
I promise you I’m not on a roll about hell.
Strangely enough after posting yesterday’s post, I came across the following post about Carlton Pearson, who as a pastor renounced hell. His church subsequently fell apart.
Once he starts preaching his own revelation, Carlton Pearson’s church falls apart. After all, when there’s no Hell (as the logic goes), you don’t really need to believe in Jesus to be saved from it. What follows are the swift departures of his pastors, and an exodus from his congregation—which quickly dwindled to a few hundred people. Donations drop off too, but just as things start looking bleakest, new kinds of people, curious about his change in beliefs, start showing up on Sunday mornings.
After reading that “logic” I really had to ask. Is this the really our assumption about the people’s response if we take away hell as a final consequence? If anything it seems like a control mechanism for morality, which if we’re honest doesn’t work.
Do you agree with the logic?













Pingback: Roasting in Hell «