Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor - Page 14

Socialite · #**131** 02-02-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I suppose what you are saying, in bold, is, for the most part, probably true.

Honestly, my decision to pull his name off it was in that spirit and with that heart --- that it not be another personal attack. But I was deeply concerned with the topic.

Pressing-On · #**132** 02-02-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Honestly, my decision to pull his name off it was in that spirit and with that heart --- that it not be another personal attack. But I was deeply concerned with the topic.

Well, then I am glad. If we could be more respectful, including myself, some of the others may come back and we could have more balanced debates.

Baron1710 · #**133** 02-02-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

RM set the tone, MB.

I can't think of any ad hominems. Most of the back-and-forth was passionate debate about protecting the original meaning of scripture. Secondly, it was about correcting a poor exegesis out of one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. Was it our most graceful discourse? Nah... but the way you made it sound was as if RM was the poor victim, who was smiling and graceful and got dissed. That simply wasn't the case.

Pressing-On · #**134** 02-02-2011, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

RM set the tone, MB.

I can't think of any ad hominems. Most of the back-and-forth was passionate debate about protecting the original meaning of scripture. Secondly, it was about correcting a poor exegesis out of one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. Was it our most graceful discourse? Nah... but the way you made it sound was as if RM was the poor victim, who was smiling and graceful and got dissed. That simply wasn't the case.

I must say that I totally agreed with tstew's responses on the subject!

Socialite · #**135** 02-02-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I must say that I totally agreed with tstew's responses on the subject!

Well see there, we have disagreement without pulling each other's hair out...

just our own...

Tstew felt I was "reading into" what Rob was saying, more than Rob was reading into the Text.

His tenor once he started posting relinquished my doubts I was having that Tstew may have been right. I think I hit the nail on the head.

Standards and God's Commandments for these guys are all one in the same. Either way, the story was not centered on "rules." It was centered on lavish Grace. To speculate why the Son left, and say it was because of rules, and that he came back because he felt the rules "weren't all that bad" is a major disservice to the Story... nor, IMO, what was ever intended.

Pressing-On · #**136** 02-02-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well see there, we have disagreement without pulling each other's hair out...

just our own...

LOL! I never pulled my hair. I was just sorry for it all.

Gotta go cook dinner. Man, it is 5:00!!!!

Have a great evening!!!

Socialite · #**137** 02-02-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

LOL! I never pulled my hair. I was just sorry for it all.

Gotta go cook dinner. Man, it is 5:00!!!!

Have a great evening!!!

You too..

Pressing-On · #**138** 02-02-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well see there, we have disagreement without pulling each other's hair out...

just our own...

Tstew felt I was "reading into" what Rob was saying, more than Rob was reading into the Text.

His tenor once he started posting relinquished my doubts I was having that Tstew may have been right. I think I hit the nail on the head.

Standards and God's Commandments for these guys are all one in the same. Either way, the story was not centered on "rules." It was centered on lavish Grace. To speculate why the Son left, and say it was because of rules, and that he came back because he felt the rules "weren't all that bad" is a major disservice to the Story... nor, IMO, what was ever intended.

You were reading more into what Rob was trying to say. Let me go back and bring up a point and then I really need to go.

Socialite · #**139** 02-02-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You were reading more into what Rob was trying to say. Let me go back and bring up a point and then I really need to go.

Rob came back here and proceeded with what he was saying. Didn't take much more "reading into."

I may have advanced it and suspected Rob had in mind what many people refer to as "rules" -- man-made standards (like his FB Rules), but my general critique had to do with making the Story about rules -- "he left because of rules, came home because rules brought good stuff."

Now that I re-type that... I actually believe the younger son was scheming when he came back, knowing he could get "better stuff" and this is the climax of the Story. The Father, not waiting to here his rehearsed speech throws himself on him, loves on him, orders a party up --- all before the younger son can even get his scheming story of how he will earn his way out of his mouth.

Love that story...

Pressing-On · #**140** 02-02-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

The "WHY" isn't the subject of the story. Period.

We can speculate, but really, you and I are both the Prodigal. We are Adam. We are sinners. The point is, the Prodigal was a sinner. He tried living life his own way. Reading "rules" into this story molests the picture and distorts it into a completely different picture.

The only "rule abider" in the story is the elder brother. Coincidentally, I believe this is who the story was primarily directed to, the elder brother Pharisees and "righteous" Jews who hated that Jesus was hanging with sinners.

You said the only "rule abiber" was the elder brother. That means that there was someone present who had to be the non-rule abider. Do you see that? You were emphatic saying that Rob was wrong on using "rule", but you used it in reference to the elder brother.

The prodigal son was taken care of, loved and safe, but he chose to walk away.

Quote:

Gill: Luk 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father,.... God's chosen ones among the publicans and sinners, are fitly signified by the younger son, since man, as a sinner, is younger than man as righteous; and since there are instances of God's choice of the younger, before the elder, as Jacob before Esau, &c. and the characters and conduct of young men agree with God's elect, in a state of nature; who are imprudent and ignorant, without any knowledge of divine and spiritual things, and of themselves, their state and condition, and of Christ, and salvation by him; and yet are conceited of themselves, and fancy themselves very wise and knowing, and capable of acting for themselves, independent, and without any assistance or advice; do not care to be under restraints, withdraw from all yokes, and break all bands asunder; and so become children of disobedience, prone to every vice, and servants and slaves to every lust; by which they are deceived, and in which they take a great deal of imaginary pleasure; and are often envious and spiteful, and live in malice, hateful, and hating one another: the request made by this younger son, is "to his Father"; to God, who was his Father by creation, by providential care, and by national adoption, and by special grace; though as yet he knew it not, nor could he call him so in faith: many call God Father, who should not, and many that should, do not: the request follows;