I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Actually Amy...

BR doesn't even have #4 correct since he says the rich man is in torment only if we "press the PARABLE beyond the PRIMARY POINT that Christ makes of it".

BR still thinks this is a parable while Christ in no way implies that it is.

In fact, it is BR who is pressing the ACTUAL ACCOUNT beyond the PRIMARY POINT that Christ makes of it.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Bob,

Go search the Word of God and everywhere that the word 'parable' is used.

When a story Jesus tells is a parable, the Word clearly says so...

AND HE SPAKE THIS PARABLE...
AND HE PUT FORTH A PARABLE...
NOW THE PARABLE IS THIS...

Notice... Luke 16 does not even have the word 'parable' in it at all.

Our Lord is a consistant Lord. When He was speaking a parable, He would tell those He was speaking to that He was speaking a parable.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Actually Amy...

BR doesn't even have #4 correct since he says the rich man is in torment only if we "press the PARABLE beyond the PRIMARY POINT that Christ makes of it".

BR still thinks this is a parable while Christ in no way implies that it is.

In fact, it is BR who is pressing the ACTUAL ACCOUNT beyond the PRIMARY POINT that Christ makes of it.

The real reason fundamentalist teach this isn’t a parable, is because Christ starts in a narrative form…”there was a certain rich man…” But, what about the prodigal son recorded in Luke 15, which also begins as a narrative…”A certain man had two sons…” Is this generally conceded as a parable?

With that said, it’s my understanding that this is just a continuation of parables started back in Luke 15. And this doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a literal Hell, where the condemned soul will spend eternity.


-

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

There are many Bible scholars that would go with those who reject the Bible teaching on the destruction of BOTH body and soul in fiery hell and claim that in fact eternal fire is not actually able to consume its victims.

BUT there are NOT as many that would ALSO go to the wild extreme of calling Luke 16 literal history - rather they admit that Luke 16 is a parable.

Isn't it funny? I have the Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary before me and cannot find the Word 'parable' mentioned once in the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

As a matter of fact, Matthew Henry seems to agree with Scripture in this account when he writes:

There is a day coming, when those who now hate and despise the people of God, would gladly receive kindness from them. But the damned in hell shall not have the least abatement of their torment.

The damned shall not have the least abatement of their torment... doesn't sound like 'reduced to ashes' to me.

 

[BobRyan]

With that said, it’s my understanding that this is just a continuation of parables started back in Luke 15. And this doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a literal Hell, where the condemned soul will spend eternity.

-

That is correct. And Lightfoot, Henry etc would also claim that hell is eternal torment but would not go along with the wild claims of those who would prefer to see Luke 16 as "history" rather than a parable.

The inconvenient details in the parable that have to be blindly ignored by those who "need" it to turn into history are just tooo many.

It is instructive that this parable in Luke 16 comes after the Jewish leaders have just whined and complained about that long string of parables starting several chapters earlier and continuing to Luke 16. As Matt Henry notes Christ then gives them a parable they ARE prepared to accept since "Father Abraham" is in SOVEREIGN control of all dead saints and is the one among the dead to whom others may pray "on behalf of the living". Notice that when Isaiah 8 says we are NOT to consult the dead "on behalf of the living" that is EXACTLY what we see happening in this parable. Clearly the Jews would have no problem turning a blind eye to some OT text if it meant exaulting Father Abraham as the sovereign of all dead saints.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Isn't it funny? I have the Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary before me and cannot find the Word 'parable' mentioned once in the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Indeed that is VERY funny since the link was provided here AND since the document quoted is "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible" NOT the shortened "Concise" version.


I am actually still laughing about it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

Go search the Word of God and everywhere that the word 'parable' is used.

.

#1. I gave you a good example of this in the book of judges where the trees go out to elect a king. The word "PARABLE" is not used there. Making up "rules" as if they were actually true does not work in this case.

#2. I am just going to have to go along with Matthew Henry and John Lightfoot on their ability to ADMIT to the inconvenient details about prayers to the dead and how this must be a parable - while you continue to turn a blind eye to them.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

your example of the trees in the book of the Kings has no bearing on the account of the rich man and Lazarus.

The fact that Jesus names names; i.e., Lazarus and Abraham in this story and never any names in the parables shows this is not a parable.

The fact that the Word of God says over and over in many other passages when Jesus is speaking in parables and that He is not said to be speaking in a parable in this account is enough to convince me it is not a parable.

Bob, do you believe that everything Jesus spoke was a parable? Because it sure looks that way.

Not only does Jesus relate that the torments one experiences in hell are eternal, but the angel of Revelation 14 also reveals to John on the Isle of Patmos that the torments of hell are a reality and that they are eternal.

I will believe the Word of God over you or any commentator you care to mention if that commentator's writings do not line up with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Are we to believe a commentator who was not there when Jesus said Lazarus was in torments? Are we to believe a commentator who was not present on the Isle of Patmos when John received the Word that those who were not of Christ were tormented both day and night forever?

I will stick to the Word of God. If you choose to be deceived by a third party who was not present, that is your prerogative, and your foolishness.

 

[Andre]

I think that if one argues that the Luke 16 account is a factual account and that there is presently a rich man in torment and a Lazarus in a state of bliss, then one completely deflates the rich account of 1 Corinthians 15 in which Paul writes that the dead are "made alive" at the time of Christ's return.

What, exactly happens to this Lazarus according to the view that he is already in state of conscious bliss right now? In what sense is he to be "made alive" at Christ's return as per the words of Paul? Is he just going to get a new "suit of flesh" in which to wrap his already fully conscious soul?

I think that 1 Corinthians 15 alone does severe damage to the assertion that Luke 16 is a literal account. I believe there is lots of other evidence as well to the effect that this cannot be a literal account.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

There's a way that seemeth right unto a man...

 

[Andre]

There's a way that seemeth right unto a man...

I am not sure what you mean here. I understand that you believe that Lazarus is presently (at this moment) in a state of conscious bliss. Am I correct in my conclusion about your view? If so, presumably you have an explanation as to how the account in 1 Cor 15 works in the context of your view.

Please explain (or point us to a previous post that may have addressed this question.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I believe Lazarus is in a state of bliss even now. I believe when Christ was crucified, that He released Lazarus, Abraham, and all who died before the cross who were made righteous through faith in God from their chains of death as Scripture would agree with their release:

Matthew 27:51 (KJV) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Matthew 27:52 (KJV) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Matthew 27:53 (KJV) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The rich man is still in hell until 1000 years after the Rapture of the saints. Then the wicked (including that rich man in Luke 16) will be delivered up to be judged and will be cast into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.

There, they will not die, for death is the last enemy to be destroyed and it is cast into that fiery lake before the wicked dead. They will suffer the tortures of that fiery lake for all eternity, feeling the wrath of God with no relief ever.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 27 indicates a special resurrection around Jerusalem but not a world wide general resurrection of the righteous.

 

[Andre]

Do you believe that you have answered my question about 1 Cor 15? Please explain how you understand Paul's claim that the redeemed will be made alive at Christ's return, given your belief that Lazarus presently enjoys a fully conscious existence. It seems to me that Lazarus need not be made alive - he is already alive in any reasonable sense of the term.

 

[BobRyan]

your example of the trees in the book of the Kings has no bearing on the account of the rich man and Lazarus.

It is simply the fact of a parable that does not use the word "parable".

It is simply the fact of a parable that DOES use specific names - for specific kinds of plants.

And of course the fact that you have to turn a blind eye to soo many of the details in that parable in order to pretend it is not the parable that Matthew Henry and Lightfoot say it is.

The fact that Jesus names names; i.e., Lazarus and Abraham in this story and never any names in the parables shows this is not a parable.

Yes that is exactly the argument tha is being debunked by the example in Judges. Thanks for bringing it up.

Bob, do you believe that everything Jesus spoke was a parable? Because it sure looks that way.

Oh really? So when you read Matthew henry and John Lightfoot saying that Luke 16 is a parable you think THEY view everything Christ said was "a parable"???? You are climbing wayyyyy out there on that limb again.

Remember these are YOUR guys saying that it is a parable - they AGREE with eternal torment ideas but can not go to your wild extremes in Luke 16.

Are you going for that "prayers to the dead stuff" now days?? Because Matthew Henry and John Lightfoot don't seem to be going for that one either. Or is that where you part ways with them?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[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.

 

[BobRyan]

#1. NO Bible text says "the wicked will never be consumed"

#2. NO Bible text says "the wicked will never be DESTROYED both body AND soul".

#3. Not only DO I see the obvious point about Luke 16 and prayers to the dead on behalf of the living as a PARABLE but SO ALSO do well accepted Bible scholars who ALSO agree with YOU on eternal torment but who CAN NOT go to your wild extreme in Luke 16.

#4. As Matthew Henry stated you CAN NOT stretch a parable as you have done to get it to say anything OTHER than the point it was given which is "IF THEY WILL NOT LISTEN to MOSES then NEITHER will they listen to one risen from the dead".

Stretching the parable to "some other meaning" is going beyond the text according to Matthew Henry. He is right on that point -

 

[Andre]

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

 

[BobRyan]

To HBSMN -

I agree that if you press the PARABLE beyond the PRIMARY POINT that Christ makes of it (If they do not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen to one raised from the dead) then you DO get the details of

1. PRAYERS TO THE DEAD on behalf of the living
2 ABraham in SOVEREIGN control of all dead saints
3. ALL dead saints literally in Abraham's lap
4. The Rich man in TORMENT in the flames

These all come up as details in the PARABLE. The first 3 of which are why many well known scholars (including Matthew Henry) INSIST that this is a parable - you simply turn a blind eye to those details each time they are mentioned. The last one of which you wish to CLING to even though this is NOT the primary point of the parable.

Quote:
Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention,
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Thankfully - it is always left up to me to point out the obvious on the Baptist Board.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

6There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in hpurple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

6. The end of the poverty and misery of the godly will be everlasting joy, as the end of riotous living and the cruel pride of the rich will be everlasting misery, without any hope of mercy.

How can one be said to be suffering in everlasting misery if one is reduced to ashes which cannot feel?

Verse 19. There was a certain rich man - Very probably a Pharisee, and one that justified himself before men; a very honest, as well as honourable gentleman: though it was not proper to mention his name on this occasion: who was clothed in purple and fine linen - and doubtless esteemed on this account, (perhaps not only by those who sold it, but by most that knew him, ) as encouraging trade, and acting according to his quality: And feasted splendidly every day - And consequently was esteemed yet more, for his generosity and hospitality in keeping so good a table.

John Wesley certainly did not see this account as a parable.

Margin: There
vs. Lu 16:19-31. are not said to be a parable. Rich men and beggars are common; there is no reason why Jesus may not have had in mind a particular case. In no parable is an individual named.

Scofield did not recognize this as a parable.

Fact is, Bob... There are many scholars who will attest that the story in Luke 16 is not a parable.