Heaven vs. Hell is OK

I found myself discussing a relatively popular objection to "confrontational" evangelism with Tyson today. Some feel that reducing the evangelistic encounter to a question of heaven or hell distracts the attention from the centrality of God Himself and instead concentrates excessively on the individual and his personal comfort. One can certainly understand the motivation. The presentation of the preeminant Christ is of great importance, and it may seem compelling to avoid concentrating too concretely on anything else.

So... is it acceptable to preach the Gospel in terms of "heaven vs. hell"? Well, where is the scripture on this? I wanted to do a quick survey of one-to-one evangelistic encounters in scripture, and see what the typical picture is in the Bible:

Rich Young Ruler (Matthew 19:16) -- "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Jesus goes along with his query, and even tells him (academically of course) that it is by keeping the law. This is done to show that the ruler's pet sin of coveteousness will condemn him.

Nicodemus (John 3) -- "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The kingdom of God is the eternal, heavenly kingdom. Nicodemus is to consider how he can get there. What ensues is a contrast between those who are condemned and those who receive eternal life.

Woman at the Well (John 4) -- Here, Jesus uses a concrete transition from well-water to living water as a symbol for eternal life (explicitly in verse 14). The acquisition of eternal life was the gateway to this conversation which concludes with a hard-hitting rebuke concerning her adultery and postmodernism.

Philippian Jailor (Acts 16) -- Prompted by the events surrounding the earthquake, the jailor's introductory question: What must I do to be saved? It is final, eternal salvation that is the focus of the conversation -- and it's apparently a valid central concern for the jailor.

Felix (Acts 24:25) -- The three topics of discussion were righteousness, temperance, and judgment. The discussion was of the eternal state, evidently concentrated on Hell and final things.

Some Counter-Examples
In some cases, this is not the primary focus of discussion. Philip preaches Christ as the Lamb of God to the Eunuch (Acts 8) and Paul affirms the resurrection and preaches contrition and repentance to Agrippa (Acts 26). Further, some of the open air preaching examples are not focused on an individual's afterlife, such as Pentecost.

Conclusion
It is not necessary to show that the biblical examples all support a "heaven vs. hell" or "reward vs. judgment" approach to the evangelistic conversation. It is sufficient however, to show, that it is acceptable to use these as a focal point with a lost person. We should feel no shame when accused of distracting from the centrality of Christ.

Ultimately, the centrality of Christ is that the death, burial, and resurrection (the Gospel itself) is for the very purpose of setting Him forth as a propitiation for our sins to allow for reconciliation. The eternal aspect of this work of Christ is the most concrete, accessible, and farthest-reaching consequence of our response to the Gospel.

It is strongly biblical to entertain an individual's query about how to get to heaven (the rich young ruler), and also to lead off with the importance of obtaining eternal life (woman at the well). The essentials of the Gospel include all these things, and escape from judgment is at the heart of the Good News.

Caveats
It is important to note that in no case is a positivistic presentation made without clarity about the negative. Heaven is not presented as a target without discussion of judgment. Even the Philippian Jailor is clearly shaken and contrite, requiring the briefest presentation (we also don't know what he heard in the hymns prior).

The error of easy believism is not in asking whether someone expects to be in heaven, or what it takes to get eternal life -- it is in baiting someone with the chance to easily and quickly make sure of it right away, without even understanding the Gospel. Quick prayerists say, "Would you like to make sure of heaven right now with this simple prayer?" A non-prayerist says, "What does it take to get to heaven?"

Paedobaptism

The following passage is oft used to defend the doctrine of infant baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 reads:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

The argument proceeds thus: the old covenant was sealed by circumcision as the induction into the faith of Judaism; similarly, baptism is the inductive rite into the new covenant. Baptism, then, replaces circumcision for the people of God. Circumcision was administered on the 8th day after one's birth -- ergo, baptism should be administered to infants. Many who adhere to paedobaptism also hold baptismal regeneration, concluding that the infant baptism is the beginning of saving faith for the individual.

In my regular reading yesterday, a passage sprang out to me that I had not previously noticed except in passing. Romans 4:8-11 reads as follows:

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

The point being that Abraham was not yet circumcised when his faith was counted to him for righteousness. This is the specific point of this passage -- Paul is using it as a logical argument against the idea that the gentiles are not party to God's redemptive plan.

Furthermore, if this dissertation of Paul's is to be used in concert with our passage in Colossians, then it shows that baptism is only a ritual seal of the covenant. It has no salvific power any more than Abraham's circumcision saved him.

Even more, it occurred to me that the circumcision of the numerous seed of Abraham was a sign and seal of the abrahamic covenant. Each Israelite's circumcision was a reference to Abraham's, like a little footnote saying, "See God's promise to Abraham." It was a symbol of Abraham's faith. Likewise, our baptism is a symbol that refers to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, by which we are saved. It's not the actual thing, it refers to the actual thing.

Looking at these passages together, it is exciting to me to see the "scripture defines scripture" principle tying these ideas up very nicely. Thoughts?