Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Meant to say idolater. Sorry....

Only half right?

What kind of a low-down, sorry, good-for-nothing father would even THINK of having order in his own home by establishing some rules by which that order is maintained. Such a father has to be out of his mind. Where did grace that allows for the disregard of commandments, (read rules) go? Isn't it a kind of a perverted outlook to even think that rules provide safety and comfort for those who keep them? It is quite disturbing to imagine that there are negative consequences for those who are not keeping them.

Appy, I wish I could follow you here.

The law of God is in our hearts, and alive in us when we walk in the Spirit.

No one is a fan of lawlessness. But this is not part of the story Jesus is telling either. It's not related to the meaning of the Story. The only one who mentions rules, commandments or law is the bitter elder brother in the story.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Appy, I wish I could follow you here.

The law of God is in our hearts, and alive in us when we walk in the Spirit.

No one is a fan of lawlessness. But this is not part of the story Jesus is telling either. It's not related to the meaning of the Story. The only one who mentions rules, commandments or law is the bitter elder brother in the story.

Good grief!

Keeping God's commandments is equated to bitterness? Ever hear of anyone LOVING the law of God? Ever hear of anyone who meditates day and night on His commandments...and for what purpose? Probably meditate on them day and night to figure out how to disregard them in favor of grace which excuses them and condemns not.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Good grief!

Keeping God's commandments is equated to bitterness? Ever hear of anyone LOVING the law of God? Ever hear of anyone who meditates day and night on His commandments...and for what purpose? Probably meditate on them day and night to figure out how to disregard them in favor of grace which excuses them and condemns not.

I don't meditate on His laws, I meditate on His work on the Cross. Maybe that's all David had to go by. But the Cross is where I draw my power and strength, which is not mine, but His.

Hence, the famous lines of Samuel ring true here:  "to obey is better than sacrifice."  When we obey the Gospel, i.e. put our trust in all that God has done for us in Christ, and not in the sacrifices we make, the altars we burn, our work and supposed obedience (which it never really was obedience it was always some  mixture of sweat and perfume, a nasty and bloody tampon waved as our banner of goodness before God) we are sacrificing disobediently and not obeying the call to trust Christ's work.

We don't obey to earn acceptance and favor, forgiveness and grace.  We obey, because we are now the body of Christ, and Jesus' obedient demeanor and submitted spirit is now in us.  We stand approved already and forgiven already.  In Christ we are "brought up to speed"  "grandfathered in" and now we are Jesus Christ, our obedience is not our obedience but his.  A reflection and reminder of his obedient work on the cross.   Our obedience is a picture of grace given, not acceptance pursued.   When we shun evil and depart from sin we are continuing to show forth the triumph of the second Garden and not the ominous exile from the first.


But you just got me all off-track here! This thread is about the story of the Lost Son. The story is presented with intent by the author, and is told with intent by the Rabbi. It reveals not a collection of God's laws, but it reveals God's grace.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

This sort of arrogance is what gets me about Pentecostal Cons. As if they ideas that inform them about a parable are purely objective, and the light of Glory descended into their reading to reveal to them the meaning of the parable. They are above exegesis. Above the nuances of cultural ramifications in the story. Above identifying the audience and overall trajectory of the stories. Above attempting to gain authorial understanding of what Luke is conveying through the words of Jesus.

Sometimes good commonsense goes a long way!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Sometimes good commonsense goes a long way!

The 1st Century is hardly common to us

Let's not pretend here... and reading the context of a story, it's setting, audience and identifying cultural differences is critical, not just optional, to understanding what it meant to those who heard it, before we can try and explain what it means to us.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm amazed at Coonskinners restraint in responding to you.

Appy never addressed Coonskinner. Maybe that's why?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Appy never addressed Coonskinner. Maybe that's why?

That comment was meant for you. You were coming at him with both guns blazing. Why are you so combative? I doubt your momma taught you to be that disrespectful. Do you remember MissBrat pointing out your bad manners? I'd do it but her instruction didn't seem to take! So why should I waste my time.

Maybe if you reread what Coonskinner wrote:

Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

He had an attitude problem working, but he wasn't anything resembling "lost."

Beating up on the elder brother is one of the favorite pastimes of the Pharisee hunters, but the facts are plain in the Scripture--everything the Father had was his. He was "ever" with the Father.

He needed a lesson in compassion for sure, but he was far from lost.

He admits the elder son has an attitude problem but that he is not lost which is a very fair reading of the verse.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The 1st Century is hardly common to us

Surely we can understand what it means to be human and human feelings. We do have many things in common with them.

Let's not pretend here... and reading the context of a story, it's setting, audience and identifying cultural differences is critical, not just optional, to understanding what it meant to those who heard it, before we can try and explain what it means to us.

Who's pretending?

I'm not saying that those things do not come into play but it's plain enough to see that the Father did not consider the elder son to be lost!!!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Surely we can understand what it means to be human and human feelings. We do have many things in common with them.



Who's pretending?

I'm not saying that those things do not come into play but it's plain enough to see that the Father did not consider the elder son to be lost!!!

We aren't trying to find some grandiose connection as fellow human beings. We are being told a story, within the framework of a specific culture.

Whether or not the elder son was lost, or in a state of "lostness," does not negate the fact that the verdict for this son is left wide open. Spiritual pride, self-righteousness and bitterness don't sound like lostness to you?

"All that I have is yours" is his offer to all of us. He is bidding us all to "come to the party." And come to the party not on what we've earned, merited or done for the Father (as if that impresses Him), but come at His lavish bidding.

It's impossible also to ignore the implications of Jesus' story to the Pharisees listening in -- and there reaction, just a few stories later. It's "plain and simple" in fact

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

That comment was meant for you. You were coming at him with both guns blazing. Why are you so combative? I doubt your momma taught you to be that disrespectful. Do you remember MissBrat pointing out your bad manners? I'd do it but her instruction didn't seem to take! So why should I waste my time.

Maybe if you reread what Coonskinner wrote:



He admits the elder son has an attitude problem but that he is not lost which is a very fair reading of the verse.

Combative? Just pray for me... but I also sense that's some preferential reading treatment going on there.

Save the lecture... please. Could you offer a "for example?" I say things straight... trying to make use of characters. That doesn't mean my guns are blazing.

The elder son has more than an attitude problem. And I find it odd that those who support "we are justified by our works" suddenly pardon the guilt of the elder brother-- his apparent self-righteousness and bitterness toward His brother. I expect more from you guys (those smileys are my way of indicating that I'm probably smiling, jabbing you in the ribs, not pointing my finger in your face, just a suggestion when you read my posts)

I also find it interesting, in the demographic set-up on AFF, which posters are coming to the rescue of the elder brother so dramatically.

The reality of the elder brother declining his father's invitation is one of great shame, very similar to the younger brother disowning his Father's house in the beginning. All the Father gets is "I've done soooo much for you, all to get your favor (celebration/party/grace), but this sinner shows up and you give it to Him instead." There is very much something wrong in the heart of the elder brother.

That the story is open-ended, that there are Pharisees present... I don't see it as a big surprise or even ironic. This is where Jesus was going with this. I have taken liberty to say the elder brother was lost, since the Text doesn't. But in the elder brother, I definitely see another way we can be lost --- lostness as sinners forming God in our own image, and lostness as self-righteous, bitter elder brother who try to be their own God. Grace comes to both and invites both to the party. Would the elder brother put down his anger, self-righteousness and bitterness and realize He has full approval and acceptance of the Father? Would he accept that invitation out of his chamber of bitterness? In fairness, the verdict is never given. But make no mistake, this is the "appeal" in the story. If Jesus did altar calls, this is where it'd be