One of the common objections given by traditionalists against conditionalism and universalism is that if there is no hell, there would be no incentive to tell people the gospel; the good news about Jesus. What then would drive people to be missionaries overseas and seek out 'unreached people groups', etc.?
I think the basic answer can be drawn from my last post. Neither of the other views categorically denies that there is a hell in the first place. The traditionalist equates the word 'hell' with their view, but the dispute really lies in what the nature of hell is. All three views still think there is a hell to be avoided regardless. Conditionalists can still be motivated to have people avoid an eternal death and Universalists to avoid an indeterminate period of torment, suffering, or purging.
However, I think the more troubling thing is that this is even thought to be the primary motive at all as if avoiding something were the goal or aim of the Christian message. No. This is not the case. The good news is that we are renewed, restored, reconciled, and given life through Jesus. It is about what we enter into more than what we turn from. And it is about the present life and transforming the world through our selfless acts of service, grace, justice, truth, peace, and love. Perhaps this is why Christians in Western society are looked on so poorly by so many. We come off as judgmental, when we are not the judge. We are fixated on hell, when we are supposed to be setting our eyes on Jesus who was a friend of the outcasts and rejects of religion and society.
I think that there is undue weight placed on the doctrine of hell in our context. What to do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment