Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor - Page 26

mizpeh · #**251** 02-03-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Those who have believed a lie think alike!

Still trying to figure out where Rob was going with all that bologna. Hmmm... passive-aggressive?

It's stuff like this that I hate reading because it is disrespectful. I could list the numerous times you've been unkind and uncharitable with those you oppose. Is that how Christ wants us to act?

The application Rob used was in regard to pastors. That's not to say there are not more. What applications do you derive from the text?

revrandy · #**252** 02-03-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

The story of the Lost Son, which many have long regarded as a story about the father's prodigal love, was told as a subtle rebuke to Pharisees who listened. But recently one pastor on FB decided it was more about "rules" than anything else.

I'm not sure where said pastor got this from, and it completely disregards the entire context of the Story. The rule-abiding Pharisees were being rebuked (they were the rule-abiding elder brothers in the story), but somehow the parable is about how valuable rules are? Really?

The Story of the lost son is about a God who loves recklessly and even shamefully. I wrote about this recently (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...56&postcount=6).

It's amazing to me that such a beautiful story can be twisted in such a way as to make people believe it was about 'rules.' The fact is, we are all that prodigal who rebelled against God. What our exact motivations were are no mystery: selfishness, trusting our way better than God's way. The prodigal didn't come back to make right with God. He came back because it was economically feasible for him. However, before he could get out his scheming, the father was running for Him, throwing himself on him, and ordering up a party. This is Grace.

You got it all twisted too...

but that probably doesn't matter to you...

It's always easier to point out others...

mizpeh · #**253** 02-03-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

MB, McKee disrespected the Word by adding to it. A preacher who does so should be brought to account for what was said, period.

I think every preacher who teaches Calvinism is adding to the word of God. Should I bring each of them into account? Is that may job?

mizpeh · #**254** 02-03-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

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...

Isn't that your personal impression of the motive of the younger brother (the portion bolded in blue)? Sure sounds like something that you are accusing Rob of (and I have never met Rob). I think when he "came to his senses" that he felt remorse for what he had done and in going back to his father admitted his sin. I think he left his scheming days behind him back in the pig sty.

OldPathsII · #**255** 02-03-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It's stuff like this that I hate reading because it is disrespectful. I could list the numerous times you've been unkind and uncharitable with those you oppose. Is that how Christ wants us to act?

The application Rob used was in regard to pastors. That's not to say there are not more. What applications do you derive from the text?

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!

UnTraditional · #**256** 02-03-2011, 02:29 PM

Preacher worship is so unbiblical.

OldPathsII · #**257** 02-03-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

Preacher worship is so unbiblical.

Preacher worship??? You call refraining from calling a pastor a liar, saying he's speaking boloney, and accusing him of having a serious personality disorder, "Preacher worship"?? You have a strange idea of what worship is. I'm not looking to worship those who lead us, I'm just calling for basic respect!

Socialite · #**258** 02-03-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Why can't it be about all three? the wayward son returning home, the gracious, loving father, and the judgemental, jealous son?

I think you are take just as much liberty with the text when you accuse the elder son of not letting the Father love him freely without expect to work for it. I don't see the elder son in that light at all. I see him as being resentful of the love and grace his father showed his wayward brother not so much thinking he was earning his father's love but that his faithfulness to his father should count for something. I'm not saying that was the right attitude for him to have since it rests on envy. Your liberty in making the older brother out to be a pharissee is just as libel as Rob's accusation against the younger brother and his rebellion against rules. And honestly, I really don't see much wrong with either. I bet with MissBrat's help you two could find a middleground.

This is a long, long thread! I only on page 9 but enjoying it!

I've never suggested that it wasn't -- that's actually part of the story. And I'd agree with what Max said on that point as well.

What isn't in the story is that "he left because he didn't like the rules anymore" and "he came home because he figured those rules weren't so bad."

The primary subject has now become the rules. Sorry --- doesn't fit the story, the context nor the audience. The exact opposite was the implicit rebuke that day (or not so implicit once we exam the story closer, knowing the cultural ramifications for the son and father's actions).

Socialite · #**259** 02-03-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Why can't it be about all three? the wayward son returning home, the gracious, loving father, and the judgemental, jealous son?

I think you are take just as much liberty with the text when you accuse the elder son of not letting the Father love him freely without expect to work for it. I don't see the elder son in that light at all. I see him as being resentful of the love and grace his father showed his wayward brother not so much thinking he was earning his father's love but that his faithfulness to his father should count for something. I'm not saying that was the right attitude for him to have since it rests on envy. Your liberty in making the older brother out to be a pharissee is just as libel as Rob's accusation against the younger brother and his rebellion against rules. And honestly, I really don't see much wrong with either. I bet with MissBrat's help you two could find a middleground.

This is a long, long thread! I only on page 9 but enjoying it!

It's in the story!

Why was he resentful? Self-righteousness. If all that the Father had was his, what did it matter? He measured the younger brother up by the same measuring stick he measured his relationship with the father up --- work for it, earn it. It's the same repetitive rebuke he scolds the Pharisees for throughout the NT, Miz.

Socialite · #**260** 02-03-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It's stuff like this that I hate reading because it is disrespectful. I could list the numerous times you've been unkind and uncharitable with those you oppose. Is that how Christ wants us to act?

The application Rob used was in regard to pastors. That's not to say there are not more. What applications do you derive from the text?

Let's be fair and reasonable.

"Bologna" .... this is what it was. Responding to the critique his post about the Prodigal Son, we got 3 Facts that basically said this -- and I quote:

FACT #1: There will be people in Hell besides Hitler, Judas and Sam Kinison. Jesus said "most people will go to Hell" in his straight gate and narrow way message. He also said "many" of them will be active in "spirit filled" churches...practicing the gifts of the Spirit...even doing "marvelous works"...it will mean nothing.

FACT #2 Those who "love NOT the truth" WILL be sent a strong delusion..FROM GOD. (that's not a quote from me...2 Thess 2:10). We out to pray every day that we maintain our love for truth.
The problem with this deception is two fold...
1. If you are deceived you will never know.
2. It is "God-sent" (so it would feel like God-revelation) and He called it a "strong" delusion...If you are deceived it is doubtful that you will make it back into the church.

FACT #3 Most Christians (at least the ones who's heads are above ground) will admit that we are living in the last days. The Last day APOSTATE church "IS NEVER DESCRIBED AS A JUDGMENTAL PHARISAICAL CHURCH". The Bible is clear that it will be a permissiveness-flesh pleasing-indulgent church that has abandoned Biblical doctrine for the sake of pleasing the desires of carnal people. All of us should be diligent to not fit in that description. Heaven is worth anything...

That's what I called bologna. And I still do --- and, that's not flaming, a personal insult, that's exactly what that was. It's passive-aggressive insulting. Has nothing to do with the story of the Lost Son.

Perhaps you can see how that was perceived?

FACT. Thank you, Brian Wilson.