think the Good news needs to be preached everywhere, all the time, and Hell should be mentioned in the same way as Polio or some other disease that needs to be inoculated against, rather than a punishment that God cannot wait to smite the sinner with.

 

[bud02]

Conclusion The doctrine of hell is crucial-without it we can't understand our complete dependence on God, the character and danger of even the smallest sins, and the true scope of the costly love of Jesus. Nevertheless, it is possible to stress the doctrine of hell in unwise ways. Many, for fear of doctrinal compromise, want to put all the emphasis on God's active judgment, and none on the self-chosen character of hell. Ironically, as we have seen, this unBiblical imbalance often makes it less of a deterrent to non-believers rather than more of one. And some can preach hell in such a way that people reform their lives only out of a self-interested fear of avoiding consequences, not out of love and loyalty to the one who embraced and experienced hell in our place. The distinction between those two motives is all-important. The first creates a moralist, the second a born-again believer.

We must come to grips with the fact that Jesus said more about hell than Daniel, Isaiah, Paul, John, Peter put together. Before we dismiss this, we have to realize we are saying to Jesus, the pre-eminent teacher of love and grace in history, "I am less barbaric than you, Jesus--I am more compassionate and wiser than you." Surely that should give us pause! Indeed, upon reflection, it is because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamations of grace and love are so astounding.

 

[Anastacia]

I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way, as it is being suggested in this thread. But, I have come across many Christians and Atheists who accuse Christians of preaching hell more than anything else. I'm not saying that some Christians don't preach hell over everything else....I'm just saying that this type of preaching must be rarer than others are letting on.

I do want to say that most people, in America, for sure, have read for themselves, by theirself, in the Bible, that there is a hell and people will be going there. They read about it, theirself.

 

[aspen]

Conclusion The doctrine of hell is crucial-without it we can't understand our complete dependence on God, the character and danger of even the smallest sins, and the true scope of the costly love of Jesus.


I disagree. This statement implies that God relies on evil to define our relationship with Him. Adam and Eve understood their reliance on God before the Fall. The Fall was not a necessary event. Although I do not believe God wanted the Fall to happen or relies on evil to clarify His goodness, I do believe that God created something good out of the Fall that did not exist in the Garden - forgiveness, the highest expression of love.


Nevertheless, it is possible to stress the doctrine of hell in unwise ways. Many, for fear of doctrinal compromise, want to put all the emphasis on God's active judgment, and none on the self-chosen character of hell. Ironically, as we have seen, this unBiblical imbalance often makes it less of a deterrent to non-believers rather than more of one. And some can preach hell in such a way that people reform their lives only out of a self-interested fear of avoiding consequences, not out of love and loyalty to the one who embraced and experienced hell in our place. The distinction between those two motives is all-important. The first creates a moralist, the second a born-again believer.

We must come to grips with the fact that Jesus said more about hell than Daniel, Isaiah, Paul, John, Peter put together. Before we dismiss this, we have to realize we are saying to Jesus, the pre-eminent teacher of love and grace in history, "I am less barbaric than you, Jesus--I am more compassionate and wiser than you." Surely that should give us pause! Indeed, upon reflection, it is because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamations of grace and love are so astounding.


I agree. I especially agree that one pitfall we can fall into is maligning God's character by discounting Hell, because Jesus did talk about it a lot. However, I do not believe that talking about Hell more is the answer. I will not back away from the doctrine of Hell, but I do adjust my understanding of it to fit what I know to be true about Christ. I know that Christ is all loving and I know he wants all of us to be in relationship with Him - not simply to avoid Hell. I guess I believe avoiding Hell is a poor reason to be in relationship with Christ - it is sort of like celebrating Christmas to get stuff.

 

[bud02]

Conclusion The doctrine of hell is crucial-without it we can't understand our complete dependence on God, the character and danger of even the smallest sins, and the true scope of the costly love of Jesus.

I disagree. This statement implies that God relies on evil to define our relationship with Him. Adam and Eve understood their reliance on God before the Fall. The Fall was not a necessary event. Although I do not believe God wanted the Fall to happen or relies on evil to clarify His goodness, I do believe that God created something good out of the Fall that did not exist in the Garden - forgiveness, the highest expression of love.

The statement was made in context of the present it does not imply the rhyme for the reason as to why we find ourselves in our condition today, or the days that Jesus taught about hell. The "presumed" unnecessary event you described, or that God wanted the fall to happen or relies on evil to clarify His goodness. I think those statements all come from your heart, not my statement.

Its true without transgression of the law there is no need for forgiveness, or is there? Rom 3:20 Rom 5:13 Without the law how would we know sin? The way I see it, lies the need for the first law "don't eat of that tree" so that all the emotions and conditions of mens hearts could be complete. Without that one condition "law" there is no free will, there is no choice, there is no right or wrong. Why do you think God called it the, tree of knowledge of good and evil? When they ate they became aware of their condition and covered themselves. Think about it, If Adam had not sinned we would live in a world full of people running around butt naked. Later came the 10 commandments and men became ever more aware of just how week we are, and how high the standards of God reach. Then latter Jesus said that if you conceive in your heart to commit adultery you have commit adultery raising the bar ever higher. So you tell me were Adam and Eve sinless according to these standards, its something Im going to sleep on, but its rather irrelevant to where I find myself today.
Are we really getting further or closer to God? Perhaps Adam and Eve lived under grace themselves? Because that's just where I find myself today, yet knowing my true condition.

 

[aspen]

The statement was made in context of the present it does not imply the rhyme for the reason as to why we find ourselves in our condition today, or the days that Jesus taught about hell. The "presumed" unnecessary event you described, or that God wanted the fall to happen or relies on evil to clarify His goodness. I think those statements all come from your heart, not my statement.

I was hoping that I was jumping to conclusions, but after reading the rest of your post, I am seeing what I was afraid of - that the Fall was necessary - that God indeed, is relying on evil to complete us - this interpretation is not correct.

Its true without transgression of the law there is no need for forgiveness, or is there? Rom 3:20 Rom 5:13 Without the law how would we know sin? In my sight lies the need for the first law "don't eat of that tree" so that all the emotions and conditions of mens hearts could be complete.

We would not need the law without sin. Without sin, we would have never fallen out of fellowship in the first place.

Without that one condition there is no free will, there is no choice, there is no right or wrong.

Not true. There was freewill before the Fall - Adam and Eve made choices between the good. Adam chose the names for the animals, for example. You do not need the presence of evil to have freewill. In fact, as a result of the Fall, we lost the ability to make good choices on our own.

Why do you think God called it the, tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Calling the tree the knowledge of good and evil is like a parent telling their child to stay away from a paddle called the wisdom stick! If you disobey and choose to investigate the wisdom stick you are going to be educated with a whipping - but you really never have to know what a whipping is if you choose not to investigate it. It is a fool's error - if we never chose to do evil we would never have to know the difference between good and evil.

When they ate they became aware of their condition and covered themselves.

They never had to know - they were created to love God, unashamed - but because of their choice they felt exposed.

Think about it, If Adam had not sinned we would live in a world full of people running around butt naked.

Without shame. That is not a bad thing - it was God's plan for us.

Later came the 10 commandments and men became ever more aware of just how week we are, and how high the standards of God reach.

The 10 commandments were given to humanity as part 1 of God's plan to redeem us. It would not have been necessary without sin entering the world because we would have been already making good choices.

Then latter Jesus said that if you conceive in your heart to commit adultery you have commit adultery raising the bar ever higher.

Actually, Jesus' response to God's omnipotence is our example of a proper response to God - it is part II of the plan to redeem us. Jesus would have come for us even if we didn't Fall, but we wouldn't have killed Him.

So you tell me were Adam and Eve sinless according to these standards, its something Im going to sleep on, but its rather irrelevant to where I find myself today.

I am not sure what you are asking - A&E were sinless before the Fall. After the Fall they were sinful. It was not God's fault that they chose to eat the fruit, nor was God setting them up to do so.

Are we really getting further or closer to God? Perhaps Adam and Eve lived under grace themselves? Because that's just where I find myself today, yet knowing my true condition.

If A&E didn't eat the fruit, your condition and my condition would be pristine - without sin. God revealed His omnipotence in the OT and gave us the law and then Jesus came and showed us how to properly respond to God's omnipotence and then died for us so that we could regain our humanity and pre-Fall relationship with God.


If you believe the Fall was necessary for us to be complete - you would have to believe that God told A&E not to eat of the fruit and then secretly hope they would eat of it and then punish them for caring out the plan. This is the description of an abusive parent, not God. He never wanted the Fall to happen and He has done everything possible to lead us back to the Garden - including sending His Son to die. BTW, your description of the Fall is taught in the LDS church - it is not found in Christian doctrine. It is dualism - good relying on evil.

 

[bud02]

From what I can see in your rather strange way of replying. " I can hardly see the difference between our statements"
Is that you disagree with the original topic and this one as well.

I was hoping that I was jumping to conclusions, but after reading the rest of your post, I am seeing what I was afraid of - that the Fall was necessary - that God indeed, is relying on evil to complete us - this interpretation is not correct.

You do jump to conclusions, frequently

Not true. There was freewill before the Fall

Isn't that what I said? like I said good night.

In my sight lies the need for the first law "don't eat of that tree" so that all the emotions and conditions of mens hearts could be complete. Without that one condition "law" there is no free will, there is no choice, there is no right or wrong. Why do you think God called it the, tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

[aspen]

From what I can see in your rather strange way of replying. " I can hardly see the difference between our statements"
Is that you disagree with the original topic and this one as well.


You do jump to conclusions, frequently


Isn't that what I said? like I said good night.

In my sight lies the need for the first law "don't eat of that tree" so that all the emotions and conditions of mens hearts could be complete. Without that one condition "law" there is no free will, there is no choice, there is no right or wrong. Why do you think God called it the, tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Wow - I seriously have no idea what you are trying to say. You tell me that I have a strange way of replying to your post, but you used phrases like "In my sight" What does that even mean?

How can I disagree with the original topic - I am the person who posted it......

Do you believe that the Fall had to happen or was exactly what God wanted to have happen, or not? If you are claiming that God wanted the Fall to happen or planned on it happening to teach us a lesson, you are wrong.

If you are not trying to say that the Fall was necessary, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[bud02]

Wow - I seriously have no idea what you are trying to say. You tell me that I have a strange way of replying to your post, but you used phrases like "In my sight" What does that even mean?

How can I disagree with the original topic - I am the person who posted it......

see quote from this post "below".

I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way,

Do you believe that the Fall had to happen or was exactly what God wanted to have happen, or not? If you are claiming that God wanted the Fall to happen or planned on it happening to teach us a lesson, you are wrong.

I don't think its completely clear, all I can say is the out come may lead to a greater understanding of the mind of God. Thats may personal observation.

If you are not trying to say that the Fall was necessary, I have no idea what you are talking about.

It would seem your the one that can't decide whether preaching hell is good or bad. But you have a definite opinion about Gods original intention for mankind.

I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way, as it is being suggested in this thread. But, I have come across many Christians and Atheists who accuse Christians of preaching hell more than anything else. I'm not saying that some Christians don't preach hell over everything else....I'm just saying that this type of preaching must be rarer than others are letting on.

So isn't that just what I said in my first post? So just what is it you are trying to say? It would appear you have some sort of contention with the message of hell, in the first sentence then retract it in the second.

I edited my post from "in my sight" to "The way I see it", lies the need for the first law "don't eat of that tree" so that all the emotions and conditions of mens hearts could be complete. Without that one condition "law" there is no free will, there is no choice, there is no right or wrong. Why do you think God called it the, tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Next I pointed out that sin was in the world but men did not know what sin was until the law came Rom 5:13. So the implication is that Adam and Eve lost their spiritual connection with God. That has now been restored threw Jesus and the Spirit. And those that walk in the Spirit are not under the law. Rom 7:6 The knowledge of the Law, Gods standard has become more evident in the knowledge of the law.

 

[Foreigner]

"Is Hell a reality for some? yes. Should it be the focus of witnessing or our walk with Christ? NO!" - aspen

-- I have yet to meet ANYONE who uses this type of focus in their Christian witnessing.

I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way, as it is being suggested in this thread. But, I have come across many Christians and Atheists who accuse Christians of preaching hell more than anything else.

-- I am in total agreement.

The times I have witnessed to people it has usually been during a time of difficulty and great upheaval in their lives.

I have spoken and shared scripture about Christ's sacrifice and undying love and what He can/will do for them if they accept Him.

When they are in that position the LAST thing they need to hear on top of everything else is that if they do not accept Jesus as their Savior they are going to perish.

I have never been part of or witnessed a group of people who make the threat of hell the focus of their witness.

What I HAVE seen though is people who come up (unprompted and unapproached) demanding to know why their lifestyle is wrong and who am I/are we to judge them.
Then it isn't a matter of talking about hell but simply sharing scripture. And the scripture focus is on love not specific scriptures about why their lifestyle is contrary to God's will.

These people approach me/us - not the other way around and are usually looking for a fight.

If they ask, they get the answer. They don't like the answer they get - even when the answer is that Jesus loves them and they can know eternal peace and happiness through him - isn't to their liking so they then get very angry.

And no I am not talking about just homosexuals. I am talking about drug users, those having sex outside of marraige, those having a faith where Jesus is a bit player instead of the center piece, etc.

 

[bud02]

Just a general observation.

Those of you that contend that hell can not be taught out of context. Any scripture can be taught out of context. Don't believe me just watch TBN and tell me you agree with the presentation of the word. For example the word seed has come to represent $20 bills. Plant a seed of faith today, I don't think the harvest or the seed Jesus spoke of was money JMHO as an example.

Miss use of the word of God

Mathew 4
[sup]1[/sup] Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. [sup]2[/sup] And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. [sup]3[/sup] Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
[sup]4[/sup] But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”[sup][a][/sup]
[sup]5[/sup] Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, [sup]6[/sup] and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:


‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,’
and,


‘ In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”[sup][b][/sup]

[sup]7[/sup] Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”[sup][c][/sup]
[sup]8[/sup] Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. [sup]9[/sup] And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
[sup]10[/sup] Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you,[sup][d][/sup] Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[sup][e][/sup]
[sup]11[/sup] Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Miss use of the word of God

Gen 3


[sup]1[/sup] Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
[sup]2[/sup] And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; [sup]3[/sup] but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
[sup]4[/sup] Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. [sup]5[/sup] For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The Word you should pay special attention to what the serpent said to Eve. It sounds like your statements.


Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.

But the point is, the advisory missuses the scriptures. Has God indeed said :you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Notice Eve also misquotes God and adds "nor shall you touch it" .....The leaven was in causing the whole loaf to rise. In the same way leaven has come into The Words understanding and now he to agrees that surly you shall not die. Seems pretty simple to me you believe God "you will die" or the serpent "you will not die".

I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way, as it is being suggested in this thread.

I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way, as it is being suggested in this thread. But, I have come across many Christians and Atheists who accuse Christians of preaching hell more than anything else. I'm not saying that some Christians don't preach hell over everything else....I'm just saying that this type of preaching must be rarer than others are letting on.

Your Bible doesn't say that sinners are going to hell. Only the flesh of man perishes but our souls live on forever.

 

[Foreigner]

"Your Bible doesn't say that sinners are going to hell. Only the flesh of man perishes but our souls live on forever." - the word

-- You're half way home Mr. Word. Now tell us, where will the souls of those who have died in their sin reside?

 

[religusnut]

One story on this discussion. I heard a testimony one time of a man that got saved one week during a revival at his home Church.

The revivalist preached on hell.

The next morning when he was at the breakfast table his wife who had been badgering him for years to go to Church and so forth asked him why did you choose last night to get saved when our pastor has preached on hell many times that you have heard.

His answer was last night that man preached on hell like he would do anything conceivable to keep me from going. The preacher we normally listen to preaches about hell like he wants me there. For me that was the difference.

Thought it was a cute example to add to this discussion.

 

[aspen]

see quote from this post "below".



I don't think its completely clear, all I can say is the out come may lead to a greater understanding of the mind of God. Thats may personal observation.


It would seem your the one that can't decide whether preaching hell is good or bad. But you have a definite opinion about Gods original intention for mankind.


So isn't that just what I said in my first post? So just what is it you are trying to say? It would appear you have some sort of contention with the message of hell, in the first sentence then retract it in the second.

I edited my post from "in my sight" to "The way I see it", lies the need for the first law "don't eat of that tree" so that all the emotions and conditions of mens hearts could be complete. Without that one condition "law" there is no free will, there is no choice, there is no right or wrong. Why do you think God called it the, tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Next I pointed out that sin was in the world but men did not know what sin was until the law came Rom 5:13. So the implication is that Adam and Eve lost their spiritual connection with God. That has now been restored threw Jesus and the Spirit. And those that walk in the Spirit are not under the law. Rom 7:6 The knowledge of the Law, Gods standard has become more evident in the knowledge of the law.

I didn't write half this post - I accidently mix in part of Anastacia's post into my post- that is why it is so confusing - sorry about that.

This part of the post is from Anastacia:

"I don't think that I have ever met in person, nor on the Internet, any Christian who preached hell in some wrong way, as it is being suggested in this thread. But, I have come across many Christians and Atheists who accuse Christians of preaching hell more than anything else. I'm not saying that some Christians don't preach hell over everything else....I'm just saying that this type of preaching must be rarer than others are letting on."

 

[Anastacia]

"Is Hell a reality for some? yes. Should it be the focus of witnessing or our walk with Christ? NO!" - aspen

-- I have yet to meet ANYONE who uses this type of focus in their Christian witnessing.


-- I am in total agreement.

The times I have witnessed to people it has usually been during a time of difficulty and great upheaval in their lives.

I have spoken and shared scripture about Christ's sacrifice and undying love and what He can/will do for them if they accept Him.

When they are in that position the LAST thing they need to hear on top of everything else is that if they do not accept Jesus as their Savior they are going to perish.

I have never been part of or witnessed a group of people who make the threat of hell the focus of their witness.

What I HAVE seen though is people who come up (unprompted and unapproached) demanding to know why their lifestyle is wrong and who am I/are we to judge them.
Then it isn't a matter of talking about hell but simply sharing scripture. And the scripture focus is on love not specific scriptures about why their lifestyle is contrary to God's will.

These people approach me/us - not the other way around and are usually looking for a fight.

If they ask, they get the answer. They don't like the answer they get - even when the answer is that Jesus loves them and they can know eternal peace and happiness through him - isn't to their liking so they then get very angry.

And no I am not talking about just homosexuals. I am talking about drug users, those having sex outside of marraige, those having a faith where Jesus is a bit player instead of the center piece, etc.

And I so agree with what you say here.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

The fear of God is the beginning of understanding...............

But, that's only after you believe.

Before you believe you have no fear of a hell or a longing for Heaven. You have no fear of punishment from God.

No offense to people who don't believe, but, Talking to an unbeliever about the danger of hell is like talking to a teenager who smokes about the threat of cancer.

THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM!

It seems to me, Hell should only be preached to believers, as we are the only humans capable of understanding the true reality of that place. Even then, many of us try not to understand that reality.

The danger of hell and others being thrown in is for us to know. It's for us to be thankfull for Salvation. It's for us to urge us to preach the Gospel and reach out to others.

All the preaching and teaching should IMO be love and acceptance.

Most people if they felt loved and accepted wouldn't delve into anything,, sex, drugs, cults, violence, and all other sorts of selfdestruction.

If you confront someone with a threat, they have two options, fight or flight. Guess which most people choose? And guess what happens to those who chose the fight option?
Those with the Flight, run away, and never look for God because they don't want to believe that the possibility of hell exists for them and don't want to imagine the chance that they will be there.
Those with the Fight, will stand and argue, and get angry, and decide ultimately that God is cruel. They won't turn to God because they will then hate someone they view as cruel and they will remain angry at anyone who stands to argue about hell with them.

However,,,, If you were to stand and show someone kindness, and compassion, and understanding and goodness, and acceptance without judgement,,, these will tend to help lead someone to God.

 

[Anastacia]

The fear of God is the beginning of understanding...............

But, that's only after you believe.

Before you believe you have no fear of a hell or a longing for Heaven. You have no fear of punishment from God.

No offense to people who don't believe, but, Talking to an unbeliever about the danger of hell is like talking to a teenager who smokes about the threat of cancer.

THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM!

It seems to me, Hell should only be preached to believers, as we are the only humans capable of understanding the true reality of that place. Even then, many of us try not to understand that reality.

The danger of hell and others being thrown in is for us to know. It's for us to be thankfull for Salvation. It's for us to urge us to preach the Gospel and reach out to others.

All the preaching and teaching should IMO be love and acceptance.

Most people if they felt loved and accepted wouldn't delve into anything,, sex, drugs, cults, violence, and all other sorts of selfdestruction.

If you confront someone with a threat, they have two options, fight or flight. Guess which most people choose? And guess what happens to those who chose the fight option?
Those with the Flight, run away, and never look for God because they don't want to believe that the possibility of hell exists for them and don't want to imagine the chance that they will be there.
Those with the Fight, will stand and argue, and get angry, and decide ultimately that God is cruel. They won't turn to God because they will then hate someone they view as cruel and they will remain angry at anyone who stands to argue about hell with them.

However,,,, If you were to stand and show someone kindness, and compassion, and understanding and goodness, and acceptance without judgement,,, these will tend to help lead someone to God.

But,...God's word is best, and God's word says---snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. Jude 1:23

So, don't know how to show mercy mixed with fear....if I can't talk about the possibility of hell. I mean, what can you say to them that will give them something to fear if you can't talk about hell? And how can I snatch someone from the fire without talking about the fire?

And I think that the thought of hell lingers on the minds of some of the hardest Atheists. I think they pretend hell doesn't bother them, but it does. I don't believe they reject God just because of hell either.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

But,...God's word is best, and God's word says---snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. Jude 1:23

So, don't know how to show mercy mixed with fear....if I can't talk about the possibility of hell. I mean, what can you say to them that will give them something to fear if you can't talk about hell? And how can I snatch someone from the fire without talking about the fire?

And I think that the thought of hell lingers on the minds of some of the hardest Atheists. I think they pretend hell doesn't bother them, but it does. I don't believe they reject God just because of hell either.

Just because we have a fear of God doesn't mean others will. We fear for their souls as well, why else would we want to reach anyone?

I'm not saying we can't talk about hell. It's a subject that needs to be handled very carefully.

The biggest point is, I don't believe causing fear and threatening someone is very effective. I also believe and know from my own experience that this type of fear and hell fire damnation pushes people away.

Standing and telling a person "You're going to hell!" does absolutely no good.

 

[Anastacia]

Just because we have a fear of God doesn't mean others will. We fear for their souls as well, why else would we want to reach anyone?

I'm not saying we can't talk about hell. It's a subject that needs to be handled very carefully.

The biggest point is, I don't believe causing fear and threatening someone is very effective. I also believe and know from my own experience that this type of fear and hell fire damnation pushes people away.

Standing and telling a person "You're going to hell!" does absolutely no good.

Why do you say that people who bring up hell do it wrong? Why do you say that they say it like this---"Standing" and yelling at a person"You're going to hell!"? Why is it that you don't think a Christian can speak of hell to someone without saying it so brainlessly? That was my point earlier, that there aren't the Christan hell preachers who do it all wrong---like it is being implied in this thread.

You say that you don't believe causing fear and threatening someone is very effective. Well, the Bible says it, so it must be effective.

And don't forget that most people, in, let's say America, have read for themselves about hell in the Bible. Most already know about it---because they read it themselves.

 

[veteran]

I think the majority of unbelievers in the Christian West well know about the Biblicl doctrine of hell and the lake of fire, regardless of whether they would admit believing it exists or not. I believe God has led them to still think about it, even in a state of unbelief. And that may have much to do why the unbelievers hate the idea and will use the concept of hell as a negative towards Christianity itself.


Rom 1:18-25
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(KJV)