Replies

I can tell that you didn't even read the link I provided explaining the parable, but that's your right. You don't want to fully examine where you might be wrong and you just want to repost what you have been taught.

I have already dealt with Annihilationists. The Lord was not bluffing about eternal torment, " "into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:45-46)

You source, Smith, begins by discrediting himself by saying,

Next to the gross error in translating the Greek aion (a period of time with a beginning and an end) into an English eternity (no time at all, neither having a beginning nor an ending),

which is absurd, as the very word he rejects as everlasting is the very word (aiōnios, used in Mt. 25:46) used to describe God in the LXX in such places as Psalms 90:2: "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." And for "eternal" as in "eternal life" in the NT. Thus based on myopic annihilationism reasoning, aiōnios cannot mean God is eternal, as He is in Tim 1:17 "Now to the King eternal.

If aionios says God is eternal, then He is, likewise for life, likewise for punishment.

Smith also tries the same argument you did, that Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables ONLY based on Mat. 13:34, but which renders as symbolic such teachings as, "And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:10-11) "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." (Matthew 22:31-33) "Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:" (Luke 12:8)

Yet this is irrelevant, as Lk. 16 is not addressed to the multitudes, but begins with "he said also unto his disciples," to whom He told both true stories and parables as well as prophetic events.

It is true that the Lord told many stories as parables, but it cannot be proved that all stories as "as a certain man" were simply parables with no real events as their basis.

Also, and while stories are identified as parables 45 times, this is not the case in Lk. 16:19ff. Moreover naming two persons is unique, and real names are used when teaching such stories as, "The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." (Luke 11:32)

Smith then protests that "If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic," but on that basis he would have to render the post resurrection of account of the Lord to be fiction. How can a person with holes in his hands come thru a locked door and eat bread? Where did the bread go?

Thus the man is well on his way to rejecting Scriptural doctrine due to it not confirming to the physics of almighty God!

Smith then presents a contrived comparison btwn the rich man and Lazarus, in which he portrays the rich man as simply a man that was rich, with a nice house, and who fed the poor, and reverent towards authority!

And then Smith insolently asks, "Where else in Scripture do the character traits in the left column come under eternal condemnation? "Incredible! In contrast the Lord portrays the rich man as an extravagant glutton who could care less for the poor man who ate the scraps that were tossed out, and to whom dogs gave more care!.

And this is consistent with the Lord's other teaching that states, "And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:24-25)

Smith argues that "neither of those [riches or poverty] is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Where? Present a Scripture." This testifies once again to to his misrepresentation of the rich man and superficial analysis, as the Lord obviously was portraying the rich man as an uncaring selfish man, and who built bigger barns while neglecting his soul, and which typifies the lost. And while nothing is said of the faith of Lazarus, as affliction is more conducive to faith like as riches is to complacency, Lazarus can be assumed to have been like those who are of a poor and contrite spirit who trembleth at God's word. (Is. 66:2)

And as faith is manifested by what it does, "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)

Smith also argues that "When theologians insist that this is a literal story, they place a huge blotch on the character of God! According to the Christian interpretation, this man is spending eternity in Hell fire, but has never had his day in court. "

Yet this displays more ignorance, as it is held that Hades is a type of holding cell, suffering in general as sinners, but awaiting the Great White Throne judgement, when "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Revelation 20:13)

Furthermore, many texts all work together to support Paradise being Abraham's bosom where OT saints went before the Resurrection, (Hebrews 9:4; 10:4) with Christ setting them free upon His death, (Ephesians 4:8-9) thus the "good thief" went there with the Lord, (1Lk. 23:43) and graves opened up after His Resurrection (Matthew 27:51-53) and now Paradise is the 3rd heaven. (2Cor. 12:4)

Going even further in digging his own grave, Smith asks, "The rich man recognized Abraham on sight. Even called him "Father." How could someone who knows Abraham "...hear Moses...?" Moses didn't live until hundreds of years after Abraham? How could the rich man's "brothers" hear Moses? Moses didn't live until far into their future?"

Is Smith really this unlearned that he cannot comprehend that to "hear Moses" is to hear the law of Moses, or even to do what is contained in the Law by nature? (Rm. 2)

But such is the case with polemicists who have an axe to grind.

Smith then goes on to elaborately attempt the usual interpretation of Annihilationism, that the rich man represents the Jews and Lazarus the Gentiles, yet even if that were tenable, it is is simply spurious as rejecting postmortem torment, for again, it has the Lord teaching science fiction.

For as said, in parables the Lord uses known physical realities which correspond to spiritual realities, but if Annihilationism is true and Lk. 16 is a parable, then it is using fiction, that of a man being dead yet suffering torment, to represent some undefined spiritual reality.

If one wants to hold Lk. 16 as a parable, then he needs to see it as teaching that the lost, represented by the complacent rich man ("But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation" - Luke 6:24) will suffer in Hell, while Lazarus represents "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3)

Thus Lk. 16 as teaching about literal postmortem punishment for the wicked, and consolation for the redeemed righteous, is what is congruent with the rest of Scripture.