St. SteVen said:
Over the years I have noticed a shift away from the embarrassment of the hell doctrine.
That's a very strange response to the OP.
Here it is again. Messing with scriptures?
Language that better aligns with the beliefs of the church that has rejected the "hell fire and brimstone" message.
[
Over the years I have noticed a shift away from the embarrassment of the hell doctrine.
LOLStop messing with the Scriptures.
That's a very strange response to the OP.
Here it is again. Messing with scriptures?
The truth is that the hell doctrine has been softened to be "eternal separation from God." (whatever that means to you) ???Over the years I have noticed a shift away from the embarrassment of the hell doctrine.
It had always seemed like the "fly in the ointment" of Christianity to me.
But we had biblical evidence that it was sad, but true.
The solution was evangelism. We are in the business of "saving souls from hell." Err...
I mean "eternal separation from God." (whatever that means to you) ???
This task of world evangelism was completely overwhelming.
We had annual world missions conferences for fund raising.
We were sending and supporting missionaries at home and abroad.
Some were wanting to be good stewards of their giving by
demanding results, or channeling the funds toward "fruitful" ministries.
Which meant withdrawing support from any who seemed to not
measure up to their expectations. Made me wonder.
Here at home we were still expected to spread the good news.
But, an over-evangelized America was less than welcoming.
They hadn't forgotten the "hellfire and brimstone".
What's your take on all of this?
Language that better aligns with the beliefs of the church that has rejected the "hell fire and brimstone" message.
[