I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

You sir, are a false prophet from a church that does not honor God. If they have no rest day nor night, they are not consumed... they are not reduced to ashes as your lying tongue would proclaim.

You do err, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God.

 

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 point already made was that these are YOUR sources not mine. They agree with YOU on eternal torment and yet they can not bring themselves to the wild extremes you go to in Luk 16. THEY themselves admit that it is a parable.

Your repeated ad hominem whining has done thing to rescue your failed argument as point after point has been debunked for all to read sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Take a trip to the optometrist Bob, or else improve your reading skills.
It does NOT say that THEY are an example of those that suffered, as you claimed. Read it again.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, (they) suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
--As I explained to you in my previous post, the context is speaking of people not things. Those that were disobedient suffered and will suffer eternally. If you don't understand English grammar then take a course and study it. This time I supplied the subject for you in parenthesis. THEY (the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha) are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. And Jude is using this as an illustration of warning to his readers. There is eternal destruction, eternal torment, everlasting punishment. Eternal destruction is not annihilation; it is eternal torment.

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire.

Cities do not undergo the judgment of eternal fire; people do. Read the context.

 

Just because Lightfoot and Henry say the passage is a parable does not make it one. If one carefully reads the passage in question with the hunger for the truth, one will quickly see that it is not a parable, but an actual account as Wesley and others saw through careful study of God's Word and rightly dividing that Word of Truth.

 

Wesley admits to the details in the parable as something we should NOT use for teaching -- Though I agree that he seems conflicted between NOT believing the details and yet NOT explicitly admitting that this has to be a parable.

 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, (they) suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

A city cannot go after strange flesh as Jude 7 speaks of those undergoing the vengeance of eternal fire. It was the people of the city as DHK stated. They are suffering even today for their sins while the cities that they lived in were indeed reduced to ashes.

The people themselves were not consumed, but assigned to that place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

 

Wesley did not see it as a parable because he saw the truth and received it. He knew it was not a parable.

 

The Bible says the cities and all that was in them were subject to 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).

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;

man-made tradition demands that those who believe it say "oh no -- that is not true".

Sorting that out is left as a simply exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is certainly an unninteresting point that I can find Bible scholars that reject the false doctrine of eternal torment that also claim Luke 16 is a parable. It is unninteresting that you can find those who ACCEPT the false doctrine of eternal tormand AND ALSO claim that Luke 16 is not a parable.

What IS INTERESTING is the objective position I have taken on this - which is that Bible scholars that AGREE WITH YOU on the eternal torment doctrine (such as Matthew Henry and John Lightfoot and a host of others) ALSO REJECT the failed suggestion that Luke 16 is history -- they state clearly that it MUST be a parable and they give the DETAILS IN THE TEXT as showing it.

Now that is an objective insightful substantive fact.

in Christ,

Bob

 

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.

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

 

deja vu

Do you think if you keep repeating it, it will suddenly be true?

 

I just realized why Bob keeps calling it a parable. Because that is how it was given to him. It was not given to him to see the truth of it, but to us it was given. To us, we see the reality of eternal torment.

 

Kinda makes me wonder if I am the one that GAVE THIS to Matthew Henry and John Lightfoot after that insightful comment.

I think it is very easy for ALL OF US to see just how much incentive that Matthew Henry and John Lightfoot had for thinking of this as TRUE HISTORY when it comes to eternal torment - because it DOES show the richman in "torment in these flames".

But they just could not turn a blind eye to scripture ENOUGH to go to the far extreme of calling Luke 16 HISTORY due to the obvious parable CONTENT in the DETAILS of the story.

Amazing - truly amazing that they did not let man-made tradition crush and bend the text of scripture to the point of trying to rework a parable into HISTORY.

I have to hand it to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

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.

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

You have only turned a blind eye to the inconvenient points raised in this post. Did you think that by failing to answer the points raised they would magically "Go away"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Since you constantly deny that souls will be tormented for all eternity in the lake of fire when God's Word clearly says they will have no rest day nor night in that place of torment, and the Word of God says that all liars will have their part in that lake, I hope you change your tune before Christ returns.

Because if you don't you will, after realizing you are not being consumed to ashes and you are still feeling the torments. You will hear the screams of countless doubters of God's Word who have gone on before you... even the screams of the rich man who begged for that one drop of water to cool his tongue.

I pray you change your tune and realize the error of your deception.

 

My "choice" is to accept the Word of God over the debunked man-made traditions that are as always - more "popular" than the Word of God.

Hear what God says --

The Bible says the cities and all that was in them were subject to 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).

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;

man-made tradition demands that those who believe it say "oh no -- that is not true".

Why is it so distasteful to some Christians to simply accept God's Word as IT tells us that everlasting fire "DESTROYS BOTH body AND soul" AND also tells us exactly what DESTROY means when everlasting fire is doing the destroying?

Is it because man-made traditions have such a vice-like grip on the will and minds of humans that not only do they reject the scriptures given above but in Mark 7 they used man-made traditions to reject the teaching of Christ as well?

How instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since this part always causes the oppostion to flee the points being raised -- I will continue ---

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.

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

 

Why do I keep bringing up these devastating points against the totally debunked man-made traditions propped up against them?

Because as much as you may wish to "game the topic" by not addressing the points that so clearly devastate your position -- you can not deny this simple fact. Although TWO sides have been clearly presented here - and ALL READERS can tell that easily -- it remains obvious to any reader that there is at least ONE TRULY OBJECTIVE argument that has been raised and UNMATCHED!!

It can EASILY be shown that BOTH you and I will have Bible scholars that AGREE with our separate opinions. But only ONE OF US has been able to show a point SO GLARINGLY obvious that even the OPPOSING group of Bible scholars clearly agree!!

only ONE of us has been able to show that - and it was me with the argument from Luke 16. Any reader can clearly see that. Your antic of taking a "deny-all" position followed by an "ignore-all" position when it came to the points raise in the last 3 posts of mine - can never cover up that glaring fact from Luke 16.

It is easily seen by all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

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).

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"!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Summary Part II -

2. You raised the "pretend argument" that Luke 16 MUST be taken as history by any serious Bible scholar and that the only reason I may not be doing that is because it was "given to me as a parable".

This was totally debunked by showing that even YOUR OWN Bible scholars that DO hold to "eternal torment" - are among those who freely admit that Luke 16 HAS TO BE a parable because we do NOT "pray to the DEAD" on behalf of the living as God forbids it in Isaiah 8.

The PARABLE of Luke 16 clearly incuded these unchristian "details"

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