I’d be interested in getting some feedback from the group on these articles. They’re a couple years old now, but interesting and relevant:
patheos.com/blogs/slacktivis … ell-contd/
Kind of swamped with busywork already, but bumping the thread anyway. 
"And it’s not just that Paul is wholly silent, he also takes a very dim view of anyone who suggests that he left anything out of the gospel he preached. This is it, he said repeatedly, this is the gospel and nothing other than this and nothing more than this. I have not left anything out. Anyone who adds to it, he said, should be “accursed.”
He didn’t say they were going to Hell, mind you. Because Hell was not a part of his gospel — it was something he left out, an omission later correct by those who felt the gospel Paul preached was insufficient and incomplete.
Bell’s argument — from what I’ve seen thus far — is compatible and congruent with our understanding of the gospel Paul preached. Team Hell oddly insists that its own gospel is not, but that it corrects what they see as the defect in Paul’s teaching — the Bellishly deviant omission of the central and essential doctrine of Hell."
This is just brillant.
It is true that Saint Paul might not have thought of election and destruction as related to the afterlife.