Pope Resigns - Sign Of The Times?

[Mr. Darby]

This is the definition of 'parable' from Noah Webster: 'A fable or allegorical relation or representation of something real in life or nature, from which a moral is drawn for instruction; such as the parable of the trees choosing a king, Judges 9.; the parable of the poor man and his lamb, 2 Samuel 12.; the parable of the Ten Virgins, Matthew 25'.

Many of the stories labled 'parables' in the scriptures by the 'scholars' do not necessarily show evidence that they actually are. For example the 'Parable of the Prodigal Son'. Many of these 'parables' are not so called by the inspired writers, nor do they contain any characteristics of fables. There is nothing 'impossible' about the story of the prodigal son. Since Jesus was God, and knew all things, he would have known many true stories which were powerful for making a point. As a preacher/Bible teacher I often relate 'true' stories that are designed to make a point, just as a parable. But that fact does not detract from the truth of the events related. I doubt that many of the 'parables' so called by the 'scholars' are really parables. Many of them were actual, real, historical events that Jesus used to make a point. (Such as Dives and Lazarus.) Anyone can label these stories as parables, but that is certainly not proof that they actually are.

It was the liberal higher criticism of 19th century Germany that started the trend of scholars labeling the story of Dives and Lazarus as a parable. They were desperate to get rid of the doctrine of eternal retribution and to turn Jesus into a simple Deistic philosopher. Labeling this story as a parable provided the vehicle for doing just that.

 

[Mr. Darby]

Suppose a mother from the heavenly regions could look across the fixed gulf and see her son in the torments of hell; suppose she could hear him crying day and night for a drop of water to cool his tongue because of the burning heat of those lower regions. Would not the mother be as much in torment as the son, and in fact, would it not be more a place of hell for the mother than it would actually be for that son?

First off, Lazarus was not in heaven. The text clearly says he is in Abraham's bosom. Not the same thing.

Secondly, God will wipe away all tears for the saved, so that they can no longer suffer any anguish.

Revelation 21:4:

'And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain'

Thirdly, in the Kingdom Age, they will look upon those who are in 'hell'. Isaiah 66:23,24 says,

'And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.'

 

[Mr. Darby]

Read some old books. This is pretty common knowledge. Most theologians prior to 1800 viewed this story literally, Liberals after 1800 viewed it as a parable. Get the Commentary on the whole Bible published by Abingdon in the 1930's. This modernist book declares that the story is a 'parable', following a host of liberal writings before it.

 

[Mr. Darby]

Oh...so....(and I find this strange) For almost 6,000 years (some say 4000) saved Jews have been cheek to jowl and aware of the tortures of the damned? Hardly makes a difference: the point is your theory has a consciousness link between the damned and the saved, wherever you wish to place them....IF this parable God uses is as literal a map of the after life as you suppose.

Yes, they were apparently aware of the damned for all those centuries before Christ. There is nothing especially remarkable about that detail.

I would be curious to know exactly what are your views concerning the intermediate state. I don't really know what you believe other than that you label this a parable. I would like to know what theological perspective you are coming from.

 

[Mr. Darby]

I gave you a source buddy, check it out.

 

[Mr. Darby]

The book is at my father's house. Shall I go out in the night to get the book, so you can just continue to scoff at what I say? You are not going to listen to me regardless of what I say or quote. I am not even discussing this to convince you. I am just trying to give a little food for thought to the others who are reading this.

Would you characterize yourself as a universalist, or as a proponent of soul sleep? I have a theological education. I don't need a detailed explanation, just a general idea of where you are coming from.

In quoting the Abingdon source, I am not relying on a scholar for interpretation, just citing evidence from history about what has been believed. You can relax. I am not suggesting scholars should be the source of interpretations here, either. But, I think you just like to attack those who dare to disagree with you.

 

[Mr. Darby]

I looked online as well, couldn't find it either.

I certainly realize not everyone agrees with my views. I think it is pretty well established that fundamental Christianity is becoming a thing of the past.

I don't have time to read everything you post. Are you affiliated with the universalist tentmakers?

 

[Mr. Darby]

I am affiliated with no organization.

Now...I plainly said "read my posts" to know my faith; I didn't suggest how you used your time (although any authentic participation in a forum will cost you time) or that you read ALL of my posts.

So...stop the denominational cross-examination as it is ....well....not conducive to spirit of an all-embracing Christian forum. (See Forum Rules here:

3.2b ChristianForumSite.com has a wide variety of members from around the World. This Forum does not allow the elevation of one Christian belief system over another. This is demeaning and belittling the beliefs of other Christians while promoting another system so as to create an atmosphere of superiority. Any such posts or threads will be removed and a reminder, warning or ban issued as necessary.)​

​

Proof that this sort of quizzing is often in bad taste:

Earlier you said you promoted your ideas and something about your theological education. Now anyone who knows a lick about all branches of Plymouth Brethren know that there is NO ordained ministry...therefore no seminary as normal in Protestant circles....So whether you're an Open Brethren, and Exclusive Brethren (doubtful as you own a wicked computer) or a Church of God Brethren, it's hard to synch what you said to what these denominations teaches.

Now, I will not corner you and prod for an answer as you are doing to me, but I am, as you like to say "only making a point"...However grilling as to one's church affiliation NEVER comes off well.

I frankly don't care what flavour of Faith a person has; if they tell me , fine. If they don't (and most here don't) fine again.

So time or no time, I will not attempt to save you time by making a compact creed out of my faith in Christ and His saving Blood.

I am Open Brethren, and though we do not have an ordained clergy (Though there is actually a school, which I think we would probably be better off without.), there are those among us who are called to teach/preach and fulfill that ministry to edify the saints. Those of us who fulfill that role of ministry in the Assembly are not paid to do the preaching and teaching.

Anyway, I was pretty open from the very beginning of my coming to this site exactly where I am coming from. Don't understand why others cannot have that same openess. However, since you seem to be unwilling to answer a reasonable question, I will leave you alone.

 

[Mr. Darby]

I will point out as well that I did not ask you for a denominational affilliation, but concerning what your general theological perspective is.

 

[calvin]

I am Open Brethren, and though we do not have an ordained clergy (Though there is actually a school, which I think we would probably be better off without.), there are those among us who are called to teach/preach and fulfill that ministry to edify the saints. Those of us who fulfill that role of ministry in the Assembly are not paid to do the preaching and teaching.

Anyway, I was pretty open from the very beginning of my coming to this site exactly where I am coming from. Don't understand why others cannot have that same openess. However, since you seem to be unwilling to answer a reasonable question, I will leave you alone.

Well I'm a tad confused In an earlier Post Mr Darby, you said that your Brethren (Plymouth) Aren't they rather 'closed'?
My brother-in-law was a preacher in the brethren Church. I chased him out of my house (literally) so I don't know much about what he believes in except personal conceit. Yes even placid ol' me can be driven agro.
Notwithstanding my microscopic flaws , I do actually have a formal theological education. I will shortly go on an archaeological expedition to dig up your last reply to me and answer it. count to 10,000 by 0.001s while waiting

 

[calvin]

So....What about the pope's resignation, anyway?

I've never read the parable of the pope's resignation. where is that?

 

[Glomung]

Well, Benny quit. We chose a new one. Seems like a decent fellow, touch of humility in this one.

 

[calvin]

Well, Benny quit. We chose a new one. Seems like a decent fellow, touch of humility in this one.

Yes, but have you noticed the innuendo and bad mouthing about him has already started

 

[calvin]

Whenever Jesus told a parable, He usually started by saying, "Behold I show you a parable..." or something similar, but in Luke 16 He didn't follow that pattern. The cultural format of a parable didn't use proper names, which Christ used in this passage. Many times parables had a lesson that was given in the context, like in Luke 18, "Men ought always to pray and never to faint" but that "lesson" is absent here. So there is some evidence that this was a literal story such as Jesus told of the Tower that fell killing eighteen or Pilate mingling the blood of Galileans with the blood of their sacrifices.
But whether or not this is a parable is missing an important point. In none of the parables of the Lord Jesus did He ever use unreal imagry. When He spoke a parable to farmers, He talked about the sowing of seed and when He gave a parable to shepherds, He used the image of sheep, flocks, and porters. So, I think it highly unlike that the scene of Luke 16 could be imaginary as He described the horrors of hell.

Hello Jack.
As a generalization you are probably correct, but there are specifics that will always run contrary to any rules we try to identify. You raise an interesting observation about the use of proper names. We only know of two with the name Lazarus.
The most well known is the guy that spent four days in a tomb. Interestingly he was a rich person.
But getting back to the Luke16 passage; It is strange that Jesus would mention Lazarus by name but not the rich guy. If this poor Lazarus was known to the Jesus' audience, it is indeed reasonable that the rich guy would have been well known too.
This is especially so in view of the observation that the Pharisees were lovers of wealth Luke 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.
It is a rather long stretch to say that Lazarus was widely known, (enough so as to make it reasonable to name him) and the wealthy guy was not. Don't you think?
Unreal imagery? that is a debatable point IMO. V3 says what follows is a parable...Yes?
Luke 15:3 So he told them this parable:
Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?
Two main things..... 1. Someone having 100 sheep would in all probability employ a shepherd.
2. Nobody in their right mind would leave a herd of sheep out in the open and unguarded for the wolves to snack on while they went off looking for one truant.
That parable Jack, IMO qualifies as a user of unreal imagery.
Back to Lazarus. this is just a private musing on my part, but I wonder if the real Lazarus, might not have been a bit uncaring of the destitute. It is said that Jesus loved him, so maybe the breaking of tradition by naming only one but transposing fortunes...might have been a gentle hint to the real Lazarus...In other words "Hey Lazarus buddy, how would you feel..."....just a thought.

 

[calvin]

Now that I have just made a new enemy, maybe I can try for #2?

I think you totally missed the point of what I was saying. I certainly did not say that all deaths since the time of Christ are attributable to Anti-Christ. I did say that those specific saints in Revelation are tribulation saints who die under the Anti-Christ. The point is that two different dispensations are in view, one before the cross, one after. The state of the righteous dead has changed, no longer going to Abraham's bosom, but going to be with Jesus until they are reunited with their body at the Rapture. Those saints who die in the Tribulation will be raised at Christ's return.

You might like to view the following topic. In it, I argue with myself, and any and all comers
http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/the-1000-year-reign-i-wish-it-were-literal-but.32249/
The trouble with your two dispensations idea is that there is only ever two resurrections mentioned....not many.
Either a person is part of the first resurrection or they're in trouble mega big time at the second resurrection. Do you know of any others?
As for what a parable is, sinse it is a translation of the Greek παραβολην, we need to look to the Greek to see what it means...not Websters.
① someth. that serves as a model or example pointing beyond itself for later realization, type, figure παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα a symbol (pointing) to the present age Hb 9:9. ἐν παραβολῇ as a type (of the violent death and of the resurrection of Christ) 11:19. λέγει ὁ προφήτης παραβολὴν κυρίου B 6:10, where the mng. may be the prophet is uttering a parable of the Lord (Goodsp.), or the prophet speaks of the Lord in figurative language (Kleist), or the prophet speaks in figurative language given him by the Lord. W. αἴνιγμα PtK 4 p. 15, 31. The things of the present or future cannot be understood by the ordinary Christian διὰ τὸ ἐν παραβολαῖς κεῖσθαι because they are expressed in figures B 17:2.
② a narrative or saying of varying length, designed to illustrate a truth especially through comparison or simile, comparison, illustration, parable, proverb, maxim.
ⓐ in the synoptics the word refers to a variety of illustrative formulations in the teaching of Jesus (in Mt 17 times, in Mk 13 times, in Lk 18 times; cp. Euclides [400 b.c.] who, acc. to Diog. L. 2, 107, rejected ὁ διὰ παραβολῆς λόγος; Aristot., Rhet. 2, 20, 2ff; Περὶ ὕψους 37; Vi. Aesopi II p. 307, 15 Eb.; Biogr. p. 87 Ὁμήρου παραβολαί; Philo, Conf. Lingu. 99; Jos., Ant. 8, 44. The Gk. OT also used παραβολή for various words and expressions that involve comparison, including riddles [s. Jülicher below: I2 32–40].—En 1:2; 3. Cp. π. κυριακαί Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv I 67, 1]). For prob. OT influence on the use of comparison in narrative s. Ezk 17. λέγειν, εἰπεῖν παραβολήν: Lk 13:6; 16:19 D; 19:11 (begins the longest ‘parable’ in the synoptics: 17 verses). τινί to someone
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


Be careful of some of the text here...it is not scripture, just illustrative example. The primary definitions and the reference to Luke have been emphasized for clarity.

 

[calvin]

Nobody asked me for my theological perspective I'll give it anyway.
When dealing with Bible interpretation, there are a few disciplines that need to be embraced.

Form: what are we looking at? wisdom literature, prophesy, pastoral epistle, history, poetry, what?

Context: What are the circumstances surrounding the text we are studying?

Meaning: What might the original recipients of the passage have understood or were supposed to understand.

Significance: We are not the original recipients of the passage, so what application does it have for us today?

In addition to the above, everything should be established by the testimony of at least two witnesses. If two witnesses can not be found, and there is no forensic support, then we need to proceed with caution.

So in the case of the Luke 16 passage, there are not two or more witnesses....so we need to proceed with caution because there is little forensic support.

OK, Form is a no 'brainer'.....it is gospel Narrative.

Context: Hmm yes well here is gunna be a bone of contention perhaps...perhaps not.
Ask, where do these passages about Lazarus and the rich man fit within the gospel narrative?
We need to go back to Luke 15:1,2. Jesus was drawing crowds, and raising the ire of the ubiquitous Scribes and Pharisees.
Throughout Ch 15, and up to Ch16 V14, Jesus talks mostly of money matters as far as the Pharisees understand.
Now, in V14, the Pharisees ridicule Jesus, and His response begins with V15, and really continues through to Ch 17:4.
During this dialog Jesus uses several stories to teach spiritual truth. Bur back of every thing He says, is the error of the Pharisaic teachings.
He corrects the teaching on divorce and remarriage, and money matters. The telling of the adventures of Lazarus which falls within this whole episode is just one example of Him contending against His enemies. The idea that people were disbelieving the message of Moses and the prophets was not directed toward the disciples, but toward the Pharisees.

Meaning: I'm outta time you can join the dots. But remember, there are no witnesses to corroborate the story, so you will need to apply some forensic investigation

 

[Mr. Darby]

Well I'm a tad confused In an earlier Post Mr Darby, you said that your Brethren (Plymouth) Aren't they rather 'closed'?
My brother-in-law was a preacher in the brethren Church. I chased him out of my house (literally) so I don't know much about what he believes in except personal conceit. Yes even placid ol' me can be driven agro.
Notwithstanding my microscopic flaws , I do actually have a formal theological education. I will shortly go on an archaeological expedition to dig up your last reply to me and answer it. count to 10,000 by 0.001s while waiting

Few Brethren will use the term 'Plymouth Brethren', Open or Exclusive. But among those outside, the term can apply to either.

 

[Major]

Few Brethren will use the term 'Plymouth Brethren', Open or Exclusive. But among those outside, the term can apply to either.

Well, personally I am an ole country boy who was blessed with a little education from wonderful parents and have chosen to serve the Lord in the Baptist faith.

Not because it is special or good but simply because IMHO it comes the closest to Bible interpretations.

 

[Mr. Darby]

I was raised up in the Baptist church, and still have great respect for the truths taught there. There really isn't much difference between Baptists and the Brethren in the main. The most obvious difference would be the fact that our assemblies do not have one man in a position of being the 'pastor', and we celebrate the Lord's supper every Sunday morning. But, like the Baptists, our congregations are autonomous, our worship is simple, and we baptize adults by immersion.

 

[Jack Williamson]

CALVIN:

Hello Jack.
As a generalization you are probably correct, but there are specifics that will always run contrary to any rules we try to identify. You raise an interesting observation about the use of proper names. We only know of two with the name Lazarus.
The most well known is the guy that spent four days in a tomb. Interestingly he was a rich person.
But getting back to the Luke16 passage; It is strange that Jesus would mention Lazarus by name but not the rich guy. If this poor Lazarus was known to the Jesus' audience, it is indeed reasonable that the rich guy would have been well known too.
This is especially so in view of the observation that the Pharisees were lovers of wealth Luke 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.
It is a rather long stretch to say that Lazarus was widely known, (enough so as to make it reasonable to name him) and the wealthy guy was not. Don't you think?

JACK: Perhaps, but it doesn't say that one way or the other.

CALVIN: Unreal imagery? that is a debatable point IMO. V3 says what follows is a parable...Yes?
Luke 15:3 So he told them this parable:
Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?
Two main things..... 1. Someone having 100 sheep would in all probability employ a shepherd.
2. Nobody in their right mind would leave a herd of sheep out in the open and unguarded for the wolves to snack on while they went off looking for one truant.
That parable Jack, IMO qualifies as a user of unreal imagery.

JACK: I think you missed the point or I didn't explain well enough. What I meant by "unreal" imagry were things that didn't exist. Sheep, shepherds, lost sheep all exist. I had in mind the argument that is used that Luke 16 speaks of a place of eternal torments that--in the mind of some--doesn't really exist, hence they say this is a parable using unreal imagry. I would counter that by saying this is a realy story because Jesus never used unreal imagry in any parable.

CALVIN: Back to Lazarus. this is just a private musing on my part, but I wonder if the real Lazarus, might not have been a bit uncaring of the destitute. It is said that Jesus loved him, so maybe the breaking of tradition by naming only one but transposing fortunes...might have been a gentle hint to the real Lazarus...In other words "Hey Lazarus buddy, how would you feel..."....just a thought.

JACK: Interesting thought. Of course, there's no way to tell for sure.