Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

And I clarified that at least 3-4 times in this thread that it was a personal opinion.

I also believe my "speculation" is directly from the Story. It's not imaginative speculation.

You believe he felt remorse. I don't read that in the story. I read a guy who wants to go back to the Father's house because it sucks in the pig sty. Maybe that was remorse. Maybe. Rehearsing your speech just doesn't sound like that to me. And the "I have sinned against you" is common language for how someone would apologize in those days. It wasn't the Sinner's Prayer or anything. Either way, his plan to get back in good with the Father was to give his apology (desperately needed for the violent offense he left with), and then talk about how he will start as a hired servant. The grace he found wasn't expected. It was the most shocking, and climatic point of the entire story. If there was a repenting moment, I'd imagine it would have been then. It wasn't a speech, it was a heart wrecked by Grace.

If you were in a foreign country working in a pig sty, starving, and you came to your senses, realized your error, decided to go back to your home and ask for forgiveness (which sounds like repentance to me) wouldn't you rehearse what you would say to your Father who you disobeyed and disrespected? Maybe if you had your cellphone with you, you would call and not rehearse what you would say but the younger son did not have that luxury.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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?


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.


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.

There was a post recently on this topic. I think you'd enjoy it. Was it the Hate Reformed thread? Can't recall. The idea of election is viewed a different way than how you refer to it above. Also, the idea of God being selfish and narcissistic is overshadowed by the idea of God as a passionate pursuer who "gave" his only Son, humbled himself and became our sin. The most impacting, heart/gospel moment I've ever had was when fellowshiping with some Calvinists, who were telling God's story. When I say it was "life changing" I do not exaggerate. I reconsidered my perspectives. The vengeful and Gotcha God was the old perspective.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If you were in a foreign country working in a pig sty, starving, and you came to your senses, realized your error, decided to go back to your home and ask for forgiveness (which sounds like repentance to me) wouldn't you rehearse what you would say to your Father who you disobeyed and disrespected? Maybe if you had your cellphone with you, you would call and not rehearse what you would say but the younger son did not have that luxury.

The flow of his thought and rehearsal was directed at his need for food --- his apology was so that he would have some type of earning better than where he was.

We just aren't told the son felt bad... that the son wanted to make things right with dad. The trajectory of the story is on him having food, money and shelter again. Providence. Not relationship.

Still, Miz... it's all presuppositions IMO.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

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.

Well, I guess we'll have to disagree then. But it seems like you are projecting your own motives upon the younger son. In the context of Jesus preaching the gospel, what he would say to sinners and the audience he was speaking to, I think the younger son coming back to his father with a repentant heart is more fitting in this parable.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Well, I guess we'll have to disagree then. But it seems like you are projecting your own motives upon the younger son. In the context of Jesus preaching the gospel, what he would say to sinners, I think the younger son coming back to his father with a repentant heart is more fitting.

I'm doing some coloring in for sure. But I think saying the son repented is projecting harder.

Either way, saying he came back because "those rules aren't so bad" is even farther removed from the parable.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

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.

Did you read the post Maximillian wrote in which he quoted Bloomberg? Excellent stuff!

My presupposition that his father had rules to live by is not even close to being imaginative. It's the way things are. Even God has commandments.

1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Did you read the post Maximillian wrote in which he quoted Bloomberg? Excellent stuff!

My presupposition that his father had rules to live by is not even close to being imaginative. It's the way things are. Even God has commandments.

1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Yes, I did. I also thought it was good.

There is plenty of realities we could throw in to spice up the story. Parables give us what we need. We don't have to drag other realities into the story. Setting that as central to the story, or even central to the son's motives to leave or come home, whether true or not, is not even part of the story.

(I don't get the scrip reference)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

There was a post recently on this topic. I think you'd enjoy it. Was it the Hate Reformed thread? Can't recall. The idea of election is viewed a different way than how you refer to it above. Also, the idea of God being selfish and narcissistic is overshadowed by the idea of God as a passionate pursuer who "gave" his only Son, humbled himself and became our sin. The most impacting, heart/gospel moment I've ever had was when fellowshiping with some Calvinists, who were telling God's story. When I say it was "life changing" I do not exaggerate. I reconsidered my perspectives. The vengeful and Gotcha God was the old perspective.

Have you delved into TULIP?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Have you delved into TULIP?

Yes... some.

I know how some hardcore Calvinists can come off. Arrogant is a good word!

[Jeffrey]

Read through this thread. Enjoyed it.

Social, I think this summarizes your view on the Prodigal Son:

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/joll...odigal_so.html

The parable of the prodigal sons is exactly parallel to the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin up until the point that Jesus starts talking about the elder brother. If He hadn't done that, the idea would stand that the main point of the parable is to reveal the nature of God as one who seeks out His erring children. In fact, there is a sense in which the mention of the elder brother strengthens this idea. The father leaves the house to seek the elder brother just as he did the younger. He seeks all erring children, whether they be elder or younger.

But you also have to "hear" this parable through the ears of the Pharisees to whom the parable was directed. It is clear that the story of the elder brother was an addition for their benefit.

Certainly, if we take the book of Luke as a whole and the gospels as a whole, it is clear that the Jewish leaders of the day, the Pharisees, chief priests and teachers of the law were to be excluded from the kingdom because of their pride and obstinance. True, any individual Pharisee could repent and be saved, but the Pharisees as a whole illustrated the kinds of people who would not enter the kingdom. In Luke 19:11-27, the parable of the ten minas, the Pharisees and teachers of the law are in view as the enemies who didn't want the King to be their king and so he had them killed. In Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the tenants has a group of servants who kill the son of the vineyard owner and are later killed by the owner himself. Verse 19 says that the teachers of the law and the chief priests understood very clearly that this was directed against them.

This was a profound comment:

"Within its co-text [sic], then, this parable serves in two ways. First, Jesus thus responds to those who question his choice of table companions (vv1-2). As persons who respond positively to his message, toll collectors and sinners are represented in the parable as those whose (re)turn to God constitutes a restoration that calls for celebration. In welcoming such persons to the table Jesus is only giving expression to the magnitude and consistency of the grace of God. Second, Jesus thus issues an invitation to the Pharisees and legal experts who have responded to such a celebration, like the elder brother, with indignation. Will they align themselves with the divine economy and, having done so, join the celebration at the table with the lost who have been restored?"