Preaching on Hell—Then and Now

I am reading a book entitled A Time to Laugh…Grandpa Was a Preacher by Leroy Brownlow.  Here is a short take from it:

"At a preachers' conference that was held to discuss the merits of preaching on hell, the chairman pointed him out and asked, 'Do you preach on hell very often?'

'No, not often.'

'Why not?' inquired the chairman.  'Is it because you feel that you are not effective on this topic?'

'No, because it disrupts the service.'

'How's that?' continued the chairman.

'It's like this,' explained grandpa, 'the audience becomes so fatigued fanning that I have to declare a recess about every five minutes.'" (Page 23)

Funny, yes, but while funny there is truth here about the preaching of days gone by versus today.  Growing up in the 50's thru the early to mid 60's I often heard sermons that would figuratively speaking curl your toes and send chills up your spine.  In those days hell was real and man was in present danger of ending up there without faith, gospel obedience, and living thereafter a faithful Christian life.

Today it seems no one is afraid of God and everyone seems to believe that in the end no one is going to hell despite their disregard for spiritual things in this life.  The idea is just so you are a decent person, the way society today defines that, then all is well and you will be okay in the end.  No need to worry about reading your Bible, obeying all those commands, attending worship services, etc.  Why even non-Christians may get to heaven seems to be the thinking of the day.

Many despise all that old-time fear-mongering preaching but one wonders whether or not we are better off today without it than we would have been had we kept it up?  After all, those preachers of days gone by did preach on other subjects as well but they made it clear there were things you had to do to be saved and you left those services not doubting for a minute but what they were right.  If a tornado (think hell) is headed directly for you don't you think you might be better off if the weatherman (think preacher) warned you versus giving you soothing words of peace and all is well?

[To download or print out this article click here.]

Love Versus Love

In 1 Cor. 13 Paul talks about and defines love.  If we believe he was an inspired apostle of God then his words were the words of God.  He claims as much when he said earlier in the book, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Cor. 2:13 NKJV)

All of us seem to have our own dictionary when it comes to defining terms.  We want words defined the way we desire they be defined even if it means we write our own dictionary.   Even the word "is," as small as it is, came into question as to its meaning if you remember the days of Bill Clinton.  The word "love" is a word we all seem to want defined the way we want it defined.

American society today has defined the word love in a way that is contrary to the way the Bible defines it.  Love for the adulterer, for the one engaged in fornication, for the active homosexual in America today means you tacitly embrace them in the very acts which the Bible calls sin.  And, we are afraid not to do it as the ones involved are often family members or friends whose love we do not want to risk by upsetting them.  The end result is we never rebuke the sinner and he or she goes on their merry way as if all is well with their spiritual being.

They are not to be rebuked for sin, in today’s society, but are to be treated as if they were righteous.  You seemingly are to rejoice that they have been made free to sin without stigma.  If a couple has a child outside of marriage you are to think how wonderful it is that they have a child.  This reaction to sin is now called "love."

Of course, that means our society would have condemned John the Baptist who refused to hold his tongue with Herod and Herodias but rather told Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have her." (Matt. 14:4 NKJV)  Today we want to do what Herod did and persecute the one who speaks out against sin.  We would say John the Baptist was a hater and intolerant, the only true sinner among the three, and that beheading was too good for him.

But how does God define love?  In 1 Cor. 13:6 Paul says of love, "It does not rejoice at wrongdoing." (ESV)  The Bible has declared adultery, fornication, and homosexuality to be sin or wrongdoing (1 Cor. 6:9-10) yet how many Americans rejoiced with the coming of no-fault divorce freeing up the adulterer from blame?  How many rejoiced with the most recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage?  That was seen as being merciful, tolerant, and a loving act, and it was about time they received equal rights and ceased to be discriminated against.  There was no point in discussing it with God for if he was to disagree he would be wrong and besides we define love nowadays, not God.  Yes, we have love versus love and the only question is whose definition will prove to hold up in the end.  Most of the world seems to be staking their claim on man, not God.

Our society has had a desire to redefine sin for we as a people have been unhappy with some of God's declarations on it.  Sin is no longer sin because of anything God has said in the Bible but sin is now what man declares it to be.  It is no longer what the Bible declares but what man declares.  It is what seems wrong in man's eyes, not in the eyes of the God of the Bible.   

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

Woe, woe, woe to man.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The Sin of Being Deceived

1 Tim. 2:12-14 has always troubled me a little.  It reads, "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (NKJV)

Paul says elsewhere, "the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness" (1 Cor. 11:3 NKJV) which Eve herself admitted in Gen. 3:13 when she said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." (NKJV)

I would have thought that sinning with one's eyes wide open (Adam) would be worse than sinning because one was deceived (Eve).  Of course, I understand both suffered the same penalty for sin so in that sense it mattered not but it does seem that Eve was to be blamed in a way Adam was not, and for the worse, not for the better.

Eve's sin was that she was willing to believe one who contradicted what the word of God said and acted on that belief.  That ought to be a lesson for us all, male or female, for that was the road that led to her ruin.  You can read in 1 Kings 13:1-33 about another person who did the same thing, allowed himself to be deceived, a man described as a man of God, and who likewise suffered for it.  God does not give mankind a pass for being honestly deceived.  He does not look with favor on those who will take someone else's word over his own.

This being the case it would behoove the Protestant world to take another look at baptism.  Will the Protestant believe God’s word that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 NKJV), the washing away of one’s sins (Acts 22:16), the “antitype which now saves us, namely baptism” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) or will he or she continue to believe a deception of man that it is merely a sign?  The word sign is not once used in the New Testament in association with the word baptism, not once.  It is an invention of man.

But if the reply is we are saved by faith, not by baptism, a false dichotomy is set up for who says it must be one or the other exclusively?  If these are the only two requirements for salvation then repentance from sin is not required.  We know that is not true.  The truth is everything related to salvation begins with faith.  Faith is the motivating factor but it is not the end-all of salvation but merely the starting point from which everything else flows.

As sure as the Bible teaches that faith is a requirement for salvation it just as surely teaches that repentance is (Acts 2:38, Luke 13:3-5, Acts 17:30) and that baptism is.  Who wants to try to explain to God on the Day of Judgment why he believed man rather than God’s own word?  Eve chose to believe another over God.  It did not work out well for her.  Likely, it will not work out any better for anyone who tries it today. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Did God Know Adam and Eve Would Sin

The answer is yes but it is a hard answer to accept for some for they cannot understand how man, make that Adam and Eve, could keep from sinning if God foreknew they would sin.  Did they have free will is the question being asked.  If God knew we were all going to need Jesus and his blood for salvation even before our birth what choice did any of us have but sin?

That question does not bother me.  Why not?  Because God by definition is supernatural.  His understanding is infinite.  What seems impossible with man is possible with God (creating the universe, the virgin birth, raising the dead to life again, walking on water, walking through closed doors, knowing man’s thoughts without being told, disappearing into thin air, etc.).  “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 18:14 NKJV)  “Is there anything too hard for me?” (Jer. 32:27)  “His understanding no one can fathom.” (Isa. 40:28 NIV)  Because a matter is too deep for my own understanding does not mean it is too deep for God. 

Now for the scriptural truth that God did indeed know Adam and Eve would sin I will just quote the appropriate scriptures and leave it with you.

In 2 Tim. 1:9 the scripture says God has "saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." (NKJV)  You did catch that did you not—"before time began."  John refers to Jesus as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8 NKJV)

In Eph. 1:4 Paul says we Christians were chosen "in him before the foundation of the world." (NKJV)  The prior verse (verse 3) makes it clear Paul is speaking of "in Christ."  In the same book, we read of “the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph. 3:11 NKJV)  If it was eternal it was before the earth was created.

The kingdom was prepared for us “from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:34 NKJV)  Paul speaks of “the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory.” (1 Cor. 2:7 NKJV)  Did this wisdom have anything to do with Jesus and salvation from sin?  Paul says, “Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor. 2:8)  So, yes, this wisdom that was ordained before the ages dealt with the salvation of man.

We read in Titus 1:2 of the “hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (NKJV) but, of course, eternal life depends on Jesus and his sacrifice for man so again the answer is yes, God did indeed know man would sin before creating man.

Finally, we close with Peter who says Christ was "foreordained before the foundation of the world." (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV)

Our duty before God as believers is to believe and not fret about how God can do things that seem impossible to us.  God knew we would sin before we were created.

[To download this article and/or print it out click here.]