How Hitler and Judas could end up in heaven

The Week ^ | 06/04/2014 | Damon Linker

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It doesn’t have to.

Why not? Names are provided. A Historical figure exists.

[cuban leaf]

Well, he is showing us in what he taught in Luke 16, A PICTURE OF THE AFTERLIFE AND THE FATE THAT AWAITS PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE THE RICH MAN.

---

He was speaking to Jews about an afterlife situation that hit close to home regarding their beliefs.

[ravenwolf]

Good points. I am mindful to be careful what I teach as well.

---

You are right. It is one thing to teach what the Bible says but entirely different to teach our view on it.

[cuban leaf]

;-)

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It’s a little like saying, even though the bible speaks many times of the brothers of Jesus, since the word could also sometimes be translated as “cousin”, we should assume it really means cousin - espeically if that interpretation is absolutely necessary to support some other beliefs we have about Jesus’ mother.

I don’t see how that applies.

In this teaching of Jesus — A PLACE IS MENTIONED — Hades.

The sin of the rich man is mentioned.

His fate is mentioned.

His torment is mentioned.

If any, the one who argue as if Jesus’ brothers are really his “cousins” are the ones who are arguing that Jesus never meant his teaching to be a picture of the fate that awaits people who are like the rich man.

[cuban leaf]

It’s intuitively obvious.

[defconw]

Very, very true. Being Catholic when I am teaching I use the Magisterium. When I am meditating on the verses whatever comes to me stays with me.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I mean before he was in torment.

So, you agree that he was in torment then AFTER he died...

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It’s intuitively obvious.

No it is not.

[Jmouse007]

There are several truths that invalidate your assumption that the account given in Luke 16 is a "parable" rather than Jesus description of actual events and the reality which exists and awaits all of mankind behind the veil of death.

1) Unlike other parables, nowhere in the account found in Luke 16 does Jesus say this is a parable.

2) Nowhere in the account does the writer Luke the physician say that anything Jesus says or describes is "a parable".

When Jesus spoke to the people in parables he nearly always later, usually in private, interpreted and explained the real meaning of the parable to his disciples. Nowhere in this account does Jesus do this because the account is not a parable, it is a genuine description of life on the other side of the grave and EVERYTHING that Jesus says within it is to be taken at face value... it needs no "spiritual interpretation".

The final and most important point leading to the fact that Jesus account here in Luke 16 is not a parable but a genuine description if the reality if life on the other side of death is the simple fact that Jesus never uses a proper name/an individuals name in ANY of His known parables. There is not one mention of a persons name in any of the parables of Christ which are plainly declared/stated to be parables, not one! However, that is decidedly NOT the case here in Luke 16. Jesus goes out if his way to specifically state that the name if the poor man was/is "Lazarus". Lazarus' name literally means "friend if God", which, given where he ends up after his death is an indication of his faith and of his relationship with God inspite of his impoverished and wretched physical condition and circumstances in this life (so much for Joel Osteen's false "health and wealth" false "gospel"). Jesus stated Lazarus by name BUT the one thing He does not do in the account is name the rich man. Why? Well, some biblical scholars speculate that the crowd to whom Jesus was speaking were familiar with Lazarus, which, given the graphic nature of the description Jesus had given if him would make him easy to remember. As for the rich man, there was no need to state his name; given the vivid and extensive personal description Jesus gives of the rich man, his extravagant and exceedingly lavish lifestyle along with intimate information regarding his personal family ("I have five brothers"), there is no need to name him because in all likelihood the people Jesus was speaking to probably knew exactly who the deceased rich man was!

The existence and reality of life beyond the grave; a literal heaven and hell beyond death, along with the actual conditions which exist there are the focus and sincere warning of Jesus words. This is no "parable" that whose meaning and interpretation can be "spiritualized", trivialized or explained away. Jesus said exactly what he meant and each one of His words in this account mean exactly what they say. It is a dire warning concerning the reality if a literal heaven and hell, which, in the case of the latter is a place of fire and unspeakable, never ending torment from which there is NO ESCAPE FOREVER because "there us a GREAT GULF FIXED" (this is in the perfect tense in the Greek which indicates this great gulf was established at a point in time and it is permanently established (ongoing results). Jesus also totally destroys and false doctrine or notion of "Purgatory". He clearly states that one's position after death: either blessed or cursed in this place of fire and torment is permanent! There us no getting out, no escape after suffering in torment for eons because God Himself has established this "great gulf" barrier for the express purpose of preventing ANYONE from either side from EVER crossing over to the other side. After death, one's position, whether blessed in heaven or eternally cursed in hell is permenanly "fixed".

There is one more vitally important fact about what Jesus says in Luke 16 that must be addressed: Lazarus was not in heaven because he was poor and the rich man was not in hell because he was rich. Each man found themselves in their individual position because if what they had done with God in this life BEFORE they died. It all boils down to FAITH in Christ. Lazarus had "repented" and believed upon Jesus, while the rich man, had not. While alive, the rich man filled his life with his "good things" and had no place for God in his life or heart. He received all that he wanted in this life and he received it in full. However, AFTER he was dead and it was eternally too late he recognized the eternality of his damned position and the sole solution to keep every man, including his five brothers from ending up in hell: individual men need to repent; they need to have a change if heart concerning Jesus and they need to believe upon Him and Him alone unto the saving of their souls. This is why the rich man BEGS Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to WARN his five brothers to "REPENT" (I.e. to place their individual faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; Israel's promised messiah) lest they too end up in the same place of eternal torment. And what is Abraham's response to the rich man's request? : "They have Moses and the prophets, let them HEAR them", in otherwords: "your brothers have the Word of God, let them read it and heed its message." And what did the Lord Jesus Christ say about Moses and the Old Testament prophets? : "They testify of Me!"

But what was the rich man's response? "No father Abraham" (the Word of God and its message of salvation through faith in Jesus the Messiah was not enough for them to repent and place their faith in Jesus.) but they would be persuaded to REPENT IF someone returned from the dead to warn them about the terrors if hell and to tell them to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But what us Abraham's final answer and response to the rich man's request: If they are not willing to hear and heed the clear message of the Word of God concerning their dire need to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to save them from their sin and from hell, "neither would they be persuaded if someone arose from the dead.". Jesus' quote from Abraham is utterly true and has been factually born out in reality. The Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God bodily arose from the dead a full three days after His sacrificial death upon the cross of Calvary in order to pay the FULL penalty for ALL of the sins of ALL of mankind for all of human history. He was visibly seen, bodily alive after His death by all of the Apostles along with upwards of five hundred people! Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of people within the nation of Israel and the entire world fail to be persuaded an to believe in Him unto the saving of their eternal souls up to this present day.

Jesus' story in Luke 16 isn't a "parable", His message is a clear warning concerning the ultimate reality which awaits each and every one if us on the other side of the grave; whether heaven or hell. The one, all important question is this:

What will you do with the Lord Jesus Christ? Will you repent, believing on Him and on Him alone receiving Him as your personal savior by faith in order to save you from your sin, and from a Christless eternity, separated from the very God who loves you and from His heaven. Or will you continue to harden your heart, rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ and the free gift of salvation that He wants to give to you? The choice is yours, but listen carefully to the warning of Jesus: "Unless you believe that I am (in me, that I am the Messiah) you shall surely die in your sins." (John 8:24)

[Genoa]

You entirely miss my point by continuing to press the details of the parable. We need to get our doctrine from other places, not by pressing the incidents that go to make up a parable. That's all I'm saying.

[Jmouse007]

Sorry for some of the spelling errorsin my previous post. The above was typed on an IPod touch with “spell correct”, hence some of the improperly “corrected” spelling, and my IPod’s inability to recheck the enire document for errors prior to posting due to its visual text limitations.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: We need to get our doctrine from other places, not by pressing the incidents that go to make up a parable. That’s all I’m saying.

Sure, I understand.

But this teaching ( I don’t call it a parable because I am not sure that it is intended to be one ) SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT BE IGNORED in any doctrine we formulate.

[paladinan]

I’m a human being. I can have a mind and a body. If I’m on a business trip and a whore throws herself at me, in the reality of what it means to be a human being - I HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE IN MY MIND.

All right, so far...

But think a minute. What brought me to be sitting in that restaurant having dinner ? What brought that woman to that restaurant that evening ? She didn’t know I was going to be there. I didn’t know she was going to be there. We were both living our lives, and our lives intersected.

You leave your conclusion unspoken, here... and I'd like you to say it explicitly, if you're willing. You list a good many factors beyond your direct control; yes? And you also believe that God is sovreign, and that He orchestrated those factors; yes? So... please tell me if you're saying that "God is responsible for that man's sin", or not.

From our human perspective, we have free will. And we do not know what our own future holds.

Are you saying that, from God's perspective, we do NOT have free will?

Now let’s consider God’s viewpoint. There are Bible verses which say God predestinated the elect. You certainly can look them up and study them.

I have. I'd suggest that your (apparently Calvinist) definition of "predestination" is not the only hypothesis which fits those references... and your (apparently Calvinist) definition also makes absolute nonsense out of the vast majority of the Bible (and common sense).

What of everyone else ? (human sniffle, sniffle, whine) But it’s not fawewww ! What about the other people that God did not predestinate ?

:) Er... friend: melodrama can sometimes be entertaining, but it's no substitute for logic.

Woops, we’re thinking like humans again.

Simple mockery of an opposing position (or opponent) is not a valid way to prove your point, FRiend; it's an evasion, at best, and an ad hominem fallacy, at worst. The word "justice" (which I prefer to its weaker cousin, "fairness") actually does have a definition... and it's not at all inappropriate for anyone to ask whether [x] satisfies or violates that definition. That's what I seek to do, at any rate. I assure you, I'm not making any cheap appeals to emotion and/or sympathy.

Let’s be logical instead.

This implies, of course, that I was being illogical up to now, but... let that pass.

If those who are saved, S, are predestinated to be saved, what about NOT S?

Hold on. It depends rather inescapably on your definition of "predestined". (Remember your Socrates? There are three things needed for a sound argument: clear definitions, true premises, and a conclusion which logically follows from those premises [i.e. no fallacies].) Does "predestined" mean "those whom God, from all eternity, knew would ultimately be saved"? Or does it mean "those whom God positively willed to have guaranteed salvation"? Those are very different things. You mean the latter exclusively, I think... whereas I admit only a few of the ultimately-saved into the latter category (the Blessed Virgin Mary, for example), while admitting all the ultimately-saved into the former category.

Case in point: with the first definition, "S" would not equal "P"; with the second definition, "S" would equal "P". So as to your question: "not S" would equal "not P" only using the second definition (and that's only because there are no other options--it's not true, in general)... not if using the first. Your job, then, is to show that the second definition (i.e. "God positively chooses to create souls who will be damned, apart from their free choices, no matter what they do.") is correct. Good luck, FRiend!

NOT S (not saved) are not part of that group S (saved).

That's true, regardless of the above question; yes.

NOT S were not predestinated to be saved.

There's your first logical error: you assume (without making it explicit) that "S = P" and "not S = not P" (and the second does not logically follow from the first, in the general case, anyway: "a -> b" does not logically imply "not a -> not b"; the true statement "if x is a multiple of 10, then x is an even #" does not logically imply "if x is not a multiple of 10, then x is not an even #"; consider x = 6, for example)... neither of which have been proven, yet, and neither of which are logically implied by the other.

By inference can we conclude that NOT S were predestinated to not be saved?

No. See above.

Where NOT S predestinated to be NOT S, if S were predestinated to be S ?

Again, no. This would be the fallacy of affirming the inverse (i.e. assuming that "a -> b" implies "~a -> ~b").

The only flimisical argument available to us puny humans is that God predestinated S to be saved, and the rest.... he leaves that entirely up to them. They’re not predestinated to be saved, they’re not predestinated to damnation. God leaves it entirely up to them, whatever they want to do. Maybe God influences them along the way, but God does not really know what their choice will be.

Hold on. You've made a quiet (and illogical) jump from "God leaves them free" to "God doesn't know what their choice will be". Those two statements aren't at all the same thing; you know that, right?

If you're working on the assumption that "if God knows [x] from all eternity, then there's no way for [x] to have been other, and there's no way for [x] to have been free", then you're using a misunderstanding of God's Nature. God is ETERNAL--which does NOT mean that "God lives an infinite number of years". God, in His Divine Nature, is UTTERLY OUTSIDE of time; He does not "remember" things in the past, and He does not "foresee" things in the future; He *watches them happen, in an eternal 'NOW'!*. God knows what I'll be doing in 10 years, because He's there, watching me do it, as we speak! It isn't true that God is "exclusively in the year 2014", and simply "has a perfect memory" and "perfect predictive powers"; He's in all times, and all times are "now" to Him. God doesn't "remember" the crucifixion of Christ; He's there, watching it as we speak.

If God were within our timestream--if He were "forecasting" all future events perfectly--then that would be fatal for free will. But there is nothing impossible about God "knowing" my free choice in the future... because God IS WATCHING ME PERFORM that free act, eternally, as we speak.

Put it this way: let's imagine two possible situations:

1) God "programmed" the damned to be damned, and created them with that fact in mind.
2) God knew from all eternity that the damned woudl freely choose damnation.

Given only that we know that some will be saved and some will not be saved, how would you ever tell which situation is the correct one? You couldn't; there's not enough data. For anyone to insist that "God certainly willed (positively) that a portion of humanity will be damned" is for him to insist on a raw opinion, bereft of proof. (I do wonder what you do with 1 Timothy 2:4! How can God "will that all be saved" if He freely chooses to damn them from the outset? This is not a teary-eyed appeal to emotion; this is a logical demand for a reconciliation of an apparent contradiction.)

Do you see how nonsensically impossible it is to have a plan for the entire universe which determines what will happen far into the future, but in that plan leave an enormous space of possibilities which are indeterminate at the time the plan is made ?

Given your false definition of "determines", in your first phrase, I'd have to say "no".

[Benito Cereno]

Agree, and if the saving power of Christ’s sacrifice and death is insufficient to save a Hitler or Judas or Manson or Dahmer, that is, if there are limits to God’s grace, then it isn’t grace at all but a reward system for those who do good. That’s not the grace described by Paul, that’s not the grace that saved Paul (chief among sinners), and it’s not the grace that has saved me.

[PieterCasparzen]

Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

To help in understanding this verse: this means that if a person fornicates while married, their spouse can divorce them.

This is a real, real good document to start with, and it has Scripture proof texts you can click on:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

If I dream things up in my mind, if I "hear voices telling me things", if I get "feelings" about what's right, etc., none of that is factual or true unless it's also proved when one proves it according to God's revealed Law Word, the Bible.

If I "interpret" meanings that are not in Scripture into my reading of Scripture, I'm going off the straight and narrow path.

The early Americans that first came here to avoid persecution in Europe, the Pilgrims, are well worth studying.

The Bible states in many places that we are not to tolerate gross habitual sin in the midst of our congregations.

That is why there used to be Church discipline, that now is practiced only by a relatively small remnant of Churches.

The reason is clear:

Galatians 5:9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

leaven representing sin; if a congregation allows gross habitual sin, the whole thing becomes a pit of sin. The Methodist Church I attended as a boy had a lesbian choir director and a wealthy married congregant who were caught together one day. Nothing was done. The Methodist Church is completely apostate. They're now just an arm of globalism, and any sins you commit will be perfectly fine with them. If you like you can say you're sorry, but hey, man, it's cool. We be groovy, man.

In a good Reformed Church, it's the most amazing thing, where they get their doctrine from on Church discipline. I mean, really, what a novel idea. It comes from the Bible ! Wow ! Who'da thunk it ! Actually using the Bible to be the rule and guide in faith and life. Instead of just listen'n to some pop tart on TV who's tellin' us God wants us to prosper ! And smile ! Wee hee !

Then there's the big fear that the Church will micromanage your life if they have Church discipline, which is not true at all if the discipline is Scriptural. In fact, good Reformed Churches are much more respectful of the family than Churches who skip Church discipline.

Finally, we get to arminian Churches like the Methodists who make up their own sins, like drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco at all. How many times have I heard "she's a good Christian, doesn't drink or smoke at all" - which, of course, is completely unbiblical. So we can be lesbian and commit adultery and fornicate, as long as we don't have a glass of wine.

I wonder sometimes just how crazy and unbiblical things have to be for everyone to actually recognize a false teaching. I guess there's no limit to what people will fall for if they just keep "evolving" their understanding of Scripture.

Judgemental. Yes ! The Bible tells the Christian that they must discern what other people are about. Are they evil, do they do evil things ? Tell them to repent. Deny them the Lord's table if they still refuse. If they still refuse, separate from them, get them out of your congregation. Once I can discern people's actions and words, that tells me when I'm with them whether I need to be prepared as I would be with an unbeliever - what can I expect from them, what precautions do I need to take. Sometimes this can be VERY important and affect long-time friendships, but it must be done if we put Christ over our earthly former buddies who are gone to the dogs.

Sorry for the rant !

[PieterCasparzen]

Oy vey, I was trying to clarify and simplify.

Too many things for me to comment on.

You do have access to the verses that contain the word predestinate, etc., right ?

If God predestinated you to salvation, how can we not agree what that means ?

What do you think that means - is it that God knows that you will choose salvation ? or is that God actively chose you, i.e., caused you to be saved ?

[paladinan]

Oy vey, I was trying to clarify and simplify.

:) Now, *that's* something that's come out of my mouth, more than once! I hear you.

You do have access to the verses that contain the word predestinate, etc., right ?

I take it you're using the KJV? My usual translations use a slightly different word... but in short: yes.

If God predestinated you to salvation, how can we not agree what that means ?

I do not say that God predestines me for salvation. I say it of the Blessed Virgin, for example, but not for me... at least, not in the (apparently) Calvinist way that you mean it (i.e. a denial of free will, with respect to salvation--and a claim that those who are damned were positively willed to be damned by God). I do say that, if (God willing) I am ultimately saved, God will have known that fact from all eternity... with no prejudice to my radical freedom of will by which I cooperated with God's grace to get me there.

What do you think that means - is it that God knows that you will choose salvation ? or is that God actively chose you, i.e., caused you to be saved ?

Your last phrase is ambiguous enough for me to hesitate to agree with the second option. In one sense, God can "choose" me, but I can still reject Him. And if I am saved, I will be saved purely through the grace of God, Who gave me even my free will by which I could choose to cooperate with His Grace and embrace salvation. But that is not at all the same as saying, "God forces me to go to Heaven (or to hell), by restricting my choices utterly and sapping my will of all meaningful freedom".

[metmom]

The first death is physical death.

The second death is eternal separation from God.

[paladinan]

...or you can read this excellent summary of the true position from metmom, if you prefer the non-10,000+ word version! :)