More times than not, people reject hard doctrines such as this due to an emotional allergy toward it.
They end up putting God on the stand and presume to pass judgement. “I would never believe in a God who allows people to suffer in hell for all eternity!”
As I said at the beginning, it is not that I don’t empathize with such emotional reactions (Lord knows, I do), but do you really want the alternative?
Do you want to believe in a God who ultimately bows to your preferences?
Do you want God to seek your permission before he can claim something to be true?
At this point, it is much more important to deal with your definition of what it means to be “God.” The biggest problem in your theology is not likely within the individual discipline that gave rise the the question, but the epistemological approach to authority in your life.
Having said this, it is important to realize that I am not asserting the opposite view. It is not as if (as in the discipline of textual criticism) “the harder reading is preferred.”I am not saying that we should always be looking for the least palatable option.
Neither am I saying that because the palatability of a doctrine does not determine is veracity, that palatability will not have some voice in the decision-making process forming our theology. After all, while we are fallen and our moral compass is damaged, it does not follow that the palatability of a doctrine does not work at all. We are still in the image of God. Therefore, our emotions should often guide us and inform our understanding of God and his attributes.
Technically speaking, people can be saved and have all sorts of wrong doctrine (after all, I do). But that is not the right question.
It all comes down to whether or not we are allowing God to have the right to reveal and have his revelation be the authority even when the truths of his revelation do not sit well with us emotionally. I would never ask anyone to blindly believe in an eternal hell, unconditional election, the doctrine of the Trinity, the authority of the husband over his wife or any number of emotionally difficult doctrines.
Neither am I saying that those who disagree with me concerning these issues are doing so based on their emotions, or that there are no valid logical or biblical reasons for rejecting the traditional doctrines. What I am saying is that, more often than not, I find that these questions and the persistent rejection of traditional views in these areas are based on the premise that we have permission to create God in our image rather than forming our understanding of him according to his revelation.
