Thread: Is LITERAL Hellfire Torment A Bible Teaching?

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33

It wasn't a parable. Jesus didn't use names in His parables.

Originally Posted by Smitty

I know I said I was going to exit this thread in my last post.

But I can't help but agree with pastor smoke.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, the certain rich man and Lazarus (not the one whom Jesus raised from the dead) the beggar is a true account of a real history of two men who lived at one time upon this earth. Some, however, contend that this is a parable.

There are numerous arguments for this account being a real history.
Parables are hypothetical illustrations and never name specific individuals as noted by pastor smoke.
Here not only Lazarus is named, but also Abraham and Moses.
Jesus said "there was a certain rich man." "Was there, or was there not? He definitely declared that there was."
Moses, Abraham, and the prophets are real people, whereas parables never refer to specific Old Testament saints.
Luke does not call this a parable as he does in thirteen other clear cases of parables that are recorded in his book.
It is narrated like a real history.
Parables deal with the commonplace of what is known to be true to illustrate moral lessons, and come from natural life. This does not.
There is no reason why Jesus could not have in mind a particular case. He is describing what took place after death in the cases of two men.
The conversation between the rich man and Abraham does not seem to lend itself to parabolic format.
Therefore, I will conclude and wholeheartedly agree with brother smoke that it should be noted that this text spoken by Jesus, and penned by Luke, is not spoken as a parable.

I don't believe it was a parable either. Mainly, as mentioned in your post above, "...a CERTAIN rich man..." Not just 'a rich man', but a specific one.

Does it really matter if it's a parable or not? The point Jesus was making is the same either way. Be like Lazarus. Don't be like the rich man. Eternity awaits.

Originally Posted by Bookman

Does it really matter if it's a parable or not? The point Jesus was making is the same either way. Be like Lazarus. Don't be like the rich man. Eternity awaits.

It matters if one is trying to prove there isn't a literal hell. I'm assuming that was the point of bringing that up even though I haven't read the whole thread.

Originally Posted by fuego

It matters if one is trying to prove there isn't a literal hell. I'm assuming that was the point of bringing that up even though I haven't read the whole thread.

I think Universalism is making a comeback, especially among younger Christians. The Bible is being critiqued by the younger generation, rather than them being critiqued by the Bible. This is in part, I believe, with the lack of the fear of the Lord that's widespread throughout the church. The fear of the Lord is now recast as merely "awe" of the Lord. It's much, much more than that. And it's the beginning of wisdom. If you don't have the fear of the Lord as your baseline, everything else is out of whack.

This thread has occasionally lost its focus, so I feel compelled to make 4 major points about what has been alleged here:

(1) There is absolutely no debate among NT scholars on whether the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable. The unanimous consensus is that it nicely fits the parable form established by ancient rabbis prior to Jesus. But posters are correct that its status as a parable is irrelevant to its point about Hades. Conversations between the righteous and suffering souls in Hades are a standard part of intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic. So Jesus' parable takes that Jewish perspective for granted. Pentecostals need to take a stroll out of the their charismatic Ghetto and immerse themselves in the big bad world of academic Bible scholarship.

(2) As for universalism, you who are cavalierly dismissive are clearly oblivious to how strong a biblical case can be made. No one has an answer to my post on apparent universalism in Revelation. John envisions everyone in Hades Heaven worshiping God and Christ (5:9) and the gates of the New Jerusalem (Heaven) are permanently open (21:26) to the unrighteous who are the ones "outside" the gates in the lake of fire (22:15). Nor has anyone here adequately addressed the seer's sequential pattern of first death-first resurrection (20:5-6)-2nd death (20:6, 14)-2nd resurrection. To gain access to Heave from Hades or the lake of fire (22:15; cp. 21:8), the unrighteous need a new spiritual body and that implication implies that their saving ascent through the gates of Heaven is precisely part of the meaning of their unstated but implied 2nd resurrection. This transformation and redemption of the unrighteous dead are symbolized the seer's image of the "leaves" on "the tree of life" which is "for the healing of the nations (pagans--22:2)."

And stay tuned for the biblical case for universalism in Paul and the teaching of Jesus. I will be addressing those matters in the universalism thread.

(4) And note carefully how Colonel has contradicted himself on Sheol. At first he implies that the case for non-conscious survival in Sheol is Fundamentalist screed. Then when presented with contrary biblical evidence, he switches to dismissing this view as a liberal assault on biblical inerrancy. So I pose 3 pointed questions to the officer:

(a) Can you say "progressive revelation?"
(b) Are you even aware of how Jesus' Sermon on the Mount negatives OT teachings? Note Jesus' repeated phrase "You have heard that it was said...but I say unto you."
(c) What is it that you don't understand about the OT teaching that Sheol is realm whose denizens have no memories, no thoughts, no deeds, no hope, and no ability to praise or thank God? It is ludicrous for you to dismiss this as poetic rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Berserk

(4) And note carefully how Colonel has contradicted himself on Sheol. At first he implies that the case for non-conscious survival in Sheol is Fundamentalist screed. Then when presented with contrary biblical evidence, he switches to dismissing this view as a liberal assault on biblical inerrancy. So I pose 3 pointed questions to the officer:

That's not what I said. I said that trying to establish a non-conscious existence in Sheol based on verses from the poetic books in the OT amounts to ultra-literalism, which takes it beyond the realm of the Fundamentalist. Even the archetypical Fundamentalist understands that one cannot take everything in the poetic books literally, the poetic books are well, poetic, in nature.

Prov 8:1 Does not wisdom cry out,
And understanding lift up her voice?
2 She takes her stand on the top of the high hill,
Beside the way, where the paths meet.
***
22 "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.

Okay so that makes wisdom a pre-existing female entity. Or maybe not.

Originally Posted by Berserk

(2) As for universalism, you who are cavalierly dismissive are clearly oblivious to how strong a biblical case can be made. No one has an answer to my post on apparent universalism in Revelation. John envisions everyone in Hades Heaven worshiping God and Christ (5:9) and the gates of the New Jerusalem (Heaven) are permanently open (21:26) to the unrighteous who are the ones "outside" the gates in the lake of fire (22:15). Nor has anyone here adequately addressed the seer's sequential pattern of first death-first resurrection (20:5-6)-2nd death (20:6, 14)-2nd resurrection. To gain access to Heave from Hades or the lake of fire (22:15; cp. 21:8), the unrighteous need a new spiritual body and that implication implies that their saving ascent through the gates of Heaven is precisely part of the meaning of their unstated but implied 2nd resurrection. This transformation and redemption of the unrighteous dead are symbolized the seer's image of the "leaves" on "the tree of life" which is "for the healing of the nations (pagans--22:2)."

There is nothing about Hades in Rev 5:9. Your next sentence is pure speculation.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

The logic involved in the above two verses is that those who are born again and do his commandements are those who may enter through the gate, the sinners who practice sin are left outside.