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.

The Dirty Church

The church is to be a beautiful community that worships the only living God, nurtures the seeker with the truth, fellowships in the loving community of saints, and encourages the brokenhearted with Christ’s love. In other words, the church looks ‘upward’ in worship, ‘inward’ to edify, and ‘outward’ to serve those in need.

However, the church, from Christ’s time on earth, has been losing these components slowly yet steadily (cf. Mark 11: 15-17). A church can profess her allegiance to the Lord Jesus, yet be corrupt in her core values and expressions. In other words, the church, from the surface, could seem adherent to the biblical teachings, but avoid being truthful, loving and gracious, and thus corrupt.

When resolving a situation, the church could opt to enforce law or grace. Here is a rather dense situation to highlight the church’s corruption. A church rejects the marriage proposal of a couple because one partner has had multiple divorces. Not only is the church ungracious, but she could be successful in driving away the couple from her precincts. While rejecting the proposal, the church may have even cited a few scripture passages (e.g. Malachi 2: 16). But is this the only viable or the most biblical option for the church? If you say yes, please allow me to contradict you.

I submit that the church should have married this couple, of course, with bible-centered pre-marital counseling. If this couple were married, it is possible that this marriage would survive and the past sins of divorce, repented. By rejecting the marriage proposal, the church eliminated a magnificent opportunity for the person to repent and establish a family. More importantly, the church may have even driven these two away from Christianity. (You could argue that the multiple divorcée, as in the past, would reject/divorce this partner as well. This, however, is an ‘argument from ignorance’ i.e., one cannot predict if that marriage would result in divorce.)

Now then, why should the church not be radically gracious in solemnizing such a marriage? The church may have either rejected this proposal to avoid unnecessary criticism (for the leadership to have their job intact) or because she is profusely legalistic (so to abandon grace into oblivion). In both these instances, the church abandons the minority. This is in total contradiction to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. (If the church leadership claims ignorance on this matter, then they are inadequate for leadership.)

It is good to err on the side of grace, than on the side of law. But only strong and courageous leaders (Joshua 1: 9) would dare to err on the side of grace. The selfishly fearful, corrupt and theologically impotent leaders would cite the law to evade being gracious. They defy the Lord’s act of running after that one lost sheep, leaving the ninety-nine. Losing one sheep is insignificant to these leaders. They satisfy the majority, even at the cost of one sheep and the gospel! The Lord is the epitome of grace (John 1: 14-17); when the church adheres to the law and abandons grace, the church becomes corrupt.

The first entity to take responsibility for the church’s corruption is her leadership. Christ showed the way for mankind to follow. Similarly the church leadership ought to be role models for the flock to follow the Lord. If the leadership is legalistic, the essence of the church would be legalistic.

However, it could be healthier to have a legalistic leader than a weak leader. If the leadership is weak, then the church would travel the way of the powerful group in the church, and the powerful, if biblically correct, will remove the weak leader (so to resolve the problem). If the weak leadership remains, the church is bound to be sold to the devil in one form or another. If leaders are ruled by fear, they will inevitably succumb to the temptations of the evil one.

The elaborate description of Jesus cleansing the temple in Mark 11: 15-17 presents an instance of a ‘dirty church.’ The Lord’s house was transformed into a house of business instead of a house of prayer. The Lord cleansed the temple by driving out the offenders (15). Wait! Did HE really drive them out? I don’t think so! Verse 17 fascinates me, for the Lord taught ‘them’ the true intent of the church. ‘Them’ refers to those who abused the temple precincts and the spectators. Hence the Lord not only cleansed HIS house off its filth, but taught the abusers the truth. Isn’t this what today’s church leaders ought to do and isn’t this where they fail?

We take pride in proclaiming the church as a congregation of sinners, and truly so. Sin is inevitable in the congregation of sinners. When sin is encountered, the sinful act should be eliminated by the power of God, and the sinful actor cleansed by the Word of God. 

Today’s church seems more intent on driving out the sinners; not the sinners who sin against God, but those who disagree with the leadership. The formula of today’s church seems to be if-you-don’t-agree-to-my-agenda-you-will-be-fired. Thus, instead of church multiplication, church division seems to be the order of the day. Where is the fault? It’s obviously in the insecure arms of the weak leadership.

I am part of a ‘facebook prayer group’ of a certain church. One day, I realized I wasn’t a part of that prayer group. Upon digging for clarity, I discovered that the church leadership had me removed from that group, because my blogs seemed to implicate that church. Thus far, I have not received a response as to what unholy or unbiblical content from my blog merited such an ungracious decision. If I am a sinner, where is the teaching to correct me? If there is no teaching, does it imply I am correct? If I am correct, why should I be removed? Or am I a terrible sinner beyond correction? This is not a personal rant, but an illustration of what I see as a failure of the church.

The church seeks easy, or evil, solutions today. Quite a few AGM’s (Annual General Meeting) of the contemporary church present a sad yet hilarious scene. The powerful oppress the powerless and the seemingly-more-spiritual oppress their brothers and sisters. If you speak the truth, you are mandated to shut up. Is this the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Laugh-out-Loud! It is the case of weak and unbiblical leadership. Weak leadership manifests in several ways. You are fired if you disagree; you are disciplined if you speak the truth. Both situations were a reality in the life of Martin Luther and many others who stood firm for truth. Welcome to the dirty church.

George Barna and Frank Viola expressed this sentiment as they dedicated their book, “To our forgotten brothers and sisters throughout the ages who courageously stepped outside the safe bounds of institutional Christianity at the risk of life and limb. You faithfully carried the torch, endured persecution, forfeited reputation, lost family, suffered torture, and spilled your blood to preserve the primitive testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. And that every believer is a priest .a minister ... and a functioning member of God's house. This book is dedicated to you.” ¹ Weakness hides behind law, discards grace and Christ out of the church. The church then is sold to the devil.

I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who ridiculed the church to say, “they have taken that which belongs to the soul and institutionalized it.” Do you belong to a dirty church that destroys a soul, or do you belong to a grace-abounding, Christ-filled, Spirit-anointed church?

You can for all you want shout at the top of your voice that you are anointed. But if you discard grace from your life, you are discarding Christ. If you are abandoning Christ from your life, are you a true disciple of the Lord Jesus? You need to answer these questions as much as I need to. Amen.

References:

¹ George Barna and Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, 2007. 

Transformation: Christlikeness – Why Condemn?

            Christlikeness for God’s people is God’s plan (Romans 8:29), God’s mandate (Philippians 2:5), and an obvious development (2 Corinthians 5:17) after our “born again experience.” A believer of Jesus Christ ought to be like Jesus Christ.

            However, the most difficult existential reality to encounter is questions relating to the hypocrisy of Christians. People may not read the four gospels in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), but they can surely read the fifth gospel - the Christian. But are we the gospel people read and give glory to God or are we the gospel people read and question the existence of the God and in some cases even lose faith in God?

            Someone said that Christians ought to be more redeemed before people believe in their redeemer. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ,” is another famous quote against Christians.  Ravi Zacharias expresses his difficulty in answering questions of the likes, “Why is it that you as followers of Jesus Christ lay claim to a supernatural transformation, but there is very little evidence of it in your lives?” (Source: Marching to a Different Drummer)

            Just as how the Bible is the most critiqued document, we Christians are being observed by our brothers and sisters of the other worldviews. Within the safe precincts of our home and the church, we make life-size statements staking claim to our supernatural transformation. We also pray that the world is a dark world, and of course it is! But the question we need to ask of ourselves is if we are the light (Matt 5:14-16).

            Ravi Zacharias wrote a book titled, “Has Christianity failed you?” Would he have written that book if there was not a need? The need is a popular notion that Christians are ailing and failing. Many have suffered rejection in the hands of Christians. Even if one is convicted of a sinful act, does he merit that rejection (condemnation)? Is it what the Bible teaches?

            The good news is Christ came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10), and HE came to save the sinners, not the righteous (Luke 5:32). Christ saves by not condemning the sinner but by being gracious to him. Even when the woman was caught in the act of adultery the Lord’s response was, “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:7-11, NIV).

            We focus so much on John 3:16 that we, for a moment, ignore the very next verse, John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (NIV)

            Why condemn when we can love like how Christ loved us? Are we not hypocrites when we stake claim to be Christ’s disciples yet betray HIM through our condemnation of our neighbor? We are not Christlike when we condemn our fellow neighbor!

            If you have suffered condemnation in the hands of Christians, do not worry, for the Lord Jesus Christ loves a repentant sinner. My prayer is that we, by the grace of God, will not condemn each other, but be Christlike through our love for our neighbors (Matthew 22:39; John 13:34). Amen. 

Transformation: Christlikeness.

As we journey through the topic of transformation, we ought to know who we should resemble. May the Lord minister to us through this poem today. I don't need to write anything over and above what I consider to be a marvelously worded poem.

Please read the poem and be blessed.

Jesus and Alexander

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty-three;

One lived and died for self; one died for you and me.

The Greek died on a throne; the Jew died on a cross;

One’s life triumphed seemed; the other a loss.

One led armies forth; the other walked alone;

One shed a whole world’s blood; the other gave His own.

One won the world in life and lost it all in death;

The other lost His life to win the whole world’s faith.

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty-three;

One died in Babylon; and one on Calvary.

One gained all for self; and one Himself He gave;

One conquered every throne; the other every grave.

The one made himself god; The God made Himself less;

The one lived but to blast; the other but to bless!

When died the Greek, forever fell his throne of swords

But Jesus died to live forever Lord of lords.

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty-three.

The Greek made all men slaves; the Jew made all men free.

One built a throne on blood; the other built on love,

The one was born of earth; the other from above;

One won all this earth, to lose all earth and heaven.

The other gave up all, that all to Him be given.

The Greek forever died; the Jew forever lives;

He loses all who get, and gains all things who gives.

- Anonymous -

May the Triune God empower us to resemble our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

Enjoy a blessed day. More later.....