Featured Evangelical conditionalism

It depends on what you mean. If you mean a literal Hell, then Jesus preached little on the topic. If you mean judgment, then he preached a lot. We are called to preach the gospel to the lost (not Heaven, not Hell, but Christ). The gospel, as a whole, includes judgment. But not Hell as the topic itself.

 

Verse please. Thanks.

 

My comment was that the statement Jesus preached more on Hell than Heaven depends on the context. It is not wrong at all - look at Scripture if you doubt this is true. How many times did Jesus preach Hell (the "second death" as Hades and death is cast into Hell)? How many times did He preach Heaven (the Kingdom of God)?

Evangelism is witnessing of the gospel. We preach the gospel of Jesus Christ which includes (as I stated) judgment (and Hell, as this is the "second death"). But if you are trying to say that we witness by "preaching Hell", then I have to say you are advocating another gospel. Hell is presupposed (and in need of explanation), NOT the substance of the gospel.

 

I think the difference is I am thinking of street preaching (and of "preaching on Hell" I've heard in that context). I wasn't accusing you of preaching another gospel (just want to be clear).

 

You are confusing what I actually wrote as saying we don't need to explain sin or Hell. This is not what I said and it is not what I mean.

 

Yes, they preached the cross - the need for redemption and that redemption has come.

 

You can feed a man a fish or teach him to fish. If you are right and no one on this forum understands the elementary difference I stated between one evangelist standing on the street preaching Hell and another proclaiming the gospel (to include the consequences of sin) then they need to learn critical reading skills, not be coddled in their ignorance.

 

Not to me. It seems patently obvious to me.