Different Levels Of Punishment In Hell

             Christians would be rewarded differently in heaven, “Christians will be offered varying rewards in heaven (cf. Daniel 12:3; 1 Corinthians 3:14-15). The Bible says all Christians will stand before the judgment seat of God and each of us will give an account of himself to God (Romans 14:10,12). Apostle Paul writing to the church in Corinth tells the Corinthians, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (2 Corinthians 5:10; cf. Luke 19:17,19)... Even though there will be degrees of reward in heaven, the joy of each person will be full and complete for eternity. If we think that those with greater rewards or higher status would be more joyful in heaven, we are mistaken. For if those with higher status would be more joyful, the apostles and the heavenly creatures would be more joyful than the others. In a state of perfection, this disparity does not seem plausible.”¹

            Similarly, would there be varying degrees of punishment in hell?

            J. Warner Wallace in his article entitled “Are There Different Degrees Of Punishment In Hell?” writes: “In the next life, some will be punished more than others. There are clearly degrees of punishment...those who reject the teaching and calling of God will be harshly punished, while those who have less clarity on what can be known about God (“the one who did not know it”), will be punished with less severity... Those who know more are held in a higher degree of accountability and responsibility. If you know the truth about God and reject it, you will be punished more than someone who doesn’t yet know better.”²

            So yes, just as there will be varying rewards in heaven, there will also be different degrees of punishment in hell.

            If we are sure of going to heaven, let us strive for a greater reward.

Endnotes:

¹http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2021/04/varying-rewards-in-heaven.html

²https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-there-different-degrees-of-punishment-in-hell/

Websites last accessed on 18^th August 2022. 

No Hell, Pope?

            Pope Francis has a penchant to be embroiled in controversies.

            In an interview published on March 28, 2018, Pope told his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari that there is no hell. He also claimed that the condemned souls just disappear, “In another interview with his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis claims that Hell does not exist and that condemned souls just "disappear." This is a denial of the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of Hell and the eternal existence of the soul.

            The interview between Scalfari and the Pope was published March 28, 2018 in La Repubblica. The relevant section on Hell was translated by the highly respected web log, Rorate Caeli.”¹

            This, apparently, is the transcript of Pope Francis’ interview with Scalfari, “Scalfari says to the Pope, "Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?"

            Pope Francis says, “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."”²

            Quite immediately, on March 29, 2018, the Vatican debunked this report, “In a statement released on Mar. 29, after Scalfari's report garnered worldwide attention, the Vatican said:

            "The Holy Father Francis recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without however giving him any interviews. What is reported by the author in today’s article [in La Repubblica] is the result of his reconstruction, in which the textual words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father."”³

            Whether the Pope believes in hell or not is not the matter at hand. Hell, if it exists, would not cease to exist just because Pope Francis does not believe in it.

            But hell should exist because God is a just and a loving God. Consider my thoughts from a previous blog entitled, ‘Hell In The Presence Of A Loving God:’⁴

We believe a loving God would not send HIS children, even under the pretext of unbelief, to eternal torment. How would a loving parent gift his child with prolonged suffering? Would the parent not do all within his means to prevent this horrendous occurrence? This is our painful dilemma. In other words, we question the credibility of God’s love with respect to hell.

True love respects and educates, but never enslaves. A parent who truly loves his child will educate him of good and evil. A parent will do “everything” within his power and will to stop the child from pursuing evil, but that “everything” excludes enslaving his child. If a child is bent on pursuing the path of evil, the parent will choose preventive actions, but will never imprison the child into solitary confinement. The circumstantially handicapped parent may opt to allow the child to have his way; this is the respect the parent shows to the disobedient child’s cognizant volition. A defeated and emotionally fatigued parent will allow the child to continue in willful disobedience. Nevertheless, the parents’ love for the child will never diminish even if the child willfully rebels to disobey.

The father of the prodigal son not only heeds to the property share request of the son, but he goes a step further by not preventing his son from departing to a distant country with his share of wealth (Luke 15:12-13). The son willfully disobeys the loving father, and departs. The loving father expectantly longs for his son’s return and when he does return, the father rushes to welcome the son even before he repents. This is father’s love. A parent’s love will never cease and always hope for the best, but at the same time, a parent’s love will respect the child’s conscious decision.

Was it not C.S Lewis who opined that there are two groups of people in this world of which one group would acknowledge and believe in Christ, bend their knees to HIM and say ‘Your will be done,’ and God would have this group living with HIM unto eternity (in heaven). To the other group who refuse to acknowledge and believe in Christ and bend their knees to God, HE will say ‘your will be done’ and grant them their wish to be away from HIM (in hell). God keeps those who desire to be with HIM, but respects and allows those who reject HIM to be away from HIM. This is true love – a love that provides all, but refuses to enslave. (Please remember the Bible’s proclamation that God has given mankind enough evidence to believe in HIM.)

Let’s travel back to the creation account in Genesis. God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of it (Genesis 2:9, 16-17). Even though it was a command, Adam and Eve were given the freedom to accept or reject God’s command. Thus God exhibited true love, and HE desires mankind to love HIM. True love can only exist in the conscious reality of freedom. Freedom to accept or reject the lover is intrinsic in true love. Therefore, God’s love for mankind warrants the presence of heaven and hell.

God’s justice can also be questioned with respect to hell. How can a just God eternally punish HIS children for the sin of unbelief committed during the specific period of time of their existence in this world? Isn’t the eternal punishment disproportionate to the sin committed in time? This is another painful predicament we struggle with.

Human life was designed to be with God unto eternity through mutual love. Sin separated man and God. God, in HIS foreknowledge, designed a way out of this predicament through the one time sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. HE has also done everything for mankind to believe in HIM, so mankind will be without excuse against God. When man refuses to believe in Christ and thereby rejects God, God simply allows man to be away from HIM unto eternity. In other words, the creational intent is an eternal fellowship with God or an eternal banishment from God. Mankind makes the choice, and God honors that choice. This is Justice. Therefore, God’s justice warrants heaven and hell.

            We could consider this theme from another perspective as well. Consider my thoughts from a previous blog entitled, ‘Why The Hell:’⁵

Instead of asking “why should there be a hell?” we could ask “what would happen if there is no hell?”

So if there is no hell, there would be…

No Punishment & No Justice

Hell is the perfect punishment for evil. Since evil exists, punishment should prevail. If there is no hell, there will be no perfect punishment for evil…

Sovereignty of Evil

Evil people prosper in this time and age (cf. Psalm 73: 3). If evil people prosper, the weak and innocent would suffer deeply…When evil rules, evil would be the superior moral. If there is no consequence for evil deeds i.e. if there is no hell, good cannot be the superior moral (good need not be stronger than evil). If evil rules over good, evil would be the sole standard for life. Hence evil will pulverize the good.   

Amoral World

…If evil is sovereign, this world would be amoral (evil would be the only superlative moral). Wouldn’t morality cease when the right-wrong moral distinction is erased?  

…Predicated on the fact that life is more valuable than materials, it might be of less significance to the victim and the society if a thief who robbed a pen was not convicted of his crime. But it is of a great significance if a murderer of a child remains unpunished for his crime.

The thief who habitually steals pens could progressively deteriorate into robbing millions. During this progressive deterioration, the thief could also become a killer. Thus the possibilities for the lesser evil to transform into greater evil are endless…If evil rules, violence would be rampant and peace would cease, for the world we live in would be amoral.

God’s Non-Existence

A world without hell could only be postulated under the condition that God does not exist i.e. an atheistic paradigm. It is very reasonable for evil to prosper and justice and peace to be non-existent in the atheistic worldview.

The atheistic paradigm would not (or cannot) offer any reasonable or logical answers to the problem of evil. Such is the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

Ask an atheist to explain the presence of evil. More often than not, they would quote Richard Dawkins in his work “River Out of Eden” and say “there is no such thing as evil.”…So an atheist who denies God’s existence will deny evil and will deny hell. He has no other option. So if there is no hell, there is no god.

Conclusion

If there is no hell, then:

1. Evil would be unpunished.

2. Evil would be sovereign (rule over good).

3. World would be amoral.

4. There should be no God (for hell is only plausible if God exists).

But this is the existential reality…We are not living in a world where evil is sovereign. We are living in a world where God is sovereign. Although Satan is the temporary ruler of this world, the sovereign God is in total control.

We know that God is in total control since our world is not amoral. There are punishments for evils. Evil does not rule over good. 

Good still rules over evil. This is precisely why a good number of people enjoy a rather peaceful existence. The presence of God entails peace.

God has temporarily allowed evil to reign. But HE has assured us that not a hair from our head will perish.

God is good. God does not tolerate evil.

If we repent of our sins, believe and remain in the Lord and Savior Christ, we will be saved. Those who do not believe in Christ remain evil, since their sins remain unforgiven because of their conscious rejection of Christ.

Such an evil person sins against an infinite God. Sins against an infinite God mandate an infinite punishment in the form of hell. Hell then is the eternal abode of all those who reject Christ.

In case you have not received Christ yet, please pray and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your God and savior. I pray that you repent of your sins and ask Christ to forgive you. The merciful and loving Lord will forgive you and you will be with God forever and ever. I pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/pope-francis-there-no-hell?utm_source=sumome&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/02/hell-in-presence-of-loving-god.html

⁵http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/02/why-hell.html

Websites last accessed on 6 April 2018.

Why The Hell

            It’s no surprise that many people hate hell. Nobody loves punishment!   

            Hell is synonymous with evil, because hell is the abode of those who reject the one true and living God. Those who reject God are, by nature and in essence, evil. They are evil since they have not repented of their sins, so their sins are unforgiven.

            Heaven and hell are consequences for man’s life on earth.  If there’s no hell, people can do what they want and how they want. Those who do not want consequences for their actions hate hell.

            It doesn’t matter whether we like or hate hell. If it is there, it is there.

            Why the hell? Instead of asking “why should there be a hell?” we could ask “what would happen if there is no hell?”

            So if there is no hell, there would be…

No Punishment & No Justice

            Hell is the perfect punishment for evil. Since evil exists, punishment should prevail. If there is no hell, there will be no perfect punishment for evil.

            Human justice system is not omniscient. So some offenders will always escape the clutches of the human justice system. Moreover, corruption is rampant everywhere, and that includes the human justice system. Corruption entails that innocent could be punished and the guilty go scot-free.

            Whatever the case may be, lack of punishment is effectively the lack of justice. How can there be justice when evil people go unpunished and innocent people suffer?

            Therefore, if there is no hell, evil would remain unpunished. Hence there would be no justice.

Sovereignty of Evil

            Evil people prosper in this time and age (cf. Psalm 73: 3). If evil people prosper, the weak and innocent would suffer deeply.

            The movie “Purge” depicts a synopsis of a world where evil rules the good for a brief period of time. One day in a year is earmarked to “purge.” There would be no consequence for crimes (evil) that day. People could go berserk and unleash evil for 12 hours on that day where all crime is legal. Purge was a vent to unleash one’s concealed evil into the world and a means to an artificial population control.

            During “purge,” evil is sovereign. This would be the perpetual state of the world if there is no hell.

            When evil rules, evil would be the superior moral. If there is no consequence for evil deeds i.e. if there is no hell, good cannot be the superior moral (good need not be stronger than evil). If evil rules over good, evil would be the sole standard for life. Hence evil will pulverize the good.    

Amoral World

            Evil rules when there is no punishment. If evil is sovereign, this world would be amoral (evil would be the only superlative moral). Wouldn’t morality cease when the right-wrong moral distinction is erased?   

            For the sake of this discussion let us categorize evils as lesser and greater. The lesser evils could be gossips, jealousy, bad temper leading to minor offenses, rivalry, factions, party-spirit, and envy.

            The greater evils could be the horrendous evils. Christian philosopher and priest, Marilyn McCord Adams lists horrendous evils, “…the rape of a woman and axing off of her arms, psychophysical torture…betrayal of one’s deepest loyalties, cannibalizing one’s own offspring, child abuse…child pornography, parental incest, slow death by starvation, participation in the Nazi death camps, the explosion of nuclear bombs over populated areas, having to choose which of one’s children shall live and which will be executed by terrorists…I regard these as paradigmatic, because I believe most people would find in the doing or suffering of them prima-facie reason to doubt the positive meaning of their lives. …” ¹

            Predicated on the fact that life is more valuable than materials, it might be of less significance to the victim and the society if a thief who robbed a pen was not convicted of his crime. But it is of a great significance if a murderer of a child remains unpunished for his crime. 

            The thief who habitually steals pens could progressively deteriorate into robbing millions. During this progressive deterioration, the thief could also become a killer. Thus the possibilities for the lesser evil to transform into greater evil are endless.

            What prevents a man from committing petty crimes when evil rules? Man, on an average, may not commit horrendous evils always. But man is totally susceptible to committing the lesser evils such as, sexual immorality, gossips, quarrelling, jealousy, rivalry, factions, party-spirit, and envy, which in turn could lead to horrendous evils.

            The lesser evils would also increase in intensity and magnitude. When lesser evils increase, the society would be exceedingly volatile. Living under these conditions would be unbearable. In other words, we would be living in an amoral world under constant suffering.

            If evil rules, violence would be rampant and peace would cease, for the world we live in would be amoral.

God’s Non-Existence

            A world without hell could only be postulated under the condition that God does not exist i.e. an atheistic paradigm. It is very reasonable for evil to prosper and justice and peace to be non-existent in the atheistic worldview.

            The atheistic paradigm would not (or cannot) offer any reasonable or logical answers to the problem of evil. Such is the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

            Ask an atheist to explain the presence of evil. More often than not, they would quote Richard Dawkins in his work “River Out of Eden” and say “there is no such thing as evil.”

            Mind you, it is Dawkins and his followers who brand the God of the Bible as evil. On one hand they say that there is no evil, but on the other hand they contradict their statement that there is no evil to assert that the God of the Bible is evil.

            God forbid, if a calamity befalls these atheists, who claim that there is no evil, would they enjoy their calamity or suffer through it in pain and tears? Evidently, no sane human would enjoy evil but only suffer through it in pain and tears, for pain is inherent in evil.

            So an atheist who denies God’s existence will deny evil and will deny hell. He has no other option. So if there is no hell, there is no god.

Conclusion

            If there is no hell, then:

            1. Evil would be unpunished.

            2. Evil would be sovereign (rule over good).

            3. World would be amoral.

            4. There should be no God (for hell is only plausible if God exists).

            But this is the existential reality. Sovereignty is singular. There cannot be two sovereign beings i.e. two maximally great beings. When a being is sovereign, all other beings are subjugated.

            We are not living in a world where evil is sovereign. We are living in a world where God is sovereign. Although Satan is the temporary ruler of this world, the sovereign God is in total control.

            We know that God is in total control since our world is not amoral. There are punishments for evils. Evil does not rule over good.  

            Good still rules over evil. This is precisely why a good number of people enjoy a rather peaceful existence. The presence of God entails peace.

            God has temporarily allowed evil to reign. But HE has assured us that not a hair from our head will perish.

            God is good. God does not tolerate evil.

            If we repent of our sins, believe and remain in the Lord and Savior Christ, we will be saved. Those who do not believe in Christ remain evil, since their sins remain unforgiven because of their conscious rejection of Christ.

            Such an evil person sins against an infinite God. Sins against an infinite God mandate an infinite punishment in the form of hell. Hell then is the eternal abode of all those who reject Christ.

            In case you have not received Christ yet, please pray and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your God and savior. I pray that you repent of your sins and ask Christ to forgive you. The merciful and loving Lord will forgive you and you will be with God forever and ever. I pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹Marilyn McCord Adams, “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God,” The Problem of Evil (ed. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 211-12.

Will Nominal Christians Go To Hell?

            The Lausanne Movement [1] characterized a nominal Christian as, “…a person who has not responded in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour and Lord. He is a Christian in name only. He may be very religious. He may be a practising or non-practising church member. He may give intellectual assent to basic Christian doctrines and claim to be a Christian. He may be faithful in attending liturgical rites and worship services, and be an active member involved in church affairs. But in spite of all this, he is still destined for eternal judgment (cf. Matt. 7:21-23, Jas. 2:19) because he has not committed his life to Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10)” [2] (Emphasis Mine).

            Lord Jesus offered many examples of nominal Christians – foolish non-practitioner of the Bible (Matthew 7:26-27), five foolish virgins (Matthew 25:8-12), seed that fell on the rocks (Luke 8:13) etc. 

            Nominal Christians are everywhere - Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox included. (Ask these questions to know if you are a nominal Christian [3])

            The causes for nominal Christianity are [4]:

            Philosophical – Pluralistic tolerance for rational alternatives and materialism.

            Sociological – Availability of multiple choices and the anonymity of city life in tandem with postmodern intellectual environment.

            Ecclesiastical – When the church preaches grace without costly discipleship, encourages and tolerates nominality, and fails to satisfy the needs of its newly converted or nominal members.   

            Isn’t Christianity all about belief in Christ? Doesn’t belief in Christ as God and as the only way to heaven gain us eternal life in heaven?

            A nominal Christian who believes in Christ as the only way to heaven has intellectually affirmed Christ’s divinity and HIS perfect salvific sacrifice on the cross. But would a mere belief suffice? Wouldn’t his belief in Christ save him from hell?

            Nominal Christians may believe that Christ is God and that HE died to save mankind from sins. But they do not love Christ. They would not share a personal, loving, obedient and a growing relationship with the Lord. The Bible, in the life of these Christians, would be a mere book; not a Holy Scripture that should be read, understood and lived.

            Dr. Ravi Zacharias defines nominal Christianity as an absence of clear understanding of Christ’s teachings [5]. Nominal Christians would not endeavor to understand Christ. 

            A nominal Christian is:

            A. Christian in name.

            B. Believer of Christ intellectually.

            C. Regular to church and may be active in church ministries

            D. Outwardly religious.

            A genuine Christian, in contrast, is the Lord’s disciple who:

            1. Responds in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ as his personal savior and Lord

            2. Progressively loves and obeys the triune God and HIS Word with all his life

            3. Yearns to be like Christ through a constant endeavor to obey the Lord   

            4. Owns a distinct fruitful lifestyle (in private and public) that constantly grows in Christ to contrast an unredeemed person

            Hypocrisy is the key to understand a genuine and a nominal Christian. Nominal Christians could fake a holy lifestyle in public, whereas inwardly they could be utterly immoral.

            God knows if a Christian repented truly and accepted the Lord Jesus as his/her personal savior and Lord. God alone knows if a Christian loves the triune God and yearns to love HIM more. Only God knows if a Christian desires to be Christlike or not.

            Other than God, the Christian knows his personal state – whether he/she is a nominal or a genuine Christian.    

            What’s wrong if nominal Christians go to heaven?

            In order to answer that, we need to ask a leading question, which is, “What is the essence of Christianity?”

            Love is the essence of Christianity. Christianity is all about God’s love for man and man’s love for God.

            God did HIS part for man in full. God saved mankind by dying on the cross of Calvary. God has expressed and continues to express HIS love. God cannot be faulted for a deficient expression of love upon mankind.

            Man, on his part, ought to freely recognize God’s deed, believe, and love God with all his life. This is the crux of man’s responsibility towards God.

            The nominal Christian fails in this responsibility.  The nominal Christian relates to God as how he relates to a fuel station to fill fuel for his automobile. When he is in trouble, he will call upon God. Just as he forgets a fuel station when his automobile is fuelled, he forgets God when trouble disappears from his life.

            If Christianity is all about love for God, and if nominal Christians do not love the triune God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, then they are lukewarm Christians. Isn’t heaven for those who love the Lord Jesus?

            Nominal Christians are lukewarm Christians. Being lukewarm is an extremely dangerous dwelling place (cf. Matthew 7:15-23;  1 Corinthians 15:34; Galatians 2:4; 1 John 2:19; 2 Peter 2:10-22; Revelation 3:15-16).   

            A word of caution is mandatory; God alone knows the identity of a nominal Christian. Christians would be wise to not brand each other as nominal for our observation is only in part and not in full. God’s knowledge of man is perfect, whereas our knowledge of each other cannot be perfect.

            Some of us unwisely and incorrectly condemn and disassociate with nominal Christians, “…you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” (1 Corinthians 5: 11, NIV). This is an instance where a so-called Christian willfully disobeys the Lord through his sin.

            The church, in this instance, should graciously advise this Christian to renounce his sinful ways. If the sinning Christian rejects Church’s intervention, then this verse could be applied.

            Nominal Christians provide a good soil for evangelization and discipleship. The responsibility of the church is to evangelize and disciple nominal Christians. The church would fail to discharge the mandate of the Great Commission if it does not disciple the nominal Christians in its fold.  

            A critical threat to Christianity is if nominal Christians are at the helm of the local church leadership. This is a surefire recipe for disaster. Nominal Christians are Satan’s fertile soil to destroy the local church.

            How could a nominal Christian become a genuine lover of the Lord?

            By reading the Bible!

            Bible reading is mandatory for every Christian. Any earnest reader of the Bible will love God. (Yes, there are difficult passages in the Bible, but while treading through these difficult passages it would be wise to offer God the benefit of doubt, than blaming HIM.)

            A Christian who loves the Lord Jesus Christ will constantly and fervently desire to obey Christ, live for HIM, and glorify HIM. God cannot be separated from this Christian’s life. This person will greatly desire to serve the Lord through the means accorded to him. His entire life will revolve around God and God alone. He will see the world and every single activity through God’s eyes.

            Upon suffering, the disciple of the Lord will absolutely rely upon Christ to endure and overcome suffering. Suffering and pain cannot separate this Christian from God.

            May the nominal Christians grow in Christ and may this world be filled with lovers of the Lord Jesus and may we love each other with the love of Christ.

      

Endnotes:

[1] Lausanne Movement was founded by the much acclaimed Christian evangelist Dr. Billy Graham.

[2] http://www.lausanne.org/content/lop/lop-10#1

[3] http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2010/09/15/are-you-a-nominal-christian-a-diagnostic/

[4] http://www.lausanne.org/content/lop/lop-23#2

[5] http://rzim.org/global-blog/ravi-zacharias-interviewed-in-baltimore-we-are-being-trapped-in-the-quicksand-of-the-absence-of-objective-truth

Cited websites were last accessed on 28/Sep/2015.

Does God Save Those Who Never Heard About Jesus Christ?

This common question requires a reasonable answer.

First, is there a possibility of the existence of people who have never heard about Christ? Yes, there are tribes, even to this day, who apparently live in isolation from the rest of the modern world.¹ So we can reasonably assume that isolated person(s), those unaware of Christ, have been and are still in existence. This video is about an isolated tribe in Brazil: 

Second, is this isolated person a sinner? Yes! The Bible says no one is righteous (Psalm 14: 3; Romans 3: 10), so this isolated person is also a sinner in need of redemption.

Third, should we be concerned about the salvation of those who may have never heard about Christ? Yes! We are asked to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, so if we are concerned about our salvation, we should also be concerned about the salvation of those around us.

           

Fourth, the three broad and possible theistic answers to this question are:

(1) Yes, God saves those who have never heard about Christ.

(2) No, God does not save those who have never heard about Christ. 

(3) I don’t know (agnosticism).

(Atheists are either clueless about their post-life destination or could assert that there is no existence after death.)

If a Christian submits (1) as a reasonable answer, the answer implies that Christ is unnecessary for man’s salvation!! But historical Christianity affirms the necessity of Christ in man’s salvation.

So is Christ necessary or unnecessary? This tension needs to be resolved when we submit (1) as an answer.

But if we submit (2) as a reasonable answer, we need to justify the fact that these isolated people did not get to choose the place of their birth. If they were born into a Christian home or in the modern world, they would not have been placed in this position.

Then again, when God placed these people in their isolated locations, shouldn’t it be God’s prerogative to ensure that Christ is heard by them? So should not God be blamed for their predicament especially if HE does not save them?

If we resort to agnosticism, we are implying that the Bible does not say anything about this. In contrast, the Bible does have something to say about this situation. If the Bible addresses this situation, agnosticism cannot be reasonably justified.  

The Bible states that God is loving, just, and merciful. If God is truly loving, just, and merciful, HE should save isolated people. If God does not save these people, there ought to be a valid reason as to why HE does not save the isolated.

Now we know that God does not save people unconditionally, for mankind is saved only by faith in Christ through the grace of God. But the isolated people have genuinely not heard of God or Christ, so isn’t the problem in God’s domain?

The problem does not seem to be in God’s domain for the Bible says, “…It is not that they do not know the truth about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known, thus leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does…” (Romans 1: 19-21, Phillips, Emphasis Mine).

This passage states:

1. God has made HIMSELF very clear to man through HIS creation.

2. Since creation points to God, man knows that there is a God from that which are commonly seen and known.

So the problem is not with God. And man is without an excuse.

I need more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist. How can I observe the marvelous creation of God and still maintain that this marvelous creation is nothing but a product of randomness? Attributing randomness to God’s creation is absurd and insane.

Yet it was Marx-Freud’s view that the theist is subject to a sort of cognitive dysfunction.  But Professor Alvin Plantinga, one of the finest Christian philosophical minds of our time, negates Marx-Freud’s contention to state that cognitive dysfunction is innate to an atheist, not a theist. ²

The creation points to God. If I have to choose between the causal options of ‘God’ and ‘chance,’ I would certainly choose God as the Creator.

But does this isolated person acknowledge God as the greatest power in existence? Or does he worship a fellow being or a created object as the greatest being? If the isolated person ascribes greatness to himself or a fellow being or a created object, then he rejects God.

Because God has made HIMSELF abundantly clear to the isolated man, he is to acknowledge God as the greatest being. Therefore, I do not see a possibility of this person’s salvation if he rejects God.

But the general revelation (Creation) does not reveal God’s nature or HIS specific deeds (Trinity, Christ and HIS sacrifice etc). Specifically and to our context, knowledge of Christ is an outcome of a special revelation. Creation does not reveal Christ to the isolated person.

It’s a fact that God placed this isolated person in his isolation. Let us assume that the isolated person acknowledges God, yet is ignorant of Christ. Let us also assume that Christ does not appear to this isolated man in any form or manner – through missionaries, literatures, dreams and visions.

If this be the case, would it be justified to say that God would condemn this isolated person to hell?

Some Christians believe that God would condemn this isolated person to hell if he does not believe in Christ. Popular Christian Q&A website ‘Gotquestions.org’ states this, “If we assume that those who never hear the gospel are granted mercy from God, we will run into a terrible problem. If people who never hear the gospel are saved, it is logical that we should make sure no one ever hears the gospel. The worst thing we could do would be to share the gospel with a person and have him or her reject it. If that were to happen, he or she would be condemned. People who do not hear the gospel must be condemned, or else there is no motivation for evangelism. Why run the risk of people possibly rejecting the gospel and condemning themselves when they were previously saved because they had never heard the gospel?”³

This reasoning is based on two disputable premises:

(P1) A Christian will potentially discontinue evangelism and also prevent evangelism due to the lack of motivation to evangelize.

(P2) The isolated man may reject the gospel to be condemned, so it would be better off not to share the gospel to the isolated man and thus have him saved.

Premise (P1) could be disputed by the fact that man is saved by God through the means of evangelism. Man does not save man, for man simply carries the good news of the gospel, but only God saves man.

Moreover, human evangelism is not the only way to save man. God can appear to a man in dreams or visions to save him. 

Significantly, evangelism should not be performed as an obligation. Evangelism is an act motivated by love for God and fellow men. Therefore, evangelism should not cease at any point in time and for any reason.

Premise (P2) can be disputed as well. Even before the isolated man rejects the gospel, he gets to either:

(P2.1) Accept God (through the general revelation)

Or

(P2.2) Reject God

Or

(P2.3) Remain ignorant of God.

When the missionary reaches the isolated man, he is in any of these three situations.

If the isolated man has accepted God, the missionary’s job would be made easier to preach the gospel. Else if the isolated man has rejected or remains ignorant of God, then he could be potentially drawn to the Lord.

If God wants to use us as HIS channels, why should we disobey God?

           

On the other hand, if there is no evangelization to the isolated man, the man who has already rejected God (P2.2), and the man who is ignorant of God (P2.3), could end up being unsaved. So why lose an opportunity?

Therefore, in order to save the one who has rejected God and to save the one who remains ignorant of God, evangelism to the isolated is necessary.

Shouldn’t the isolated man believe in Christ for his salvation?

When the isolated man recognizes his sinfulness (inadequacy) and accepts God through the general revelation, the benefits of Christ’s one time sacrifice is applied to this man by God.

 As in the case of the salvation of Old Testament saints, this man will be saved on account of his belief in God (cf. Genesis 15: 6). The benefits of Christ’s one time atoning sacrifice will be granted to this man because of his belief in God. Therefore, the necessity of Christ is maintained.

On the contrary, the isolated man who rejects God and does not know of Christ, will not be granted salvation for he has rejected God to begin with. The isolated man who is ignorant also chooses to be ignorant through his rejection of that which has been made plain to him – God. Hence even he would not be granted salvation by God.

I do not intend to replace God or to stand in judgment over others, but given my understanding of the Bible, this is the best possible conclusion I can submit. Amen.   

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/rare-video-footage-shows-completely-isolated-amazonian-tribe

² http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html

³ http://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html

Dangers and Consequences of Christian Universalism: Cultic Status & Hellfire (Part 2)

Can a loving God send people to hell?

Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? No (Ezekiel 33: 11). Does God desire that all be saved? Yes (1 Timothy 2: 4; 2 Peter 3.9). Has God done everything for man to believe in HIM? Yes. So, can a loving God send people to hell? Yes! But the question is not fully correct! God does NOT send people to hell. Instead, people choose hell. C.S Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” ¹ Another perspective is from the Christian analytic philosopher William Lane Craig, “The exercise of saving faith is not a work we perform for salvation, but merely the allowing of the Holy Spirit to do His work in us. Far from making unreasonable expectations, God is ready to equip anyone for salvation. We have only not to resist.” ² Man decides his eternal destination, and God allows it.

Annihilationism

Rev. John Stott and a few other Christian scholars endorse(d) the position of Annihilationism – a next of kin to Universalism. This position asserts that God will annihilate those who do not believe in Christ or that God will annihilate all of mankind after death. This position lends credence to immorality. A subscriber to annihilationism can think, “I can do anything, even evil, for I will be annihilated as the others.” Volitional justification of immorality in any form is an assault against God and HIS Word. Annihilationism reduces mankind’s purpose of living to a temporal realm as against the eternal life taught by the Bible. Annihilationism opposes the teaching of eternal life from the Bible.

A flavor of annihilationism that subscribes to annihilation of all mankind violates Bible. For instance, the believer of Christ longs for the Second Advent (coming) of the Lord for he confidently hopes to live with HIS maker forever and ever (1 John 2: 17; cf. Revelation 22: 20 et al.). Annihilationism deprives a believer of Christ of that glorious hope in the Lord, and Christ is unnecessary if annihilationism is factual.

Annihilationism also deprives justice to man. If a man is convicted of theft, he may be sentenced to a few months to a few years depending on the intensity of his crime. But if man kills another man, then he is imprisoned for life or executed. So a pattern is established in justice – unauthorized plunder of another’s wealth results in a lesser sentence, whereas unauthorized plunder of another’s life justifies life imprisonment or death of the murderer, which is a greater sentence. If a murderer walks away scott-free, all sane minds will term this decision as injustice. Justice is determined by the enormity of the assault, which in turn determines the degree of punishment.

Similarly, since God is infinitely holy and just, any sin against HIM deserves an infinite punishment. But annihilation does not offer an infinite punishment to an evil man. Positing annihilationism eliminates justice. An unjust god is not a good god. Since God, by definition, ought to be good, annihilationism implies a godless universe. But the Christian Universalist proclaims that God exists, so his doctrine of annihilationism is a contradictory and a self-defeating doctrine. Therefore, annihilationism is also not a wholly tenable truth claim.

Uncertainty (Partial Agnosticism)

Some Christians resort to uncertainty and proclaim that God can do anything (implying that HE can save all). First, if God can do anything, then God can create another God or God can lie or even commit adultery. If Christians hold to a contradictory view of God, they are affirming a mystical God – a God who exists only in the subjective, fanciful and mystical imaginations of these men, for God cannot contradict HIS nature.

Second, if God can do anything, then heaven and hell can also be true. But this is the very claim these Christians reject. Therefore these Christians don’t believe in their own statement that God can do anything, so their claim is a self-defeating claim.

Third, uncertainty negates the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our constant counsel (John 14: 16), HE convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16: 7-11), and HE is our guide into truth (John 16: 13). Uncertainty negates all the above functions of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, denying the concrete or reducing the concrete to a realm of abstract is blindness or insanity. This is akin to claiming that there is no sun, when the whole world can see and experience the radiance and radiation of the sun. The Bible is abundantly obvious about salvation. Only the insane or blind can negate the obvious.  

Finally the statement, “I do not know, but God can do anything” implies that “I know that I do not know and I know that God can do anything.” This statement posits knowledge. The statement, “I do not know” posits finite knowledge that he does not know. The statement that “God can do anything” posits infinite knowledge that God can do anything. This is a knowledgeable statement for it rejects all definitive truth claims but deceitfully masked under the pretext of agnosticism by these Christians. Uncertainty predicated on knowledge is untenable.

Christian Universalism mutilates the loving relationship between God and man

Christian universalism destroys the beautiful and a loving relationship between God and man. Imagine an instance where all athletes registered to participate in a race are informed much beforehand that each of them will win the gold medal – the highest prize. If every athlete is guaranteed to win the highest prize, practice prior to the race will be discarded. Therefore, the joy innate in the race would be nonexistent.  The athletes may participate in this farce of a race, but they will never be wholly involved with the race. A man can simply get out of his bed, participate in this farce of a race, and yet win the highest prize. If this be true, imagine the plight of an athlete who intensely practices for this race - his practice and preparation mean nothing. The race is reduced to a farce. No sane mind will even conceive this race, let alone implement it in today’s world.

Therefore, if God states that all men will inherit heaven (the highest prize), man need not be involved with God – he need NOT love and worship God. If man need not love and worship God, then there is no meaningful relationship between man and the living God.

Christian Universalism negates Evangelism

Evangelism intends to bring people into the knowledge of truth and eternal life. Christian Universalists declare that all will go to heaven. If so, why evangelize? How then would the Christian Universalist decipher all the verses in the Bible mandating us to evangelize (Daniel 12: 3; Ezekiel 3: 17-20; Matthew 10: 8b, 28: 18-20; Mark 16: 15-16; Acts 1: 8 et al.)?   

Consequences of Christian Universalism

By virtue of his universalistic persuasion, a Christian Universalist proclaims that:

1. Bible is corrupt – errant and fallible.

2. God is a cruel dictator without holiness, justice and true love. God’s commands need not be obeyed (e.g. evangelism is a non-factor).  

3. The roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit is a non-factor

4. A believer need not be holy, need not love and worship God, and can be immoral.

5. A believer need not repent or believe in Christ and need not produce the fruit of the Spirit.

Since Christian Universalism opposes the Bible, we can reasonably assert that Universalism is a heretical teaching and Christian Universalists are a cult (false religion). Christians espousing universalism are not Christians even though they may term themselves as a Christian. 

Although I don’t stand in judgment, the Christian Universalist, according to my understanding of salvation, lives dangerously close to an eternal separation from God.

Why does a Christian succumb to Universalism?

Let me suggest two reasons:

1. Unbelieving family and friends: If we believe in Christ, and our family and friends do not, then we suffer intensely knowing that those whom we love so dearly are hell bound. This constant pain gives way to Universalistic persuasion. Since universalism is an untenable proposition, a better mode of reconciliation would be to pray earnestly for God’s light to shine in the hearts of our loved ones. Meanwhile, we should gently and respectfully provide reasons for our hope in Christ, hoping that they would turn to Christ. 

2. Observing the apparently flawless lives of the non-Christians: There are many Non-Christians who through their apparently impeccable life put Christians to shame. So one could wonder how such a life would be deemed to hell.

This situation could be reconciled through the fact that all are sinners and imperfect in thoughts, words, and deeds. None can be as perfect as God. So an impeccable life is only impeccable within the confines of the act(s) that invoke impeccability (e.g. charity). Most surely, I cannot fathom a man claiming absolute impeccability. Therefore, since the flawless lives of non-christians are merely confined to certain acts, a reasonable conclusion is that all men are imperfect sinners worthy of infinite punishment.

Conclusion:

The Bible affirms that those who lead others to sin (disbelieve in God) are in a great and mighty danger – a potential loss of eternal life (cf. Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1-2).

Universalism states that all will go to heaven. If Universalists are right and the debunking of Universalism is incorrect, then all will go to heaven (I and the Universalists). This is a win-win situation for me. But if Universalism is nonsensical, non-Universalists will go to heaven but the Universalists will go to hell. For the Universalists, this is a win-lose situation (they lose, Christians win).

May we earnestly seek to follow and obey God in the light of HIS truth. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹ C.S Lewis, The Great Divorce.

² http://www.reasonablefaith.org/politically-incorrect-salvation#ixzz2ihiiIG00