The rich man

Mark Quayle said:

So where is the eternal punishment in hell/LOF? If those unredeemed must pay their own there, why does he not have to do so when taking the multiple punishments of the Elect?

Click to expand...

I don't think I would agree with the underlying assumptions here. The Atonement isn't about Christ taking our penalty, but about Christ's participation in our humanity (Recapitulation Theory), Christ's righteous obedience for our sake (Satisfaction Theory), and Christ as the ransom which frees and unshackles men from the slavery of sin, death, hell, and the devil and overcomes them (Ransom Theory). righteousness.

Nor do I view "hell" as a penalty for sin. Human beings make their bed in hell by choice, as it is God's will and desire that all be saved, for Christ suffered and died for all. No exceptions.

-CryptoLutheran

Tellyontellyon said:

Since you didn't want to answer the question... Why post?

Click to expand...

He gave you the answer: The greater lesson of this parable is that the rich shouldn't ignore the needs of the poor.

Mark Quayle said:

How did he pay the penalty for our sins, if he was on the good side?

Click to expand...

Death is a bad thing overall. It's a misnomer to consider it a "good side."

Another point of that parable was that in Jesus' day (and, in fact, among American Christians today), it was commonly believed that if you were righteous you enjoyed a pleasant life; if you were unrighteous, you suffered a meager life.

Jesus' audience would have immediately presumed that the fortunate man was righteous and the unfortunate man unrighteous (also see John 9:1-38).

But Jesus turned that presumption on its head, with the fortunate man being condemned and the unfortunate man being "in the bosom of Abraham," meaning that he found his place of rest with their chief patriarch himself.

Tellyontellyon said:

What's the passage in the Bible where it says Jesus went to Hades or Hell?
Thanks

Click to expand...

Two common ones are [the Catholic interpretation of] these:
1 Peter 4:6 “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead..."
Ephesians 4:9 "In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions of the earth?"

I personally think the simple fact that he paid the penalty for the sins of the Redeemed believers, necessarily implies more than simply that he died physically, since those who aren't and will not be redeemed will pay their own in Hell/Lake of Fire.

ViaCrucis said:

I don't think I would agree with the underlying assumptions here. The Atonement isn't about Christ taking our penalty, but about Christ's participation in our humanity (Recapitulation Theory), Christ's righteous obedience for our sake (Satisfaction Theory), and Christ as the ransom which frees and unshackles men from the slavery of sin, death, hell, and the devil and overcomes them (Ransom Theory). righteousness.

Nor do I view "hell" as a penalty for sin. Human beings make their bed in hell by choice, as it is God's will and desire that all be saved, for Christ suffered and died for all. No exceptions.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I don't hold to either one of those --Recapitulation Theory or Satisfaction Theory-- at least not as I understand them to mean. That Christ made Satisfaction, I have no doubt, but not for all of mankind. Ransom Theory is closer, although I think historically it has to do with some negotiation between the Devil and God, which I don't hold to. Christ is indeed a ransom, but it concerns the debt paid to God, in which action Christ made Satisfaction to God's justice --nothing to do with the Devil there, as such.

It is not "the region of the dead" that I take to be the punishment, but it will be thrown into the same Lake of Fire that the Devil and his angels are to be thrown into. There they will be tormented in precise and thorough proportion to their sin, (and even that, I don't take to mean the Devil is involved in it).

RDKirk said:

Death is a bad thing overall. It's a misnomer to consider it a "good side."

Click to expand...

"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." Psalm 116

Mark Quayle said:

"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." Psalm 116

Click to expand...

Except that entire psalm is a plea to be saved from death. "Precious" means costly.

RDKirk said:

Except that entire psalm is a plea to be saved from death. "Precious" means costly.

Click to expand...

Good point. Thanks.

Tellyontellyon said:

Aren't the dead supposed to be sleeping? What else are the dead capable of seeing and hearing?

Click to expand...

I think you're deliberately missing the point of the parable, which is consistent with how most professing Christians interpret most of Jesus' teachings, too, so you're not alone, there.

Pavel Mosko said:

1)This is widely regarded as a parable in Christianity...

One clue I think is the rich man would probably have a name instead of having no name ...

Click to expand...

The other "rich man" in Matthew 19 was also left unamed. So I don't find it unusual at all. It's like the Lords focus is on his own so they're the ones named. Another example - "in the days of Lot", "in the days of Noah" also focus on the righteous, not the unbelievers around them. Just a thought.

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. John 10:3