Lk.16:26a, CLV, And in all this, between us and you a great chasm has been established,
It does not say this chasm will remain in place forever. Only that at that moment in time it was so. Neither does it explain what keeps those who are in torments from crossing over. Or deny that if they repented they could then end their torments.
Easy to say, but without any evidence or rational argument to support your statement it is quite hollow. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn’t make it true.
Nowhere does Luke 16 say the rich man in Hades is not being corrected or incapable of being purified while there. Why is he receiving the Word of the Lord correcting him if there is no intent to correct & save him. Furthermore Luke 16 doesn’t mention the lake of fire or deny purification or correction there either. So your bald objection to purgatorial universalism is dismissed.
Repeatedly ignoring all the quotes I gave you while continually reiterating your position may serve to hypnotize & brainwash yourself & your disciples, but it doesn’t convince the objective intelligent observer & doesn’t address the quoted objections to your position:
Umm look above Origen… the text DOES EXPLAIN what keeps those who are in torments from crossing over, i.e., a great gulf fixed — well that is what Jesus reported; thus contrary to your claim your words are not harmonious at all… you are confused!
More to the truth… NOWHERE does the text say the rich man was being “corrected” — in fact the opposite is true as Jesus’ retelling of the tale shows the occupant is in agony, not repenting, but realising he is STUCK in his predicament. What a shame Jesus didn’t have Abraham tell the rich man to repent — nope and nada, your invented PU doctrine doesn’t appear anywhere in the text, at all.
Better question again would be, which verse/s in Luke 16 has… “the Word of the Lord correcting him”???
Lol you’re dreaming. Luke 16 also doesn’t mention anyone playing cards either… next you’ll be claiming they were. Your PU is a joke.
Hades has a fixed gulf but Hades isn’t the lake of fire. Death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. There is no fixed gulf in the lake of fire. The gates of the city remain open forever. In the Bible the gates are closed for the protection of intruders. The fact that they remain open shows there’s not need for protection. Once the penalty for sin has been paid (death both body and soul) then there’s resurrection. We see this as the kings and nations are entering into the city after they have been killed under the wrath of the lamb. Christ’s suffering and death was substitutionary. He paid the penalty for sin.
The penalty for sin can’t be eternal suffering for Christ didn’t suffer forever
The penalty for sin can’t be eternal death for Christ was resurrected
I would say that what happens to those in the “Lake of Fire” is that they are destroyed (body and soul) and then resurrected. As a human, Christ died both body and soul paying the penalty for sin and then resurrected. Christ learned obedience through what He suffered. Moreover, the word for punishment in Isaiah is Musar. This is the punishment that is said to fall on the substitute Christ. The word Musar means:
Nowhere in the Bible is the Lake of fire and sulfur called Gehenna. Gehenna was a trash dump outside the earthly Jerusalem. The New Creation is heavenly. The lake of fire is outside the new Jerusalem. Nowhere in the Bible is the lake of fire called Gehenna. The Lake of fire is a completely different context. And as the words for lake fire sulfur in the lexical word studies I gave state we should call it the lake of purification and baptism.
Where in the Bible is the lake of fire called Gehenna? Nowhere. Gehenna was outside the earthly Jerusalem. The new heavenly Jerusalem is a completely different context. Hence the words LAKE FIRE SULFUR. As I showed from the Lexical word studies this is baptism and purification.
Yes, purgatorial universalism is nonsense. Davo has already, no, Christ himself has already stuck a sword through the heart of that drivel, you dimwits!
So while we might agree that Jesus did redeem Creation at the cross by his blood, we should also agree that there is no further unfolding of redemption foretold, no remaining prophecies to yet be fulfilled.
After all, Jesus has already returned! And that thousand years of a “Millennial” Age? Well, that already happened a long time ago, and lasted for like forty years, not a thousand.
We need to quit resisting the truth of full preterism with our jaded literalism, and to just start enjoying our beautiful, perfect, pain-free, death-free, devil-free New Heavens and New Earth, NOW.
Evangelical Universalists Unite: Let’s let go of childish things and move on to recognize what the texts are actually crying out to tell us (in the original Aramaic, anyway): there is no devil, or demons, or Hades, or Antichrist or future Second Coming, or remedial age-during lake of fire. Been there, done that. Poof. Gone.
Again, don’t set yourself up for disappointment. This is all there is. This is as good as it’s gonna get. This is the whole enchilada. Don’t be foolishly hoping that Jesus is “coming back” to straighten anything out—
—because hey, Christ is obviously already here, all in all, reigning in his glory; and we are NOW living in his perfect paradise…you bunch of ingrates! (“Serving you since 70 AD,” ever since bipolar Jesus returned to fry those baby chicks who refused to come under his wings, those Christ-rejecting Jews…and their law, thank you very much.)
My intended point was that the text doesn’t “explain what keeps those who are in torments from crossing over” the gulf. Neither does it explain what the gulf is or represents. Nor state that it will be in place forever. Or how long, or under what conditions, it is a barrier. It tells us that people are not able to cross over. Is that inability wholly on man’s side, or is Love Omnipotent also unable to bring them across? There are many examples in Scripture of humans being unable to do something, yet with God’s ability they are able to do that thing which the humans are unable to do. So if the inability of Lk.16:26 refers to mere human inability, it doesn’t deny them crossing that gulf with Divine assistance. As in, for example, if certain conditions are met, e.g. the repentance of those in “torments”, who are receiving words of truth from the other side correcting them.
Scripture speaks of those who are incurable. Yet later it says they are cured (Jer.30:12,17). So why assume that a gulf that humans are unable to cross in their own ability cannot be crossed with the assistance of Love Omnipotent?
Likewise, in regards to the salvation of another rich man, Jesus says with man this is impossible (Mt.19:26; Mk.10:27; Lk.18:37). Yet with God it is possible, for with God all is possible.
Paul says he would “no more” see the face of certain brethren (Acts 20:25). Does that mean they will never see Paul again for eternity, even in the afterlife? If that is not an absolute statement, why should the statement in Luke 16:26 be absolute?
Acts 4:20 “For we are not able to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Were Peter & John literally absolutely “not able” to “stop speaking”? Were they puppets that had no choice in the matter?
Lk.16:26 says they are not able to cross the gulf. Does that mean forever, even with God’s help, or only in their own ability they are not able to do so? Similarly, Luke 1:22 says Zechariah was not able to speak. Does that mean forever, even with God’s help, he was unable, or only in his own ability he was unable? It is the same basic Greek word, Strongs #1410, in both cases:
“to be able, have power, whether by virtue of one’s own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favorable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom;…” https://biblehub.com/greek/1410.htm
James 3:8 says no human is able to subdue the tongue. Does that include Christ & those filled with the Holy Spirit also? Or does the inability there have limitations? How about in Lk.16:26 where the same Greek word for “able” occurs? Does the inability there also have limitations?
In 2 Cor.13:8 the same Greek word appears again where Paul says “For we have no ability against the truth, but for the truth.” Were those Paul speaks of, therefore, perfect & absolutely “unable” to sin or fall away from the faith? Was that an absolute statement? Or did it have limitations? Compare Luke 16:26 where the same Greek word occurs.
Mk.5:3 “who had the dwelling in the tombs. And no longer was anyone able to bind him, not even with chains”. Was even God Omnipotent not “able” to bind this man? Is the statement absolute? Or does it have limitations?
Rev.13:8a “I know your deeds. Behold, I have set before you a door having been opened, which no one is able to shut it”. No one is “able”? Not even God?
Rev.5:3 “But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look inside it.” No one “in heaven” was “able”? Not even God?
Lk.13:11 “And behold, a woman having a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and she was bent over and not able to lift herself up to the full.” Was she eternally not “able”, even if Jesus’ healed her? Compare Lk.16:26 where the same Greek word for “able” occurs.
Other examples of the Greek word for “able” could be added, but those should suffice to make my point.
It is Greek word, Strongs #1410:
“to be able, have power, whether by virtue of one’s own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favorable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom;…” https://biblehub.com/greek/1410.htm
If the inability of the rich man to cross the barrier is related to God’s “permission” not being granted because of his unrepentant condition, then once that condition is removed by his repentance then there would be nothing to keep him from crossing the barrier. He would then have “permission” to cross over.
How would you know that he was “not repenting”? Can you see inside his heart? No, you cannot. So you cannot know that he was “not repenting”.
During his life, it is revealed in the account, he didn’t have compassion on the suffering Lazarus. Post-mortem he was experiencing sufferings himself through which he was experiencing what Lazarus experienced, i.e. “torments”, “pain”. If there was no corrective purpose to this, then Love Omnipotent would be a sadist. So it is corrective, which is the rule in Scripture with all of God’s punishment & words of truth to the unrepentant. The rich man is also receiving such words of truth in Lk.16:19-31. If not for his correction, what would be the purpose of such words? Sadism?
Truly he was “stuck”, as you say, in a place or state of “torments”. Yet for how long & under what conditions is not stated. Though the very fact of him being corrected implies a salvific purpose to it all.
Ecc 1:13 I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it. (CLV)
Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the LORD’s wrath, until he pleads my case and upholds my cause. He will bring me out into the light;I will see his righteousness. (Micah 7:9)
Matt 5:25-26 Come to terms quickly with your adversary before it is too late and you are dragged into court, handed over to an officer, and thrown in jail. I assure you that you won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny.
“They must pay (as GMac says) the uttermost farthing – which is to say, they must tender the forgiveness of their brethren that is owed, the repentance and sorrow for sin that is owed, etc. Otherwise they do stay in prison with the tormenters. (their guilt? their hate? their own filthiness?) At last resort, if they still refuse to let go that nasty pet they’ve been stroking, they must even suffer the outer darkness. God will remove Himself from them to the extent that He can do so without causing their existence to cease. As Tom Talbot points out so well, no sane person of free will (and the child must be sane and informed to have freedom) could possibly choose ultimate horror over ultimate delight throughout the unending ages.” https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/why-affirm-belief-in-hell/4967/12
The rich man’s need for repentance is implied by the words spoken to him in the account. Luke 16:27-28 may indicate the rich man’s concern for others. Perhaps he was beginning to have a change of heart. Supposedly that is the purpose of those in Hades receiving the word of the Lord, in this case via Abraham.
Lk.16:25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things,…
"Son
Lit., child.
“…Here, too, was one who, even in Hades, was recognised as being, now more truly than he had been in his life, a “child” or “son of Abraham.” (Comp. Luke 19:9.) The word used is the same, in its tone of pity and tenderness, as that which the father used to the elder son in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:31), which our Lord addressed to the man sick of the palsy (Matthew 9:2), or to His own disciples (John 13:33).”
The point is davo has stated Lk.16:26 refutes purgatorial universalism (PUR). PUR involves purification in the lake of fire (LOF), yet Lk.16:26 makes no reference to the LOF, so how can Lk.16:26 refute PUR? Lk.16:26 doesn’t even deny purification in Hades & davo never explained why he thinks it does but just made that bald unsupported claim.
As to your allegation that “argument from silence” is a “logical fallacy”, the following is from christianforums.com, with Der Alter’s comment & my reply:
[QUOTE=“Der Alter, post: 72876052, member: 11484”]
“if God was a believer in endless punishment…If Jude believed in endless punishment,…” logical fallacy. Argument from silence also trying to second guess God and Jude what they would have said under certain circumstances.[/QUOTE]
“In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence. That inference can be strengthened by relevant evidence of a positive kind, or by the continued silence of further evidence.” https://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/silence.html
"Howell and Prevenier state that arguments from silence face the difficulty that a historian can not just assume that an author would have recorded the fact in question; for if the fact did not seem important enough to an author it would have been excluded. http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/argumentum_ex_silentio
Clearly the above statement re “arguments from silence” does not apply to my argument. For it is clear that if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments He would have thought it “important enough” to include many times as a warning in the 27 books of the inspired NT Scriptures. That He did not do so proves that He rejected such a view. And the proof that He didn’t include it is that the words (& expressions) which would have expressed it unambiguously were not used of eschatological punishment.
In this case it is a powerful argument: the superior words to express endlessness - IOW not the aion & aionion that Love Omnipotent usually employs - are never used by Him of eschatological punishment.
Further re “arguments from silence”: “David Henige states that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[5]” There are “Convincing applications” of the “arguments from silence”: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/argumentum_ex_silentio
Furthermore, my argument has provided “evidence of absence”:
Where’s your “proof” of that? Are the “torments” of people in the lake of fire (LOF) for the purpose of (1) “to end the old covenant” (2) Love Omnipotent’s sadistic delights or (3) correction? The answer to this multiple choice question seems quite obvious to me.
Ecc 1:13 I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it. (CLV)
Davo said Lk.16:26 refutes PUR. The burden of proof is on him to prove that. I’ve simply pointed out the obvious. The ball is now in his court.
Luke 16:26 says they are not able to cross over. It doesn’t support davo’s claim by saying they are not able to be purified. That’s not what it says. Perhaps he is confused in confusing the two as being equal or one proving the other, but providing no evidence or reason for his claim.
Yep indeed… at least as far as Jesus gives account to that in the story/parable of Lk 16.
Pretty much.
From my perspective, similar though different… the LoF was Jerusalem’s AD70 fiery end with those who had suffered destruction in that cataclysm being duly resurrected thereafter.
I DID already by giving you the very words of Jesus… yet you simply dismiss His word. Even verses 30-31 goes on to prove there was no room for repentance via Hades — believe Jesus for He in turn dismisses your PU!!
Lk 16:30-31And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
CLEARLY the rich man UNDERSTOOD repentance and yet did he? — NO… preferring that for others!
You still haven’t answered this — which verse/s from Lk 16 says this?
There was fire in Hades and fire in Gehenna and fire at Sodom. The phrase LAKE FIRE SULFUR is in the context of the new Jerusalem. Nowhere is it called Gehenna. It’s a different context. There was fire in Gehenna just as there was fire in hades. But the Bible is clear that Gehenna was a valley located outside the EARTHLY Jerusalem. Fire in the Lake of fire is the Greek PUR which is where we get the word purify from. Moreover, the context is the new heavenly Jerusalem. This signals a figure. Earthly realities are used to describe heavenly realities in the Bible by way of figure of speech. The word PUR in HELPS word study:
4442 pyr - fire. In scripture, fire is often used figuratively - like with the “fire of God” which transforms all it touches into light and likeness with itself.
The Greek word for sulfur is theion and is defined as divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease. The Jewish culture used sulfur in purification rites.
brimstone
divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease
Lakes were used for baptism in the Bible. Just as we are crucified with Christ, die to self and resurrected to new life those in the lake of fire are baptized in fire as they undergo destruction and resurrection.
I gave the primary definition or better the actual definition. The other “definitions” you quoted above are not definitions but presumptions by the lexicographer in attempting to apply the definition figuratively.
Of course, I also have presumed to apply the definition figuratively as being the correction of those in the Lake of Fire.
My post #136, which you’ve ignored (also post #'s 137 & 139), explained how Luke 16:26 is perfectly harmonious with purgatorial universalism (PUR). It’s a long post, not a “simple dismissal”. What’s “simple” here is your repeated appeal to one out of context verse & then declaring boldly with capital letters, but without any explanation whatsoever, that the verse has somehow refuted PUR. It reminds me of the M.O. of several annihilationists on another forum. After the verses they’ve posted are explained they ignore my explanations & post the same verses again repeatedly. I have to wonder if they’re brainwashed & can’t think for themselves. Who are they trying to convince? Themselves? No objective intelligent observer is going to believe them while they ignore responses that refute their claims. They’re intellectually dishonest. Likewise with you in this thread. Best to avoid explaining why you think Lk.16:26 refutes PUR as it will just expose your position further. Furthermore, I doubt that you’ve even thought it through yourself.
Where does anything in Lk.16:30-31 say, imply, or suggest that there’s “no room for repentance via Hades”. In those verses their discussion topic isn’t even talking about life in Hades, but life in the world of the living, i.e. before people have died. And no one has said there is “repentance via Hades” as if a place can bring repentance. Nothing in Luke 16:19-31 denies that those in Hades’ can repent.
The account of Luke 16:19-31 may only be describing the rich man’s first few minutes in Hades after dieing. Why should we expect him to have come to the full knowledge of the truth, confession of all his sins & a deep understanding of why he needs to repent in such a short time? Though if Jesus is giving an accurate & truthful account of life post-mortem, it does clearly oppose the ideas of (1) UUism, (2) no post-mortem torments for anyone & (3) that all who die will immediately see Jesus, have genuine deep repentance & true saving faith in Him as per your opinion which is essentially the same as (1) & (2).
The rich man in Hades showed remorse as he begged for mercy. Hence he was being corrected. If he had a hardened heart and wasn’t being corrected he would have showed hatred towards God with no begging for mercy. In Hades the gulf is fixed but death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire where the gates are forever open. No fixed gulf.
AND that passage neither says, implies nor suggests that those in Hades’ CAN repent… you’re simply adding to the words of Jesus your own invented PU scenario.
THAT’S just it Origen… Jesus wasn’t! And BECAUSE He wasn’t is another reason why a sword is put right through your juvenile PU doctrine. Jesus was recounting local legend, i.e., popularly known Greek myth regarding ‘hades’ and applying a few lessons from it to their own given situation, that being, the ultimate futility of social injustice and the reality that they won’t be convinced otherwise… NOT even if one should rise from the dead.
THUS with this parable having NOTHING to do with literal postmortem destinies or realities YOUR false PU claims to postmortem repentance in hades become null and void and shown to be the nonsense you’ve been demonstrating with you all your shotgun-spread-it-everywhere posts.
And this is the level of junior-grade rationality that dialoguing with you guys makes so exacerbating… you come out with crap like this above to justify what you call exegeses. It’s like trying to argue “catastrophy” means “feline disaster” because “catastrophy” starts with the letters CAT — unbelievable!! Try this…
Purify: Middle English purifien, from Old French purifier, from Latin pūrificāre — sorry, no Greek PUR.
Remorse is not repentance. It is possible that remorse may lead to repentance, but that is no guarantee of it and certainly remorse is no indicator that anyone has been corrected. Furthermore… the tale of Lk 16 shows repentance to be pertinent to the ones antemortem NOT the one postmortem — PU really does have the cart before the horse.
As to the possibility of postmortem repentance I HAVE indeed argued elsewhere on this forum FOR such, and yet even this in pathetic petulance was rejected because I don’t advocate sadistic flames… go figure!