I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

[BobRyan]

Matthew Henry, Burton Coffman, John Lightfoot, Albert Barnes…

Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16
“As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious.”
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention,
…
This parable is not like Christ's other parables, in which spiritual things are represented by similitudes borrowed from worldly things,

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Burton Coffman on the parable of Luke 16

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Verse 24
And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.
Father Abraham ...
Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called "Abraham's bosom." Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said:
It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him? F39

Albert Barnes on the parable found in Luke 16 –
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Verse 19. There was a certain rich man. Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a real history, and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable, referring not to any particular case which had actually happened, but teaching that such cases might happen. The design of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation.
…
Abraham's bosom. This is a phrase taken from the practice of reclining at meals, where the head of one lay on the bosom of another, and the phrase therefore denotes intimacy and friendship. See Barnes "Matthew 23:6". See Barnes "John 13:23". See Barnes "John 21:20". The Jews had no doubt that Abraham was in paradise. To say that Lazarus was in his bosom was therefore the same as to say that he was admitted to heaven and made happy there.
…
Verse 24. Father Abraham. The Jews considered it a signal honour that Abraham was their father--that is, that they were descendants from him. Though this man was now in misery, yet he seems not to have abandoned the idea of his relation to the father of the faithful. The Jews supposed that departed spirits might know and converse with each other. See Lightfoot on this place. Our Saviour speaks in conformity with that prevailing opinion; and as it was not easy to convey ideas about the spiritual world without some such representation, he therefore speaks in the language which was usual in his time. We are not, however, to suppose that this was literally true, but only that it was designed to represent more clearly the sufferings of the rich man in hell.

John Lighfoot on Luke 16
19. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
http://studylight.org/com/jlc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016
[There was a certain rich man.] Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, …
The main scope and design of it seems this, to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they had Moses and the Prophets, did not believe them, nay, would not believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that conclusion of the parable abundantly evidenceth what it aimed at: "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
…
31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
[Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.] Any one may see how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy to judge what was the design and intention of this parable.

http://studylight.org/com/jlc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

 

[Andre]

Quote:
Originally Posted by His Blood Spoke My Name
The account recorded by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 is a promise that is for those who have placed their faith in Christ after the cross.

Luke 16 was before the cross. Lazarus has been freed from his chains of death and is with Christ even now. We on this side of the cross will one day have our meeting with Christ and be joined with Him as Lazarus already is.

OK. It seems (and I might be wrong) that you are suggesting that those who are redeemed after the cross do not enter into conscious bliss after death (as Lazarus is right at this moment). If a Christian who dies today indeed joined Lazarus in a conscious state, this would (I think) invalidate your argument. Please comment

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

What did Jesus say to the thief on the cross?

This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. When that thief died, he went to Paradise. Where that is, we are not told, but I believe it is not the same place we call heaven.

But I believe that it is a place of bliss set aside for the saints after the cross until the resurrection call.

 

[DHK]

Summary PART 1 -

1. You raised the pretend argument that Apollumi CAN not mean DESTORY as in "reduced to ashes" and that was SHOWN to be false in the case of the DESTRUCTION that results from EVERLASTING fire.

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ explains this concept of fiery hell destroying both body and soul using "everlasting fire"

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (everlasting fire kjv).

1. Christ didn't explain anything in the Book of Jude. Jude wrote the Book of Jude, and the entire NT was inspired by the Holy Spirit. What Jude wrote in his epistle has nothing to do with what Jesus said just before his death forty years earlier. Why are you twisting the Scriptures, and attributing one author's words to another author thereby deliberately deceiving others.
As has already been shown to you, cities don't undergo the punishment of eternal fire. That is an impossibility and you know that. You are not even using common sense or correct grammar. You deliberately ignore the subject of the passage (the inhabitants of the cities) just to try and justify your perverted doctrine. People not things endure eternal punishment as the verse says. Why don't you believe the Bible Bob?

2 Peter 2:6

and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

I further showed that in Matt 2 and in Matt 12 we SEE Apollumi used in the case of moth and rust DESTROYING.in this life "for real"!
Bob

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways" (vs. 2)
"through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" (vs.3)
"God spared not the angels that sinned" (vs.4)
"condemned them with an overthrow" (vs.6)

There is the context Bob; pay attention to it.
Now look at the entirety of verse 6.

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

The cities were indeed burned into ashes. So what. The "them" refers to the inhabitants of the cities. The cities are not condemned. We have some condemned buildings in our city. That means that they are no longer fit to live in. They will eventually be torn down. But here it is the people of the cities that are condemned to eternal punishment, in contrast to:

2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
The wicked of Sodom and Gomorrha were condemned, and God delivered just Lot. That is the contrast. The contrast is between people, not cities. There ought not to be any verse break between 6 and 7. There wasn't in the original manuscripts. There was no verse breaks at all. They were inserted later on. The contrast is between people not things.
The passage, as I have shown you, is about people, disobedient people, all throughout this chapter. Read it Bob. Why don't you believe the Bible Bob?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The Word of God say the rich man cried out in the fire. It says he saw Abraham and Lazarus.

I have never seen ashes with mouths to talk or eyes to see.

The rich man was not a city, he was a person... a person who rejected Christ and is spending eternity in torments because of that.

 

[Andre]

What did Jesus say to the thief on the cross?

This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. When that thief died, he went to Paradise. Where that is, we are not told, but I believe it is not the same place we call heaven.

But I believe that it is a place of bliss set aside for the saints after the cross until the resurrection call.

Jesus' statement to the thief does not pose a significant problem for the view that the dead "sleep in their graves" until called forth. Jesus could have been speaking "phenomenologically" - referring to what it will be like for the thief as a subject of experience. For the thief, the transition to life will seem instantaneous even though I believe he is sleeping in his grave.

If someone objects to this as not taking Jesus' words as "literal", such an objector needs to account for why he (or she) seemingly does not apply this same standard of literality to the many statements about the dead sleeping.

On the other hand, I think we still need to see an account of how someone can be "made alive" from a state of already blissful conscious existence. What can Paul possibly mean by such a statement if the thief is already in a state of bliss?

How can one be more alive than to be in bliss?

 

[Amy.G]

Jesus' statement to the thief does not pose a significant problem for the view that the dead "sleep in their graves" until called forth. Jesus could have been speaking "phenomenologically" - referring to what it will be like for the thief as a subject of experience. For the thief, the transition to life will seem instantaneous even though I believe he is sleeping in his grave.

If someone objects to this as not taking Jesus' words as "literal", such an objector needs to account for why he (or she) seemingly does not apply this same standard of literality to the many statements about the dead sleeping.

On the other hand, I think we still need to see an account of how someone can be "made alive" from a state of already blissful conscious existence. What can Paul possibly mean by such a statement if the thief is already in a state of bliss?

How can one be more alive than to be in bliss?

I just love all these big ol' words that dumb Bible readers like me don't know!:laugh:

I don't know what phenomi???..whatever means, but I know what "will be" means. I know what "today" means. Jesus didn't say, "today it will seem like you are in paradise".

Today...you...will be...with Me...in paradise.

We are made alive spiritually when we are born again and receive the Holy Spirit. When we die (the body that is) our spirit leaves the dead body and goes to be with the Lord. At the resurrection (rapture of the church), we are given new (alive, perfect and eternal) bodies. Your dead body will be "made alive" at the resurrection.

Sleep is a common word for dead in Biblical times. When your body dies, it is not sleeping. It is d e a d.

John 11
11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up."
12 Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.

 

[BobRyan]

Sleep is a common word for dead in Biblical times. When your body dies, it is not sleeping. It is d e a d.

John 11
11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up."
12 Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.

My point exactly

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus' statement to the thief does not pose a significant problem for the view that the dead "sleep in their graves" until called forth. Jesus could have been speaking "phenomenologically" -

Huh???

The theif says "Remember me WHEN you come into your kingdom".

Jesus says "verily I say to you today you SHALL be with Me in paradise".

Why do we need any phenominological additive?

It does not appear to oppose the Bible teaching in 1Thess 4 regarding "sleep" of the saints - at all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Word of God say the rich man cried out in the fire. It says he saw Abraham and Lazarus.

I have never seen ashes with mouths to talk or eyes to see.

The rich man was not a city, he was a person... a person who rejected Christ and is spending eternity in torments because of that.

I agree 100% -- the details of the parable that are NOT the primary point of the parable can not be taken as literal -- as with ALL parables.

 

[BobRyan]

[/font][/color][/b]1. Christ didn't explain anything in the Book of Jude. Jude wrote the Book of Jude,

Silly Me -- I thought "ALL scripture was given by inspiration from GOD" and that Christ IS GOD!!

Guess that teaches me - huh?!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

[/color][/font][/color]

Silly Me -- I thought "ALL scripture was given by inspiration from GOD" and that Christ IS GOD!!

Guess that teaches me - huh?!

In Christ,

Bob

I knew you would come up with that lame argument Bob. There is a difference between Christ actually speaking words when he was on earth, and being the author of those spoken words in the flesh, and the words that Jude spoke while on the earth. To attribute the words of Jude to the words of Christ in the flesh is deceitful, whether or not Christ is deity. Christ did not say those words in Jude. They were simply inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Let me give you an example to clarify it better for you.
Did Christ say: "Thou shalt surely NOT die."
"Ye shall be as gods."
"Go up thou bald head; go up thou bald head."
"I will give you all these kngdoms if you bow down and worship me."

These are recorded statements in the Word of God. Did Christ say them?
"Oh, but I thought all Scripture was inspired of God," you say.
Don't be foolish Bob.
The words in Jude were written by Jude, not by Christ. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit, which means whatever Jude wrote was accurately written, and is what God intended for Jude to write to us. Christ did not say what Jude said.

 

[Andre]

I just love all these big ol' words that dumb Bible readers like me don't know!:laugh:

I don't know what phenomi???..whatever means, but I know what "will be" means. I know what "today" means. Jesus didn't say, "today it will seem like you are in paradise".

Today...you...will be...with Me...in paradise.

The problem with this line of argument is that it can be used against the position that I believe you hold.

In Romans 6:23 Paul didn't say that the wages of sin is death of the body, but death period. You strongly imply that if Jesus had meant that it will only seem like the thief will be in paradise today, this is what He would have said.

Well, by the same line of reasoning, if Paul had meant to only refer to the body, this is what he would have said.

 

[Andre]

Huh???

The theif says "Remember me WHEN you come into your kingdom".

Jesus says "verily I say to you today you SHALL be with Me in paradise".

Why do we need any phenominological additive?

It does not appear to oppose the Bible teaching in 1Thess 4 regarding "sleep" of the saints - at all.

in Christ,

Bob

Hi Bob:

I admit that I have not read all of your posts in this thread. However, I assume that you believe that the dead (both redeemed and unredeemed) rest in their graves until they are called forth. This is what I believe that the Scriptures teach.

My point was that a phenomenological reading of the statement to the thief allows those of us who believe that the dead sleep to reconcile Jesus' statement with this view. If people want to call that "distortion" or "twisting" they are going to have withstand the counterargument that they engage in much worse to make their view work with Scriptures such as Romans 6:23

In any event, let me ask you directly: Do you believe that all persons enter a non-conscious state after death of the body and that consciousness is restored at some point in the future? If you, like me, believe this, then you need an explanation for Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross.

If my assumption about your belief about what happens after death is correct, how do you reconcile the statement to the thief with such a view?

 

[Amy.G]

The problem with this line of argument is that it can be used against the position that I believe you hold.

In Romans 6:23 Paul didn't say that the wages of sin is death of the body, but death period. You strongly imply that if Jesus had meant that it will only seem like the thief will be in paradise today, this is what He would have said.

Well, by the same line of reasoning, if Paul had meant to only refer to the body, this is what he would have said.

Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said.

The wages of sin is death. Physical and spiritual. Spiritual death is separation from God. The Bible makes it clear that the spirit (of the believer) goes to be with the Lord when it separates from the body. I don't see anywhere in scripture that the spirit/soul is unconscious or asleep until the Lord returns. The Bible says when the Lord returns, He will bring the saints with Him. How can He do this if the saints are still in the grave?

 

[BobRyan]

There is a difference between Christ actually speaking words when he was on earth, and being the author of those spoken words in the flesh, and the words that Jude spoke while on the earth.

As the Hank-ster would say " a distinction without a difference" -- it is the SAME person in BOTH cases consistently giving us information about the SAME "Everlasting fire".

Fortunately it is always left up to me to state the obvious on the Baptist Board and that is the way I like it.

I could not be put in that position without the obliging efforts of people like you DHK making those kind of statements - My sincere thanks.

To attribute the words of Jude to the words of Christ in the flesh

And then there is "rabbit trailing" as you are doing above. Is this where you imagine that no NT Author refers to God the Son as "Christ" the way I have once He is noted as being in heaven -- or is this just a VERY VERY short rabbit trail for you?

(that is then spun around in your gamming of this topic -- as my "deceit" for not anticipating that you would hop down such a silly rabbit trail? - all of which is pretty funny).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In any event, let me ask you directly: Do you believe that all persons enter a non-conscious state after death of the body and that consciousness is restored at some point in the future? If you, like me, believe this, then you need an explanation for Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross.

Yes I believe that - but my point is that if you look at the qualifier in the question of the theif "remember me WHEN you come into your kingdom" the reference is to a future point in time.

Christ's answer stays in that same future context "Verily I say to you today You SHALL be with me in paradise"

Then in John 20 Christ affirms that he has not yet been to the Father - He has not yet been to paradise.

My point is that the language of the two having the descussion points to that future event. Even those who believe that Christ died and went straight to paradise have to admit that it was a future event to the discussion being had at the cross. The question is only how far in the future and my answer is that the context "When you come into your kingdom" sets the target time frame.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said.

The wages of sin is death. Physical and spiritual.

The problem with that definition for Romans 6 is that all saints then pay their own wages of sin - at least the physical death part.

But using John 11 as the context "He who believes in me shall never die" - we have to conlcude that Romans 6 is speaking of the "Second death" the we see defined in Rev 20 and called "the second death" as well as the one we see described in MAtt 10:28 where "BOTH body AND SOUL are DESTROYED" in that fiery hell - called the second death lake of fire in Rev 20.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Fortunately it is always left up to me to state the obvious on the Baptist Board and that is the way I like it.

Proverbs 16:18 (KJV) Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[DHK]

And then there is "rabbit trailing" as you are doing above. Is this where you imagine that no NT Author refers to God the Son as "Christ" the way I have once He is noted as being in heaven -- or is this just a VERY VERY short rabbit trail for you?

(that is then spun around in your gamming of this topic -- as my "deceit" for not anticipating that you would hop down such a silly rabbit trail? - all of which is pretty funny)[

A silly rabbit trail, Bob. You made an assertion to try and bolster up your unbiblical position. An assertion that now you cannot back up. Your only defence is by using the above demeaning language which infers that you have lost your own debate and your position is not credible.

The positon is simple. Christ did not write the words in the Book of Jude; Jude did, albeit they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Likewise, Christ did not write the words of Satan: "...if you bow down and worship me," yet they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If you assert that the words of the Book of Jude are the words of Christ then you must also assert that the words recorded in the latter statement found in Mat.4 are also the words of Christ. Are the words of Satan also the words of Christ. Yet those very words of Satan are inspired by the Holy Spirit. To say otherwise is to deny the inspiration of the Bible (2Tim.3:16.
The doctrine of inspiration does not teach that Christ spoke every word recorded in the Bible. It teaches that every word was accurately recorded in the Bible and says just what God wants it to say. The author remains the same. Satan remains the author of what he said, not God. Jude remains the author of what he said, not God. Both are inspired Scripture, inspired of the Holy Spirit. If you fail to grasp the truth of this concept, you fail to grasp what inspiration is. Either way your argument is defeated.

Christ did not say those words in Jude, as you said. It is too bad that you are being too arrogant to admit that he didn't.