Does everything have to be the gospel?

[timothyu]

Sorry man, this was kind of hard for me to follow. Are there any passages that are related to this that I could read up on?

You spoke of what we hope to get but not of what we are expected to give up.

The 72 odd scriptures where Jesus refers to the Gospel of the Kingdom. The good news that God is coming to reverse the ways of man. The news we have it backwards and need to step through the looking glass for God to know us (unlike the Lord lords whom He does not). But here is a good start...

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

The truth is there in scripture but in the religion gentiles created, the Adversary still controls the narrative.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[Gary K]

Nothing about the removal of the self serving will of man over fellow man or God?

Of course there is. Heaven will not have any self serving people. I thought that was so obvious it didn't need to be said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christianity is one of the most historically contingent religions. The NT authors were addressing themselves to a non-Christian world, and were thus concerned primarily with belief and conversion. The early church dealt a lot with "Judaizing," and thus spent a lot of time on the Jew/Christian distinction. The early councils dealt with Christology, the second millennium dealt a lot with schism, our global age wrestles with pluralism, etc. So it strikes me as odd to say that a sermon in 2024 should devote the same percentage of time to each topic that a sermon in 54 would.

The Hell question is pertinent today because we live in an optimistic, progressive age where people no longer believe in Hell. Universalism is the standard post hoc rationalization, the heresy du jour. In the first century the general doctrine of Hell was ubiquitous, both formally and implicitly. So the reason a pastor should spend more time on Hell in 2024 is because there has been a sea change with respect to this question.

Actually, I wasn't arguing for any of that. In the context of this thread, I'm merely alluding to the interior social point that a number, perhaps a large number, of Ex-Christians identify that the teaching of an "eternal Hell" has been one of their biggest turn offs from Christianity.

So, being that I've darkened the hallowed ground of a number of Baptist churches over the years and have heard my fair share of Protestant preaching, there has been too much in the way of the ol' Finney style "anxious bench" focus upon an eternal hell (sic). I'm thinking that it would simply be better and more relevant to modern ears to lean more toward the Mars Hill form of preaching rather than driving people into the existential ground with eternal hell, hell, hell and even more eternal hell.

It would probably behoove Christian leaders to finally dig into Ethics and the Ontological questions that underlie today's secularized assumptions about Human Rights to better address felt social concerns among the public. As it is, I've almost never heard Apologists talk about the philosophical nuts and bolts of today's Human Right's paradigm which gets in the way of effectively being relevant. ... and again, let's not assume hasty generalizations as to what I mean by analyzing today's Human Rights paradigm.

Does this mean, ultimately, that I'm inferring that no preaching about "hell" (sic) should be undertaken by pastors/preachers? No, it doesn't mean that. What I'm intending to 'mean' is that modern fundamental Christian preachers (of all sorts) might be overly assured of their particular denominational brand's emphasis on this doctrine as well as of their chosen rhetoric by which they deliver their messages about 'hell.' And all of the anti-intellectual hand-waiving I've received for the last 15 years I've been on CF doesn't help me to see that they aren't doing much more than the very hand-waiving that I've cited ...

In essence, I think they should do a better Hermeneutical and Exegetical job than they do. But hey! I get it. That's "Uh-mer-ee-khan" Protestantism, where political power is the most important thing over and above having Hope in Christ against the onslaught of oncoming Death (by which I mean, "Physical Non-Existence").

Also, just a reminder: I'm not a universalist. I never have been.

 

[FameBright]

Actually, I wasn't arguing for any of that. In the context of this thread, I'm merely alluding to the interior social point that a number, perhaps a large number, of Ex-Christians identify that the teaching of an "eternal Hell" has been one of their biggest turn offs from Christianity.

So, being that I've darkened the hallowed ground of a number of Baptist churches over the years and have heard my fair share of Protestant preaching, there has been too much in the way of the ol' Finney style "anxious bench" focus upon an eternal hell (sic). I'm thinking that it would simply be better and more relevant to modern ears to lean more toward the Mars Hill form of preaching rather than driving people into the existential ground with eternal hell, hell, hell and even more eternal hell.

It would probably behoove Christian leaders to finally dig into Ethics and the Ontological questions that underlie today's secularized assumptions about Human Rights to better address felt social concerns among the public. As it is, I've almost never heard Apologists talk about the philosophical nuts and bolts of today's Human Right's paradigm which gets in the way of effectively being relevant. ... and again, let's not assume hasty generalizations as to what I mean by analyzing today's Human Rights paradigm.

Does this mean, ultimately, that I'm inferring that no preaching about "hell" (sic) should be undertaken by pastors/preachers? No, it doesn't mean that. What I'm intending to 'mean' is that modern fundamental Christian preachers (of all sorts) might be overly assured of their particular denominational brand's emphasis on this doctrine as well as of their chosen rhetoric by which they deliver their messages about 'hell.' And all of the anti-intellectual hand-waiving I've received for the last 15 years I've been on CF doesn't help me to see that they aren't doing much more than the hand-waiving that I've cited ...

In essence, I think they should do a better Hermeneutical and Exegetical job than they do. But hey! I get it. That's "Uh-mer-ee-khan" Protestantism, where political power is the most important thing over and above having Hope in Christ against the onslaught of oncoming Death (by which I mean, "Physical Non-Existence").

Also, just a reminder: I'm not a universalist. I never have been.

I'm guessing you don't believe that the messages are God inspired and subtlely influenced by God. I'd like to think so and that every message has a purpose regardless of what it is or how it is conveyed.

You don't feel that God speaks through Christian leaders as he did with Moses?

Exodus 4:10-12
I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm guessing you don't believe that the messages are God inspired and subtlely influenced by God. I'd like to think so and that every message has a purpose regardless of what it is or how it is conveyed.

You don't feel that God speaks through Christian leaders as he did with Moses?

Exodus 4:10-12
I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.

Which specific "messages" are you referring to? Surely you don't mean to imply that any leader in just any ol' church today who decides to preach about "hell" is automatically inspired by God when doing so.

 

[FameBright]

Which specific "messages" are you referring to? Surely you don't mean to imply that any leader in just any ol' church today who decides to preach about "hell" is automatically inspired by God when doing so.

Whatever messages everyone else was talking about: sermons, speeches, orations, teachings, lectures, etc. given by pastors, preachers, clergy members, religious leaders, or maybe anyone ordained to speak. Were you referring to anything specific?

I've often times heard Pastors speak about divine interventions or anomalies that compel them to speak about certain things or topics and I believe that the messages coming from sermons, speeches, orations, teachings, lectures, etc. is applicable to someone somewhere out there.

I get that there are more central and uplifting themes in Christianity, such as love, redemption, grace, forgiveness but there may be someone out there that may need to hear about Hell in its accentuated format.

Everybody is different. Some people need to be told what to do and others don't. Some people respond well to encouragement while others don't.

I personally never felt that Pastors emphasized Hell more than anything else so I didn't even know it was a thing. Definitely interesting to know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever messages everyone else was talking about: sermons, speeches, orations, teachings, lectures, etc. given by pastors, preachers, clergy members, religious leaders, or maybe anyone ordained to speak. Were you referring to anything specific?

I've often times heard Pastors speak about divine interventions or anomalies that compel them to speak about certain things or topics and I believe that the messages coming from sermons, speeches, orations, teachings, lectures, etc. is applicable to someone somewhere out there.

I get that there are more central and uplifting themes in Christianity, such as love, redemption, grace, forgiveness but there may be someone out there that may need to hear about Hell in its accentuated format.

Everybody is different. Some people need to be told what to do and others don't. Some people respond well to encouragement while others don't.

I personally never felt that Pastors emphasized Hell more than anything else so I didn't even know it was a thing. Definitely interesting to know.

Yes, I already mentioned earlier to another poster that there are church leaders who apparently preach so hard about "hell" that some people are leaving their churches, letting go of their faith altogether and then making the claim that the over-exertion that those preachers made about hell was a traumatizing experience.

Fortunately for me, I was never overly concerned with 'hell' as a topic for spiritual motivation, and I've usually known better than to assume that everything I was told at the fundamentalist churches I attended was always correct. I've also had, to my favor, the fact that I've always been more or less realistic in my outlook upon the Christian faith and have been much more concerned with finding an antidote to oblivion (i.e. death).

Anyway, on the other hand, yes, I agree with you that occasionally some folks may need to have a firmer message expressed to them about the possibility of damnation. We know that the New Testament texts depict Jesus as making a discernment among those He preached to. But as it is, I don't think there is an abundance of preaching today giving the other side of the coin where Jesus is reported to have said, Matthew 11:29-30.

 

[Miles]

The gospel is the point. Not something we should lose sight of. It is crucial to our faith and relationship with God. There is much to learn from other passages as well, but separating them from the gospel would be to our detriment.