Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What was the point then?You apparently misunderstand me. My argument is not that Jesus did not go to the realm of the dead, (in fact, I believe he did), but rather against the notion that his preaching to souls there was for the purpose or effective in saving some who there had died in their sins.
I am curious of any doctrines about divine punishment, specifically as related to the afterlife, but in general, too.
I'll throw out a couple.
Anselm: Anselm argues the sin is not only disobedience, but it also dishonors God. Sin, therefore, incurs a double debt (disobedience and dishonor) that one must repay or for which one must be punished. He explains why punishment is needed. Punishment subjects the human creature, thereby putting them back in their place, which restores God's honor. So, punishment restores God's honor.
Calvin: Calvin, ever the lawyer, said sin makes us criminals, essentially. Criminals must be punished. Sin incurs divine wrath, therefore, God must punish us. Of course, God punishes Jesus in our place so we don't have to be punished. He, too, will talk about punishment putting us back in our proper place.
Is that what divine punishment does? Is it a release valve for divine wrath? Does punishment restore God's honor? Are there any better ideas out there of what punishment is or does? Is divine punishment necessary? If so, why?
(The poll specifically concerns unrepentant sin at death so we can avoid wasting time getting to the point)
Reformed, Lutherans, and Methodists do _not_ believe in Harrowing of Hell.
And, of course, Evangelicals do not
Wikipedia is wrong
That's the standard answer that works with Damnationism. But we are told who he made proclamation to. The disobedient that died in the flood.To remove the believing souls who had been held captive there while waiting for the Christ to complete His mission.
Ok, I'll accept that it is standard doctrine in the larger church. Apparently I have not been as much a part of the larger church during the last 66 years as I thought.This is standard doctrine in the larger church. I'm not making this stuff up.
Ephesians 4:8-9
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
Ok. I'll take your word for it. But 'older than' doesn't mean 'mainline'. At least, not quite what I would call Reformed or Calvinist. I haven't even heard of this before as anyone taking it seriously, except here on this forum.What I am sharing about the Harrowing of Hell is older than the creeds. I'm not making this stuff up.
That is hardly to my point, but I'll accept that you say thisI agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.
Are you denying that it is Jesus point, that the whole story leads up to?This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.
The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.
This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.
The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.
I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story. The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?
No. I think he went and preached to those who had died. I don't know how many of which were saved or not. I can only speculate as to what his purpose was for doing so. And I believe his preaching had precisely the effect he intended, (though I don't know what that effect was), since, (my paraphrase) 'his word will not return to him void, but will accomplish that for which he sent it' —it always does.What was the point then?
Are you saying Jesus went all the way to the realm of the dead to "preach to the choir"?
IOW, God does not punish people, people essentially punish themselves. Sorry if I wasn't clear.To whom and to what are you responding here, it is not identifiable here.
I just answered these two, plus 3 more like them, in another post somewhere. I'll look.
Ah, here. From post 322 in answer to 318:
I said, "I don't see any of these as evidence that they are 'released' from Hades, and certainly not that they are converted, released from sin, forgiven, during their 'stay' in the grave.
1Pe 3:19-20 says that Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits from Noah's day. Where does that mean they were "released from Hades"?
1Pe 4:6 says that the Gospel has been preached to those who are dead (notice the time difference there?) There is no reference to where they were when preached to, nor even if they were alive at the time, but only that they are expired. Nor is there any mention of anyone being "released from Hades." Note here also, that it references the Gospel being preached, which to me necessarily implies during this temporal frame, though it does not necessarily imply it could not happen in Hades.
Rom 10:6-8 only rhetorically references Christ being brought up from the grave, with no reference at all to those who died in their sin being "released from Hades"
Would you examine that one again for me.Ephesians 4:8-9 Says Christ took captives, and that he gave gifts to his people, and that
he descended to the lower, earthly regions (which I take to mean, Hades). I agree that he descended (and resurrected from) Hades, because the prophecy (Psalm 16:10 reads, "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead".
Rev 1:18 only reference to hell and death is that he was dead and is alive, and possesses the keys of hell and death. No reference to anyone being "released from Hades".
The closest reference among them to anyone being "released" is the fact that he has the keys. Yet the only time we see them being possibly 'released' is elsewhere talked about, when the sea, and the grave and death 'give up' the dead that are in them, to be judged according to their deeds, as sounds somewhat like 1 Peter 4:6, though, as I said, even there we do not know when they were judged by that one verse of itself, except as it says, "judged in the flesh"."
I'm not sure I understand the objection. Both classes of people, Jew and Gentile. It does not mention any one person specifically, nor does it include every person who ever lived, but both classes (or, since other verses are relevant: All classes, tribes, nations, 'peoples'.) So forgiveness for those who are not forgiven was not provided. While all individuals must have THIS savior if any, they are not all saved, nor forgiven, though they are from a group of people that does include some of the elect upon whom God has mercy. You seem to project the very human notion, perhaps from some desire for fairness, that God would not show particular mercy to some without showing the same degree of mercy to the rest. But I don't find that notion expressed in Scripture, (nor in reason, in the end).
You're too much!For me personally, the doctrine of the Church is best because I see it as the most merciful way for God to deal with free and unrepentant souls. A “purgatory for all people” suggests that all people would want to be purged, whereas nothing I see around me suggests that anybody wants to be purged. Of course, there is always the argument about “being given an infinite amount of time, monkeys will eventually type Shakespeare,” and thus all souls surely would eventually seek purgation. But I haven’t been able to verify that, and scripture runs contrary to the notion.
“Post-mortum education” sounds like a sort of veiled Gnosticism. In that view, knowledge saves, I guess, because if only souls know the right thing, then they will choose the right thing? So let’s educate everyone and all will be well. Is that it? I don’t know. It seems ironic to say that the Omniscient Infinite Logos appears not to value knowledge much, but then just look at how stupid even the smartest person who ever lived was, and try to argue from the easily-deceived and -deceiving human intellect that the One Infinite Mind was ever concerned much with humans attaining a proper education in this life, much less in eternity.
Metempsychosis, to my mind, is a form of cruelty. With all due respect to God and the miracle of life, the struggle is real, and so one ride on this tilt-a-whirl is sufficient for me, thanks. If hell is what I get afterwards, well, let’s start the barbecue. At least this phase is over. (Praise Jesus!)
Annihilationism seems cruelest of all. Unimaginable pain. My consciousness and life force are ripped away? And where exactly are they ripped to? How does being even cease to be? Doesn’t work for me.
“A world where all people can see God” solves nothing for me, because the problem is not that people don’t see Him. “The devils also believe and tremble” (Js 2:19). The trouble with souls in hell is that “although they knew God, they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks” (Rm 1:21). Souls in hell do not love God. That for me is why “hell” is most merciful. He doesn’t repay us what we really deserve. If we offer Him no love, then we deserve no love. But because He is love, even hell manifests as some mysterious expression of love.
Careful there. . .let's not minimize our north star in the revelation of truth from God personally.God won’t destroy me. He won’t leave me to figure out the path to Nirvana after 666 trips through this vomitorium.
He’s not trying to make sure I learn all the correct doctrines or be able to cite scripture from the best translations or be familiar with canons and councils.
Wow! . . .He’s not even interested in purging me except for the fact that whatever needs purging is everything that impedes my loving Him with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength.
But love is not coercive. The only coercion that God has involved me in is my being “coerced” to pass through this world here and now. And hey, it does suck, but it’s also kinda cool. Sun, wind, flowers, puppies. And He is offering me two choices here: to love Him and live with Him forever, or not to love Him and thus turn from Him forever, in which case I still get to live, and I still get to love.
As Augustine said, “Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self.” So in hell, I will be loving myself and my own will and my own sinful ways, just the same as I can in this life.
To me, the worst depiction of hell in scripture is in the story of Lazarus, and even there, it seems that Lazarus is able to love. “He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment” (Lk 16:27-8). And the answer just below that passage explains why hell lasts forever: “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead” (Lk 16:31). If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn’t convince us to love Him, then apparently nothing ever will. In that case, we keep going our own way. Sucks, but not utterly merciless.
To whom and what are you responding?Amazing. I do not absolve myself of accountability! Far from it. If I don't persevere I am not saved. But my peace of mind is not dependent on myself.
You may well believe that, like with any redeemed, my disobedience still ruins my feelings of eternal security! But I do not think my success in accomplishing what God had planned for me from before the foundation of the world, is dependent on me, nor (haha) does my eternal destiny hinge on the force and integrity of my will.
Yet returning with me, with every repentance, and even before I acknowledge consciously the repentance God is working in me, is the absolute unspeakable joy of knowing that God is accomplishing everything he set out to do, and, most happily, that HE himself is pleased with what he has done. Ha! these silly words fall so short!
I agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.
This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.
The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.
This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.
The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.
I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story.
Sheol was the holding place for the dead, which consisted of two parts,The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?
In post #306, I quoted the following from Wikipedia:
'Although the Harrowing of Hell is taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions, a number of Christians reject the doctrine of the "harrowing of hell", claiming that "there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus's own words contradict it".'
Surprise, surprise. . .When you objected to Reformed believing this, I checked several websites and, indeed, Reformed, Lutherans, and Methodists do _not_ believe in Harrowing of Hell. And, of course, Evangelicals do not. Only Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans do.
Wikipedia is wrong.
Correct, sin is not the determining factor. In NT apostolic teaching, faith is the determining factor. . .I’m under the impression that Christ paid for the sins of the world and He will choose who will enter heaven and who will not. I don’t believe that sin is the determining factor for salvation but instead the state of our hearts intent.
If our heart desires to love and serve God tho we may still sin from time to time we will still be saved and no further punishment or payment is due for our sins because they have been paid in full.
"Abraham's Bosom" is not a place, it is a position. In Biblical times people did not sit on chairs at a waist high table they reclined on their left elbow at a low table with their feet extended away from the table. That is how the woman was able to wash Jesus' feet and washed them with her tears. In that time, a woman did not crawl around under a table at the feet of strange men.Sheol was the holding place for the dead, which consisted of two parts, not only Hades but also Abraham's bosom (side), Paradise.
¢¢Below are quotes from three credible Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.Sheol was the holding place for the dead, which consisted of two parts,
not only Hades but also Abraham's bosom (side), Paradise.
I agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.
This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.
The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.
This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.
Was it really repentance and agreeing with God, or just a need for fire insurance?The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.
I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story. The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?
Are you saying the ignorance begins with Calvinism and moves to Evangelicalism?From Calvinism to Evangelicalism to Dispensationalism there is clearly progressive ignorance of history. This is perhaps why Dispensational pre-Millennialism attracts so many people, it gives them a false sense of knowledge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?