Neeva Candida

Are you suggesting that the existence of a condition described as Universalism is a satanic lie? Or, are you suggesting that the effects of this condition are a satanic lie? ~Neeva

I thought I was doing her a favor by explaining to her what heresyhunter meant by "universalism". I didn't think I was highjacking her thread and I certainly didn't think I was being rude. Didn't say you were being rude, just saying if the OP ask something we should "try" to abide by their wishes. Hey, have to be told myself upon occasion! No harm no foul! What is an OP? ~Neeva Opening Poster! Thank you. ~Neeva

I thought I was doing her a favor by explaining to her what heresyhunter meant by "universalism". I didn't think I was highjacking her thread and I certainly didn't think I was being rude. Didn't say you were being rude, just saying if the OP ask something we should "try" to abide by their wishes. Hey, have to be told myself upon occasion! No harm no foul! What is an OP? ~Neeva

Or NOT living in sin. ~Neeva

"However when I did some research on this verse I found that the word "opened" had been changed from the word "open". So when we look at this verse as saying "I looked and behold a door WAS OPENED" verses "I looked and behold a door WAS OPEN". We can see that changing the word "open" to the word "opened" can change how we perceive what the verse is actually telling us thereby changing what we understand and leading us to believe that which is not. The Geneva bible which was the first ever bible translated into English was translated by William Tyndale in 1526 almost 100 years before the King James version and uses the word"open" instead of the word "opened". Which means that if the door was already open when John looked up then those who use this verse to re-enforce the Pre-trib concept have not done their research and are deceived into believing that which is not and are teaching that which is wrong." I think this would make for an interesting discussion on it's own merits. However, it should probably be carried over to a new thread. ~Neeva

Hi jenwat, I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. I wanted to try and understand your beliefs a little better before attempting to comment any further. Boy, did that turn out to be an interesting exercise. After compiling a response that extended for more than three pages I stopped and reconsidered. That hardly seemed like the way to go. So, I decided to take a different approach. Instead of trying to persuade you one way or another I tell you what I learned. Your beliefs described thus far seem to fall into a system that is referred to as Conditional Immortality. It is similar to what Annihilationists believe in many ways except one significant one. Annihilationists believe that we are all born with an eternal soul and lose it if we are not saved. CIs believe that none of us are born with immortal souls and only receive one once we are saved. Of course like any belief there are many variations. So, I wouldn't expect your particular beliefs to hold entirely to one category or the other. Rather it only seems to me that you lean more toward the CIs. However, both groups do believe that even though the unsaved will experience some degree of punishment it will not be eternal. They both point to a handful of scriptures to support their beliefs and have developed theories to explain the more inconvenient verses of the Bible. Of course any belief can be accused of the same thing. It would be possible to start listing each verse used by these groups and creating what sounded like well-reasoned and though-out responses. In fact that is exactly what I had started to do when I began wondering what value that would really have. I decided it wouldn't be very profitable at all. I wish I could believe as you do. I have many people that are close to me that I fear are not saved and don't seem inclined to change their minds. It bothers me a great deal to think of the fate that awaits them. If I thought for a moment that their fate would only be temporary I might be able to draw some comfort from that belief. However, I've spent a great deal of time studying and praying over these verses and I keep coming up with the same conclusion...the fate of the unsaved is not temporary and not merely separation from God. One of the most difficult obstacles is that the "inconvenient" verses the CIs and Annihilationists face mostly are spoken by Jesus Himself. In fact many people believe that Jesus spoke of Hell more often than any other biblical figure. That is debatable but one thing is not. He did speak of it and He was usually very specific. His descriptions tend to be the ones that elicit images of a fiery and horrible place of eternal punishment. The verses that are used to suggest that Hell is a temporary condition are generally not the ones that Jesus spoke. So, to accept a belief that proposes this temporary condition one finds themselves having to rationalize what Jesus really meant. Of course this is just my opinion. I recognize that and that is why I decided to keep this post much more condensed than it was originally. I do hope this does not sound like an attack. I have tried to keep things low-key. I appreciate your efforts to keep this from becoming a brawl and wish to do the same. ~Neeva

Hi jenwat3, I wish to start by saying that I do not seek to attack you personally in any way. I do not post very much by some standards. That is because my focus and therefore my posts lean more toward evangelism than anything else. Unfortunately, in today's modern church you don't see much of that anymore. What is being done is usually unscriptural and producing "counterfeit Christians" whose later condition is worse than their first. I believe that the issue of Hell is very relevant to evangelism. I believe that you have been misled about what the Bible says about Hell and therefore are perpetuating that misinformation. This is understandable. Many people have been taught similar concepts. It is the misinformation that I take issue with. With many modern churches focusing on a ministry of "love, peace and joy" rather than "repentance" things are already in a serious state of affairs. Teaching that Hell is not really such a big deal only serves to worsen that situation. Some borderline unbelievers begin weighing the options of living any way they want because in the end they simply cease to exist while truly Saved individuals shy away from witnessing because it really doesn't matter, the consequences simply aren't that bad. It also diminishes the sacrifice that God made. He sent his Son to die on the cross for all of our sins. Well, that would have been a bit of an over reaction if the final result of not accepting that gift is simply to cease to exist. Why then did He make such an enormous sacrifice? So that some could have salvation? Well, those that reject that salvation aren't really going to care very much when they are no longer sentient. I believe His purpose for making this sacrifice goes further than that. I believe it is because the alternative is much worse than annihilation. I believe that the scriptures teach us this. Quenched means to "put out" or "put and end to". You seem to agree with that much. Therefore when the Bible tells us that this fire will not be quenched I would assume that you would also agree that it means it "cannot be put out". If it cannot be put out then we are not really left with any scenario in which it goes out for any reason. If this is the case then what about those unsaved souls? They burn up? Cease to exist? Everlasting simply means to "last forever". Several of the scriptures that I quoted refer to this punishment as everlasting. The punishment is not something separate from the person being punished. When I was young and told to stand in the corner of the classroom I knew that I was being punished. After a time when I was allowed to return to my seat I knew that the punishment was over. There was not an invisible activity of punishment continuing in that particular corner of the classroom. "Everlasting punishment" tells us therefore that it goes on forever and for it to be a punishment someone has to experience it. The scriptures quite clearly tell us that the unsaved will be among those experiencing this punishment. Hades actually means something quite different than the grave. However, your exception to my post seems to focus mostly on the suggestion of an everlasting punishment for the unsaved. So, I don't really think that spending time on that particular topic in this thread would be very valuable. My concern is that if we diminish or allow to be diminished what the Bible teaches us about Hell then we make it easer for souls to slip into that place. Trying to convert sinners to Christ by scaring them with Hell is not very effective. Spurring the Saved on to greater efforts at witnessing to the unsaved is! ~Neeva

I am concerned by the constant use of the phrase "separation from God" to describe Hell with hardly any mention of the torturous punishment that goes along with it. One person has even suggested that "humans who will be sent there will not burn forever in eternal torment. They will simply be gone forever". This is not what the Bible teaches. It is very important to understand what the Bible says about Hell. It should motivate the Saved into fervent action to seek out and witness to the Lost. The word "hell" doesn't actually appear in the original text. Three words are commonly translated as "hell" in our modern Bibles. They are "Gehenna", "Hades" and "Sheol". Gehenna is a place of punishment. Hades is where the dead live and Sheol is the grave. The question was asked what if neither Hitler nor Mother Teresa were saved. Would they both receive the same punishment? Well, I can't answer that question. However, I do have an observation. Hitler should hope that the "annihilationist" is correct. In that scenario he and Mother Teresa simply cease to exist. His punishment is to simply stop being a conscious being. In fact, he doesn't even know that he is being punished. Not a bad deal actually if you're a mass murderer. However, there are scriptures that paint a different picture of Hell. Luke 16: 19-31 tells us about a rich man that went to Hell. He was conscious, felt pain, thirst and felt remorse. The KJV says that he was tormented by flame. These were Jesus' words. In Mark 9: 43-48 Jesus tells us that it would be better to maim ourselves (remove hand, foot or eye) then to be cast into Hell whole where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. Here are some other references regarding the fate of the unsaved: "Shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2) "Everlasting punishment" (Mathew 25:46) "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51) "Fire unquenchable" (Luke 3:17) "Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" (Romans 2:8,9) "Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 1:9) "Eternal fire...the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 7,13) Revelation 14:10,11 tells us the final, eternal destiny of the sinner: "He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone...the smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day or night." I am not suggesting that we hit the unsaved over the head with a baseball bat of "fire and brimstone". However, it should be a factor in how the Saved conduct themselves in the area of evangelism. ~Neeva

Seeing these reminded me of another product. Unfortunately this other product was not as nice. Kitty Speak ~Neeva

Perhaps you could eliminate some of the confusion by providing examples of things that you consider as not being absolutes. ~Neeva

Another interesting statistic that Baptist have identified is that roughly 98% of the members of any given church have never witnessed to anyone. If even close it is very sobering. ~Neeva

While this certainly does nothing to support an evolutionistic theory of man's presence it does reinforce how much like animals men can become without God. ~Neeva

Put those thoughts behind you...it is non-productive thought...People are so private and non-commital that people move in and put of church in our transient society...it is not proof positive that they were not concerned about you...they may not have known how to approach you. People often don't know what to say, without being overly confrontational or nosey... I appreciate the sentiment but I was attempting to make a point (quite poorly obviously). Personally I would not care very much either way. I was concerned by the number of responses suggesting that if anyone brought the issue up it would be a bad thing. While I certainly understand that it could be done with that motivation I was trying to point out that it didn't necessarily have to be. ~Neeva

Wow! This is great news. I can't wait to hear what the commssion on "Is the sky blue?" has determined. ~Neeva

Then again, if I had been absent for an extended period of time and nobody asked me where or why I had been I would feel that nobody really cared that much for me in the first place. ~Neeva