
“The pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit has opened its mouth under them…. O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in.” So warned the great Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards in his classic sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Though Edwards simply read his message from a sermon manuscript, his colorful description of hell sent his congregation into convulsions of weeping and repentance. Today, such a message would send many people in a congregation out the door looking for a more “seeker-sensitive” church.
The idea of God sending people to a place of eternal torment has always been repulsive to many. Colonel Robert Ingersoll, a famous atheist of the nineteenth century, railed against the idea of hell: “The idea of hell was born of revenge and brutality on one side, and cowardice on the other…. I have no respect for any human being who believes in it…. I dislike the doctrine, I hate it, I despise it, I defy this doctrine…. This doctrine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express.”
The renowned philosopher Bertrand Russell rejected Christ mainly because of His teaching about hell: “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.”
How’s that for arrogance? “The Lord Jesus was a pretty good fellow except for this one fatal flaw in His character: He chose to believe in a place called hell, and therefore, He is not as moral as I am.”
But those who are outside of Christ are not the only ones who find the idea of hell politically incorrect. Many Christians today reject the concept of an eternal place of torment. They argue: “God is too loving and kind to send people to a literal eternal place of torment called hell. A God who would do such a thing is more like Satan than like God.”
Beneath that objection are two presuppositions which are fatally flawed.
First, the objection assumes that God is just as tolerant of sin as we are. In our culture, we think it is a virtue to be nonjudgmental and accepting of other people’s sins. Our willingness to tolerate sin is not due to our righteousness; it is due to our unrighteousness. Our willingness to overlook sin in others as well as ourselves is not due to our holiness. It is due to our unholiness.
But God is not like us (Psalm 50:21). There are many differences between God and us, and chief among them, is God’s holiness and God’s inability to tolerate sin. The prophet Habakkuk described God as One whose “eyes are too pure to approve evil” and who cannot “look on wickedness with favor” (Habakkuk 1:13).
God’s holiness caused Him not only to turn away from His Son on the cross, but also to condemn Him. Sin always demands God’s punishment. The prophet Nahum clearly states that the Lord “will by no means leave the guilty unpunished (Nahum 1:3).
Look at the Cross. It reminds us that God has a zero tolerance for sin.
Second the objection assumes that we really aren’t that bad. But the Bible makes it clear. We have all missed the mark. We have all come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
Because of our sin we all deserve hell. Because of God’s love, grace and mercy we do not have to go to hell. God’s way of escaping hell is by way of the Cross.
If you would like to hear a great message that addresses the question of how a God of love and grace can send anyone to hell, then listen to this message preached by Dr. Albert Mohler at the Idlewild Baptist Church in Tampa, Florida.