Fire and Brimstone Preaching: Good Idea or Bad Idea?

We’re defining “fire and brimstone” as, preaching against a sin, or a burden of sins that's on every life, or reminding people of Satan or hell.  Let’s look at Peter.  In his very first sermon, in Acts 2:19-21, he began with a quote from Joel 2:

I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. ²⁰ The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. ²¹ And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’

So he begins his preaching by giving graphic images of the devastation of the Day of the Lord. Such a terribly negative start, don't you think?  This was, at least, book-ended with hopeful statements. God would give prophecies, dreams, and images; and He would respond if they call on His name.  Right after the scary statement above, Peter wasted no time in reproaching everyone (Acts 2:22-24a) for a recent incident that was still raw on their nerves—he accused them (notice, he did not place the responsibility on Pilate or on the Pharisees) of crucifying their Messiah.  He didn’t shy away from blunt language:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles… ²³ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;²⁴ whom God raised up…

Note how confrontational Peter is, YOU have crucified, you have put Him to death.  Note particularly his calling them “lawless.”  The Jews thought they knew the law, and had abundant scribes and lawyers to tell them exactly how to be lawful to the finest degree possible; so being accused of lawlessness was a gigantic slap in the face, was it not?

He points more emphatically at their mistake in verse 36 in the same sermon:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

This directness about their sin makes this “fire and brimstone” preaching.  What was the reaction? Surprisingly, a good one, from Acts 2:37-41:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” ³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized…" and, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” ⁴¹ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Three thousand people saved!  An astonishing result from one “fire and brimstone” sermon.  These people turned completely around; as later verses show, they were on fire for Christ. 

If something works in a sermon, you do it again, right?  Peter, after healing a lame man, is equally forceful in his reproach of the Jews, in Acts 3:13-15:

…God…glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. ¹⁴ But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵ and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses

Peter won’t let them escape blame by saying “Pilate did it.”  Nor could they escape blame by saying, "He never really said He was God."  The Jews knew that certain things He did, certain names He called himself, clearly claimed Godhood. They knew that Pilate tried hard to prevent this crucifixion, but the Jews wouldn’t let Jesus off the hook.  Peter is again forceful with his language; “you killed the Prince of life,” you delivered Him up, you traded Him for a murderer.  He also accused them of denying Christ.  To do that was a serious charge; if unrepentant, it is a ticket to hell, as Jesus points out in Matthew 10:33:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven

Then Peter seems to open the door for them to escape blame, in Acts 3:17:

“Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.

But how acceptable is it, to say, “Yes, we killed Him, but we did it out of ignorance.” They knew that their ignorance was their own making, as far as they knew. But that backhanded "compliment" was only a temporary respite.  His censorious language reaches its peak in verse 23:

And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet (Jesus) shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. 

A bold statement.  I can only surmise that rumors of a resurrection must have spread, or else he would have been called a lunatic, telling them that if they don't hear Jesus' words, they'll be destroyed.  You just never hear this confrontational preaching anymore, do you?  In any event, except for the priests, the response was amazing, as Acts 4:4 says:

However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. 

Considering that households generally took on a faith together, this suggests at least 10,000 people, including wives and older children, either were saved in this sermon, or have been saved soon after, following the father.  When compared to 3000 souls added in his previous sermon, shortly before, this sermon, also classed as "fire and brimstone," might’ve saved another 10,000 people!  Two fire and brimstone sermons, 13,000 saved!  This is shocking, is it not?  .  

Now of course, you might beg off from the obvious conclusion, saying that "it was an unusual time; the Jews were ultra-sensitive as to what they did."  Well, how do sensitive people react when you push their buttons, telling them they were wrong and how God will avenge justice on them?  No, that explanation didn't fly.  Or maybe you'd say "the Holy Spirit did something special here just to “kick off” Christianity’s start."  Well, “doing something special” is my point.  I believe God honors the boldness of the Word preached, and the Holy Spirit acted to convict as a result.  

Couldn't the Holy Spirit do the same again, acting on a preacher's boldness?  Preachers need to understand that the results are not theirs—the results belong to God.  The Holy Spirit can knock a person down with conviction far better than the preacher can. Your first motive should be to honor God, not to rationally persuade people of the benefits of Christianity.  You want to tell the truth about both sides of God, despite continual harping from the baby Christians about our intolerance, or how we scare people away, and "fear is not a good reason to be saved," and such malarky.  Suppose that a pastor is never blunt about sin, and fears a negative response to such preaching so much that he never delivers a fire and brimstone message.  Given that this is the OPPOSITE from the above, shouldn't he expect results that are the opposite?  I.e, few people saved?  Are you in a church where everyone loves the pastor because he delivers comfortable messages, even has good timing with jokes? Well, how many parishioners are on fire for God there? How many congregants are willing to do the evangelistic work, encourage you to step up and do your gift God gave you, talks a lot about what Christ is doing to you and people you know? You say, we don't get that--only the newly saved folks act like that."  Agrees with my point.  Does your pastor want to save souls more than worry about how some of the people feel about him?  If that's the case, he should be willing to give the hard line, give f&b a try, right? His model is in God's revealed guidebook, the Book of Acts.  That model is from the best teacher, right?  God.  But if pastor rejects it, maybe he's got that devil's disease, called "fear of the world."  So how can the Holy Spirit bless his messages? Is this why in many churches, the Holy Spirit is MIA. You see the liturgy, the fine use of words in a fine pastor, at a fine church building, with fine people. You are linked in.  But how many souls does that get you?  It could even be that with bland preaching, he attracts more “worldly Christians” to his membership (that’s an oxymoron—being worldly and a Christian shouldn’t exist).  These lukewarm people are often trouble.  They actually get angry and fearful if the Holy Spirit goes to work, and gets some people truly saved and starts to shake up the place.  If pastors then listen to their complaints, and gets worried himself, he might suppress anything considered "radical" today--but thereby kill a revival.

My conclusion is, the Holy Spirit liked Peter’s sermons, and blessed them by convicting people and bringing more souls to heaven.  May God be praised.  When you see these results, why not copy it, pastors? Are you bold enough? 

In Acts 4, Peter preaches like that again, this time before the religious rulers, after a miraculous healing.  If Peter had used worldly logic, it would suggest that he “back off” from a fire and brimstone style with them, knowing that they had the power to imprison him, and then no one would hear the gospel from him again. Better to "go softer" than to be forced to go silent, right?   But the Holy Spirit gave him the fire and brimstone words, as we’re told in Acts 4:8, and you can see his forthrightness in the sermon in verses 10-12:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel… ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead… ¹¹ This is the 

‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’

¹² Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Note that Peter really accuses them of conspiracy to murder.  I would also just like to note, for present day culturally astute readers, the “bigoted intolerance” of Peter’s—or really God’s —statement in verse 12, that there is no salvation in any other faith, including the Jews trying to obey the law--which they had strained at for thousands of years. 

This time, the results are radically different. Namely, the Spirit doesn't convict them--probably because they hadn't repented from killing Jesus. And they might have even committed the unpardonable sin--attributing to Satan the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now you may argue that, sure, some people are beyond hope, but: if we could have more miraculous healings, as Peter had in Acts 4, we could get more people saved today.   My answer is three-fold:  First, despite the healings, Jesus was crucified.  Secondly, the Jewish rulers cared less about the miracle in Acts 4; their concern was that Peter was preaching that Jesus was raised from the dead. Note verses 1b-2:

…the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, ² being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

  My third reason is, Jesus knew that salvation by miracles was temporary; its design was mostly to pull more people around to hear His great words.  The words were the key, not the healings; they were calculated to convict of sin, which is essential in being saved.  As you can see in John 2:23-25:

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.²⁴ But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,²⁵ and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man

Now let’s turn to the deacon, Stephen, a fire and brimstone preacher in the “worst” way.  Just like Peter, when Stephen used fire and brimstone style on the religious rulers, the results were again disastrous. He was stoned to death. But God was acceptable to this style, as Acts 6:15 clearly implies:

And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.

Why did God want Stephen to preach that way, when it resulted in him being killed?  The biggest reason was, God had told the apostles to preach to the Jerusalem first, then to spread out--to Judea, to Samaria, to the world (Acts 1:8).  But the saved folks weren't doing that. So God was willing to let them suffer persecution.  As a result, they did spread out--when they fled elsewhere--and brought the Gospel to the whole world. 

Now Stephen uses language guaranteed to touch their “hot buttons” more than Peter, in Acts 7:51 and 52:

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. ⁵² Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers

Stiff-necked!  Uncircumcised! (That must’ve hurt—circumcision was a badge of honor to them).  You always resist the Holy Spirit. He told them that they were persecutors, betrayers, and murderers.  This over-the-top language, calling people names, is guaranteed NOT to save anyone, except a masochist.  So why did God want him to do it? Why would maybe He might want you to do it (we're not talking about a sermon now, we're talking about you and an individual.  Here was the stranger side of evangelism, a possible approach when the sinner has seen the power of God and still refuses). Maybe He would want it on rate occasion, because when they stand in judgment, God will remind them of the words you said to help convict them.  

There is another reason too:  Sometimes over-the-top preaching will expose the worst in people, and we get to see who they really are. Here are people who know how to keep up surfaces; they were nice; they were civilized.  But after these sermons?  Now they're whining to pastor, now they're downgrading him to others.  

Here's yet another reason:  We all should be “watchmen,” when culture starts to turn rotten. Ezekiel 33:2-6 explains the idea: 

…let the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, ³ when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, ⁴ then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. ⁵ He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. ⁶ But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’   

The definition of “warn” is to “inform someone of an impending danger…give someone forceful advice about their actions.”  If you are the watchman, it is your obligation to use forceful (i.e, fire and brimstone) language on frequent occasions to steer them clear of danger.  If you don’t, judgment is on you.  A sober reason to change preaching styles now and then!

Now, you pastors and others, may argue that you are following a Scriptural path, as I John 4:7-8 points out:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. ⁸ He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

So you say, "How can we do fire and brimstone, in light of those verses?  My sermons are often on love.  You think that warning, that fire and brimstone, is love?"  But let's talk about the real meaning of love.  If a man loves his wife, he protects her, right?  That's a given.  Suppose he comes home from work, and sees his house completely engulfed in a raging fire.  Toxic smoke is pouring out, he can hear the stairway collapsing.  Then he sees his wife, outside, with a strange look on her face, running toward the house. Maybe she wants to save the baby.  But the firemen are on the scene, ready to do that.  But she still wants to  hurry and save the baby,  So what does husband do?  He steps out in front of her--she goes around him, moving on toward disaster.  He runs up to her, tells her in strong language to stop.  She ignores him, persistently moving ahead.  She's getting close to the front door.  Then he has to do things that are "unreasonable," in most situations.  He wrestles her, tackles her, puts a knee in her back to prevent her from walking into the fire.  

Well, what is hell?  It's far worse than this fire. It's forever.  None of us can imagine God doing that to most people, but we trust His Word to tell the truth. We need to act like it's the truth.  There are times when we should act desperately.  Truth is, the majority will go to hell.  Proof?  Matthew 7:13-14.  Yes, you've read it many times.  But do you meditate on His words, really think what He's saying here?

 And we know how certain people live, that some of them can't be Christian.  We don't know when they may die, or I might die, and the kind of relationship-designed message I can give them about the Gospel would be lost.  So we get pointed with them.  Hey, we might get unreasonable with them, with dangers of hell, with fire and brimstone.  I guarantee you of one thing.  Even if they cut off relationship with you for being "weird," the desperation on your lips will haunt them for a long time. Thus, we need to be a continual watchman.  We have the answers.  They don't.  Give them the knowledge. 

Now let's take another angle on this subject.  When Peter preached to Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius in Acts 10, his approach was completely different.  No more fire and brimstone.  Why?  Well, he saw the Gentiles as a foreign mission.  Jews previously had minimal relations with Gentiles, particularly about religion.  Most of the Gentiles knew little about this Jesus of Nazareth.  They were certainly wary of the Jews.  So the words to the Gentiles were those of instruction and education about Jesus.

So, we see that fire and brimstone preaching was highly successful--or highly non-successful--with the Jews, who had Scripture that they allegedly knew and believed in.  Well, speaking of people who likewise should have plenty of Scripture and knowledge, isn't that the U.S. mostly through our history? But today, things are different.  We have lots of Bibles, lots of Christian "tradition," as each denomination defines it.  But hardly anybody reads Scripture.  And parents aren't teaching their children.  As many studies prove, people's knowledge of Jesus has been lost.  So it's like preaching to the Gentiles again. I'm NOT saying that means preaching that God is love, Christianity has benefits, etc.  Preaching to the unknowledgeable is simple:  Go for expository preaching, cover all sides of God, about sin, about money and the world, about hell.  When you discuss hell, simply use fire and brimstone.  You'll see a huge wall of resistance there.  You can tell the sinner from the saved, in how they respond.  Many people would rather believe Scripture is lying on this subject, rather than what it says about the devil and hell. Straighten them out on that.  Tell them you can't cherry-pick Scripture.   

Pastors, resist the urge to assume that everyone in your church is saved, so you conclude not to aggressively warn them.  You say to yourself, the devil has not captured anybody in my church.  (Of course, it doesn't help that you haven't   been preaching on the wiles of the devil.) Yes, it's true that pastors are diplomats--they push back on this idea.  If the prophetic voices are active, let them speak the hard word to everyone. (That would involve changing the service--like the church did in Acts.  Is that bad?)  The problem I see, is pastors tend to suppress prophetic voices among their leaders.  It seem so negative, and so scary with unpredictability in services. (How pastors hate things beyond their control!  Are they willing to let the Holy Spirit have control?)  Pastors consider the prophets, the sources for those utterances, as speculative, emotionally driven, only believable with a large grain of salt, and pastors don’t like to deal with problems that seem to always result when someone gets their feelings hurt when these guys talk.  And that's even among churches that believe all the gifts are for today.  If pastors don't believe that, they'll shut down the naysayers even quicker.  

Also, church discipline, commanded in Scripture, is totally ignored (I have a blog on that subject).  But take a look at Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 10:11-12.  This was after his listing past sins of lusting after evil things, sexual immorality, etc, all of which are pointed out explicitly in Scripture.  Gee, you might ask, do you really want to mention these terrible things that people are capable of doing?  Here is his answer:

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. ¹² Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.:

Some Scriptures are for our admonition, to shake a finger at us, to warn us, “lest (we) fall.”  Fall might mean going to hell, or taking steps in that direction (a good verse for those who mistakenly believe "once saved, always saved.")  Such admonishment is needed to remind ourselves that we are sinful people and need God every day.  So when was the last time you heard a pastor preach on one of the fallen people in Scriptures, preaching deeply about the sin, and concluding the sermon with “so as far as we know, he is in hell even today. We could go there ourselves, taking the path he took.”  Not going to happen, right?  Pastors are trained in seminary to begin a sermon lighthearted, and end on a positive note, to send everyone home happy. Keeps everyone coming back, tithing, paying the bills. But God’s goal is sometimes not to make us happy—but to call us up short, to make us sober and vigilant, sometimes to make us introspective.  To make us take a good hard look at ourselves, trying to strip away the self-deception that we fall prey to if we are not bathed in Scripture, which gives us a realistic look at ourselves.

Since pastors are often not very good at encouraging us to do these things, may we desire to be closer to God, and warn ourselves to put an end to our own sins and self-deception.  And pray for pastors to become leaders, with more spine.  Willing to warn us away from falling; may God have mercy on us.