First, beyond this life punish them in the judgment (Matt. 10:15) for their sins, send them to Hell. That would mean, (1) if Christ redeemed them from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), that God would force the same debt to be paid twice. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (2) That would mean that God would punish, by law, those who have been redeemed from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and who are not under the law (Rom. 6:14), and would violate God's own principle, "Sin is not reckoned [imputed] when there is no law" (Rom. 5:13). (3) That would mean a child of God, redeemed and adopted (Gal. 4:4-7), and born again (1 Peter 1:23), born of the Holy Spirit (John 3:8), sent to Hell. (4) That would mean to make the Saviour unreliable and untruthful in His statements. "Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out demons? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you."—Matt. 7:22, 23. These are the professing Christians at the judgment who are lost, and Jesus says, "I never knew you," that not one of them was ever really redeemed and adopted as a child of God. (5) It would mean for God to violate His own oath (Ps. 89: 27-35).
Second, the second plan possible to God in dealing with those who sin wilfully after they have been redeemed from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and adopted as God's children (Gal. 4:4-7), would be to let them continue to sin wilfully, and neither punish them beyond this life, at the judgment, in Hell, nor chastise them in this life. That would mean for some of them to eventually develop characters most fearfully warped by sin.
Third, there is but one other possible plan left for God with redeemed men, redeemed from the law and adopted as His children (Gal. 4:7), who sin wilfully; and that is to chasten, chastise them in this life. That is God's plan with the redeemed, His own children; and however severe the chastening, He does it in love. In love He planned to adopt us as His children. "Having in love predestinated us for the adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself."—Eph. 1:5 (1911 Bible), and in love He chastises. "Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."—Heb. 12:6.
Reader, the issue is before you: shall you remain under the law (Rom. 3:19) to be punished justly in the judgment (Matt. 11:22-24) and to continue to sin in Hell (Rev. 22:11, R. V.), or will you accept redemption through Christ the Saviour from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), be adopted as a child of God forever (Gal. 4:4-7), to be forgiven when you sin against your Father in Heaven and confess your sin (1 John 1:9); to be chastened when you sin wilfully (Ps. 89:27-34), and to spend eternity in Heaven with Him who loved you and gave Himself for you (John 14:1-3; Gal. 2:20), free forever from sin (Rev. 21:24-27; Rev. 22:3)? You do not intend, reader, to be wrapped in a Christless shroud, to be laid away in a Christless grave, to spend eternity in a Christless Hell. Decide now.
FOR FURTHER STUDY:—The teaching that God interposes in human affairs to chastise His disobedient children (Heb. 12:5-8; Ps. 89:27-34), to chasten with the rod of the children of men (2 Sam. 7:14, 15; 1 Cor. 11:30), will frighten, or arouse the contempt of, "the modern mind" with its self-inflated wisdom, which just knows that "the laws of nature are immutable laws." Is there a being called "Nature" who made these laws? Who revealed to "the modern mind" that these laws were immutable? Where did "the modern mind" get its authority (it takes for granted that it has the power) to drive God from His universe, or to make Him powerless, or inactive? Can "the modern mind" prove absolutely that because God's law of gravitation causes objects to fall toward the earth, He has no right and no power to make Elijah's body go up instead of down (2 Kings 2:11)? Does "the modern mind" absolutely know that God is now inactive and must remain inactive? "Dr. Mason Goode observes that worlds and systems of worlds are perpetually disappearing, that within the period of the last century no less than thirteen in different constellations seem to have perished and ten new ones have been created."—"Origin of the Globe." If God is active out in space, who shall deny Him the right or the power to be active on this planet? And if active on this planet at all, then in the individual lives of His children? And in His word, backed up by fulfilled prophecies, to prove that He is dealing with us, He tells us that He is. Is "the modern mind" too scholarly, too self-opinionated, to consider the following words from Prof. James Orr in his "The Resurrection of Jesus" ("the modern mind" is very careful not to attempt a thorough reply to Professor Orr's "Problem of the Old Testament," nor his "Resurrection of Jesus"—for obvious reasons)? "The question is not, Do natural causes operate uniformly? But are natural causes the only causes that exist or operate? For miracle, as has frequently been pointed out, is precisely the assertion of the interposition of a new cause; one, besides, which the theist must admit to be a vera causa."
If when we become God's children, we are no longer under the law (Rom. 6:14), we are redeemed from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), we are no more servants but sons (Gal. 4:7), the question arises, why pray to Our Father in Heaven to be forgiven? The child does not ask his father's forgiveness in order to be his child, but to have the disturbed fellowship restored. The unforgiven child is still a child, but will be chastened. It is fellowship of the Heavenly Father with the child that is restored by forgiveness, and is sought in forgiveness, and not a destroyed relationship. On this point hear James Denny in his "The Death of Christ": "Christ died for sins once for all, and the man who believes in Christ and in His death has his relations to God once for all determined not by sin but by the Atonement. The sin for which a Christian has daily to seek forgiveness is not sin which annuls his acceptance with God."
There needs to be kept in mind, in considering that God chastens His children, the distinction that while chastenings are sufferings, all sufferings are not chastisements. The expression, "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth" (Heb. 12:6), has been widely misused and sadly misapplied. Because David's babe was taken from him as a chastisement (2 Sam. 12:14), many thoughtlessly conclude that every babe's death is meant for a chastisement for the father and mother; and many apply "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth" to all of the sorrows and sufferings of God's children. But there is another purpose accomplished by some sufferings, in "that the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ."—1 Peter 1:7. "And he shall sit as a purifier and refiner of silver."—Matt. 3:3. The silver is not to blame for the dross; nevertheless, it needs to be burned out. A child stole a piece of bread; the father chastised the child for it. That chastening was suffering. But the same child was born a cripple. In straightening the foot, the father forced many weeks of fearful suffering on the child, but the suffering was not chastisement. Chastisements are sufferings of God's children for wrongdoing to correct them; but there are sufferings that are not chastisements for wrongdoing, but are to take out of us defects, or to develop us. Hence, to say to some one who is suffering from sorrow or affliction, "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth," is often cruel and untrue.