Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Of course. But again, it's not really the focal part of the story.

I would think the true repentance would have been after the Father lavishes him with graciousness and goodness. I'd imagine that would overwhelm anyone with gratitude. Then wasn't interested in working his way up the chain, or even about his job anymore, he was restored in relationship immediately... something he didn't seem to consider.

I think the son's repentance is a HUGE part of the story. He came to his senses, realized his sin, and wanted to return to his father's house. It gives hope for those sinners that Jesus was associating with that the Pharisees were looking down their noses on in verses 1 and 2 that they likewise can repent, forsake their sin, and return to God.

And yes, his father's love is lavish (but not shameful,imo). I think after the son experiences his father's grace and goodness in restoration that he will love him more, not repent more.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Hey, Mizpeh! We are in doors for a couple of days until this very cold weather is gone.

I do agree with the bold above, in part. Our salvation must begin to be initiated by God. However, if we were not here to receive from Him, His initiation would go nowhere. So, really, you cannot have one without the other.

Socialite comes across, and I could be misunderstanding, that grace alone saves us and I don't believe that to be true.

Because, as you said, man has his part in it as well.

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" I Peter 4:17

PO, that is exactly what I believe.

I'm glad to hear that you no longer believe we obey before Grace comes to us. Whew... thought I was losing you there for a second yesterday

1 Peter is used a lot as proof text because of the word "obey" (some get the idea that us greasy gracers don't like obedience -- not true, but I digress)

Another way of understanding the Text there is... "who refuse God's Message"

I could explain ad infinitude what "Gospel" meant to the 1st Century Church.. and have a pretty good cloud of witnesses, including the whole of NT scripture and history -- but let's just say, the Gospel was never a command. It was an offer.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

I'll say this (on topic)... Could it be that the Prodical Son returned to hs fathers house simply because he had nowhere else to go. I mean he was in a hog pen, you know. Thats about as low as it gets. There was no where else to go. His friends had abandoned him. The 'riotous living" is what brought him to the point that he either "pretended to" or "thought about" eating the hogs slop. How could he have sunk so low? Where else could he turn but to a father that loved without condition. Without condition. Now theres a thought. So, if the son did rebel against rules, the father loved him anyway. If, in fact, the son just wanted to experience life beyond the fathers house, the father's unconditional love reached out for him and accepted him back. He didn't have to "earn" his fathers love... it was his unconditionally.

Notice that the father didn't accept him back on the condition that he abide the rules. He loved him, and accepted him, without condition, just as God loves and accepts us.

If you go back to live in your father's house, it is presupposed that there are rules (commandments) to abide by.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think the son's repentance is a HUGE part of the story. He came to his senses, realized his sin, and wanted to return to his father's house. It gives hope for those sinners that Jesus was associating with that the Pharisees were looking down their noses on in verses 1 and 2 that they likewise can repent, forsake their sin, and return to God.

And yes, his father's love is lavish (but not shameful,imo). I think after the son experiences his father's grace and goodness in restoration that he will love him more, not repent more.

I just don't think that's supported in the story, Miz. It's a parable, intended to communicate a truth. The characters in this story are 3 -- and each have a part. The younger son's is that he was a sinner who was loved back into the Father's house. In the story, the way we have it, his repentance doesn't really have a part in it. That's not to say we wouldn't be sorry, wouldn't repent, etc... It's just not in the story.

Back to my "scheming theory." This is how I approached God in times past. I felt sorry, and wanted his love back. My repentance was about offering God things I'd do for him. It made me feel spiritual (not necessarily loved, but if loved, then very much temporarily -- as soon as I broke one of my inspired vows). This has been mine, and many others' approach to God. At the time of Jesus, it was a common approach to him too! What was not common was God loving us in spite of that. Showing Grace in spite of that.

I will explain the "shameful" part, and in how I use the word. You will see the Father definitely shamed himself. And the son's departure was much more violent and scandalous than our modern eyes read.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If you go back to live in your father's house, it is presupposed that there are rules (commandments) to abide by.

And we can draw out presuppositions on a list a mile long.
It's a parable, though. We don't have license to do that. There is a point -- an intended point -- in the Story. I suspect our presuppositions are not really part of that. Especially presuppositions that are "imagined" into the story.

It may also be presupposed that the son had an older brother, who had the inheritance and the younger son was just jealous and bitter. He cashed out his small fortune and wasted it. We could also presuppose they all worshiped together (because most families did) and the son didn't care for worship anymore. He didn't see the point. He left home and did things his way. But he remembered those soft, and solemn times of worship and missed it and came back home. All presuppositions. We have to respect the parable and at least respect what the author (Luke) intended by quoting Jesus here.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by OldPathsII

Amen, brother!! Socialite needs to be careful with his words. He's using terms like lie, bologna, and calling somone passive-aggressive, who is a man of God. Just remember, David could have killed Saul but he didn't. Instead, he sliced his robe and he even got in trouble for that.

Be careful how you handle the man of God!

It doesn't matter to me whether the person he is talking to is a "man of God" or not a "man of God". We should show charity to EVERYONE!! There should be no distinction between a sinner, saint, or "man of God", imo.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

PO, that is exactly what I believe.

I'm glad to hear that you no longer believe we obey before Grace comes to us. Whew... thought I was losing you there for a second yesterday

1 Peter is used a lot as proof text because of the word "obey" (some get the idea that us greasy gracers don't like obedience -- not true, but I digress)

Another way of understanding the Text there is... "who refuse God's Message"

I could explain ad infinitude what "Gospel" meant to the 1st Century Church.. and have a pretty good cloud of witnesses, including the whole of NT scripture and history -- but let's just say, the Gospel was never a command. It was an offer.

I believe that God does initiate grace. He would have to, He is our Creator. However, I don't believe grace applies to me if I don't obey His commands. It stands alone. It is like being given a gift. If I don't pick it up and open it, it does me no good. Beautiful to look at, but ineffective if I let it sit waiting.

I just think that when I study His Word, everything works together and nothing works without the other. He was the Creator - He created us. If we weren't here, He wouldn't have created. Would He then be a Creator?

So, if He offers grace and I reject that, His grace is not given to me. It is always there waiting, but I have to reach out and accept it. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. It must begin with our faith - "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace."

So, again, grace doesn't stand alone. We also must have faith. That is what I mean about so many elements working together.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe that God does initiate grace. He would have to, He is our Creator. However, I don't believe grace applies to me if I don't obey His commands. It stands alone. It is like being given a gift. If I don't pick it up and open it, it does me no good. Beautiful to look at, but ineffective if I let it sit waiting.

I just think that when I study His Word, everything works together and nothing works without the other. He was the Creator - He created us. If we weren't here, He wouldn't have created. Would He then be a Creator?

So, if He offers grace and I reject that, His grace is not given to me. It is always there waiting, but I have to reach out and accept it. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. It must begin with our faith - "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace."

So, again, grace doesn't stand alone. We also must have faith. That is what I mean about so many elements working together.

You lost me. Why add the word "apply." Grace is dumped on us... that how God rolls. He's just good like that. Even repenting is a gift from God. Believing is a gift. He's good like that.

I like the gift analogy you are using. He's already unwrapped it. He's presented it. It's like sweet alabaster, His body broken and dumped out for you... and over you.

Some don't believe Grace can be rejected. I actually do... though I find it mind-boggling.

Having faith is BECAUSE OF his Grace.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Teaching that we are the elect of God, that He will be faithful and see us through to the end is adding to the Word?

I agree with what you wrote but that is what is said on the surface in Calvinism. How does a Calvinist believe that God determines who is elect and who is not elect?

And... does it put a stumbling block in the way? Really?

The stumbling block is a false view of God and if followed to its logical conclusion will distinguish any desire to evangelize since God will make sure that the elect will be saved whether we do anything about it or not.

Which is a stumbling block offense --- You can't be saved unless you do this, this, this, this and this.

or

You can't do anything to save yourself. It's a gift from God. Only believe and receive it.

Both.

My biggest complaint about Calvinist's is the way I understand them to portray God. Some of the things I hear from Calvinists makes me wonder what God they are referring to. The character of God…his justness, his love, and his humility are all thrown by the wayside. They seem to serve a proud God who is vain and seeks his own glory. A God who is unjust in that he saves some and not others appearing to be partial. And a God who’s love is suspect and quite opposite of the love we are enjoined to follow (1 Cor 13), the justice we are asked to observe (James 2:9), and the perspective on self that we are asked to walk in ( John 8:50, 17:8). I don’t recognize this God in the Bible.

[Socialite]

The stumbling block is a false view of God and if followed to its logical conclusion will distinguish any desire to evangelize since God will make sure that the elect will be saved whether we do anything about it or not.

Miz, I'm not a Calvinist, but I do know that this isn't true. We evangelize because we are overflowing with Grace. Not because it's a command. We also evangelize because we are happy pleasing the Father... he does the work, and just puts us in the right place/time. He draws people to Him. We do the little work (once again).

Some of the most passionate, missional, Kingdom-minded people I know are some young Calvinists. THey don't call themselves Calvinists anymore, but it's their theology. Nor would they consider believing in Calvinism, or their exact way of viewing election, a Gospel issue.