(first paragraph)You are talking about semantics. What do you imagine that I think the gospel is. I do not think that the gospel is God.
(second paragraph)We are not responsible for their fate they are. What does this have to do with the recognition of that fate.
(third paragraph) what is your point?
(fourth paragraph) I do not understand the point of your hypothetical Mr.Church situation
(fith paragraph) You are literally proving my point
Which is there is one way to obtain unity with Christ and to be adopted as a son of God and then to be glorified (which I consider to be in heaven). Which is to believe and have a living faith in God. If you do not believe and do not have a living faith you do not receive grace and mercy. You receive exactly what everyone deserves hell.
If everyone deserves hell, then salvation from hell comes, strictly speaking, through grace as a gift but must be received in faith as a gift. How do you know to whom, how and when God offers that gift? You are not privy to God’s offer in the depths of the souls of others. Why would you want to place yourself in the place as mediator as if God needs you to speak for him? God communicates intimately with each person in the depths of their being. He does not need you to translate the offer of the gift or to place undue pressure on them to accept that gift.
Your job is merely to make the offer of the gift known to them in as kind, respectful and compelling a way as possible. It is not to use failure of acceptance as a cudgel to beat them with.
Jesus never said to the Pharisees, to sinners, to those who crucified him that they were destined to hell. He said, “Father forgive them.” This would have been a meaningless token if he knew their fate. If Jesus never presumed to say of anyone, even those who crucified him that they were destined for hell, why would any one of us presume to lead others to think their fate is certain? We should be telling them about God’s mercy and pleading to God on their behalf, just as Jesus did. He is the example we are to follow.
The two great commandments are “Love God with your whole heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If we follow your paradigm it promotes an understanding of these commandments as “You’d better love God and your neighbor or you’ll be consigned to hell.”
This doesn’t seem to properly set the sincere and proper motive for loving God or one’s neighbor. It very much makes the impetus for trying to follow the commandments as “saving your own skin.” I am not clear that a pure and sincere love for God and one’s neighbor will ever come about as a result of fearing hell.
The doctrine of hell may be a warning to not commit evil or do harm, but it will not suffice as a foundational motive for residence in the Kingdom of Heaven. To teach this doctrine as a central reason for belief is simply misguided.
