The Prodigal Son examined

[garee]

Sorry. The parable of the two sons that also likens the Pharisees to sons does not begin in verse 20; it begins in verse 28, ( of Matthew 21). And they were Sadducees and elders, but the saducees were no more saved than the pharisees

Yes they both make the word of God without effect by the oral traditions of men called a law of the father. Putting aside there differences to attack the Christians one source of faith as in all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptural) The one reforming authority in any generation .That exposes the signs and wonder gospel of those refusing to walk by faith. (the unseen)

Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

 

[Macabeus]

Everything you just said in the first part = moot point.....the bolded is true....

A son by birth will always be a son by birth especially when it is a BIRTH from ABOVE that is spiritual and of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED.....

You do understand the word incorruptible right.....??????

Everything I said in the first part is absolutely everything, because this thread is about the Prodigal Son parable.

If you apply son by birth equals eternally secure son to the parable of the prodigal son and the parable of two sons in Matthew 21, then you have eternally secure sonship of unbelieving Pharisees and saducees who were not even saved. Look at the parable in matthew 21 starting in verse 28. The two sons there represent Saducees and elders as one son and publicans and harlots as the other son. Just as the prodigal represents publicans and sinners and the elder represets scribes and Pharisees. In these parables, the term son does not refer to somship via the New birth

Im not taking a side in the OSAS, and im not denying what you are saying about the new birth. Just mentioning that the parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with security of the believer. The scribes in luke 15 and the saducees in Matthew 21 were called sons, but were not believers, and the sinners were called sons but were lost and dead until they came to Jesus

It is possible to be right but
Still present an invalid argument by taking scripture put of context. This weakens your argument rather than strengthening it

 

[Macabeus]

I would see the parable in one sense more of the "waiting father" then "prodigal son" in whom the father is drawing from a far off . As in no one comes to the father unless he does draw them . The oldest son never entered in. The second born who did enter in is many times used to represent spiritual birth. First the flesh, and then the spirit .

Well said!

 

[dcontroversal]

Everything I said in the first part is absolutely everything, because this thread is about the Prodigal Son parable.

If you apply son by birth equals eternally secure son to the parable of the prodigal son and the parable of two sons in Matthew 21, then you have eternally secure sonship of unbelieving Pharisees and saducees who were not even saved. Look at the parable in matthew 21 starting in verse 28. The two sons there represent Saducees and elders as one son and publicans and harlots as the other son. Just as the prodigal represents publicans and sinners and the elder represets scribes and Pharisees. In these parables, the term son does not refer to somship via the New birth

Im not taking a side in the OSAS, and im not denying what you are saying about the new birth. Just mentioning that the parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with security of the believer. The scribes in luke 15 and the saducees in Matthew 21 were called sons, but were not believers, and the sinners were called sons but were lost and dead until they came to Jesus

It is possible to be right but
Still present an invalid argument by taking scripture put of context. This weakens your argument rather than strengthening it

NO....you are missing the point....

My son, I call him booger, HE is my son by birth.....NOTHING will ever change the fact that he is MY SON by BIRTH

The same is true with ONE born again from ABOVE SPIRITUALLY by INCORRUPTIBLE SEED by the WORD of GOD which LIVES and ABIDES FOREVER <----NOTHING can change this fact......Physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to BE UNBORN and born from ANOTHER and MUCH LESS possible when ONE is born of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED....

As far as the PRODIGAL....HE was a SON throughout the WHOLE process and ONLY perceived as dead even though he was VERY MUCH ALIVE, even while LIVING in the pig pen....

That is my point......HE was NOT a SON, lost it and then was a SON again.......He was a SON throughout the whole process

I do not believe we can equate the Prodigal to being alive, lost and then saved.....the story is about a SON that burns his inheritance through riotous living.......and is comparable to 1st Corinthians 3 and one having works of wood, hay and stubble that gets burnt yet is still saved and received as a son. IMV

 

[Macabeus]

NO....you are missing the point....

My son, I call him booger, HE is my son by birth.....NOTHING will ever change the fact that he is MY SON by BIRTH

The same is true with ONE born again from ABOVE SPIRITUALLY by INCORRUPTIBLE SEED by the WORD of GOD which LIVES and ABIDES FOREVER <----NOTHING can change this fact......Physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to BE UNBORN and born from ANOTHER and MUCH LESS possible when ONE is born of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED....

As far as the PRODIGAL....HE was a SON throughout the WHOLE process and ONLY perceived as dead even though he was VERY MUCH ALIVE, even while LIVING in the pig pen....

That is my point......HE was NOT a SON, lost it and then was a SON again.......He was a SON throughout the whole process

I do not believe we can equate the Prodigal to being alive, lost and then saved.....the story is about a SON that burns his inheritance through riotous living.......and is comparable to 1st Corinthians 3 and one having works of wood, hay and stubble that gets burnt yet is still saved and received as a son. IMV

Ok, now back up your "universal meaning of son in the Bible" by telling me who the two sons represent in the parable in Matthew 21 starting in verse 28

You can make a strong case for your point if you can demonstrate both sons in Matthew 21 verses 28-32 were both saved. 🌝

Please reply

 

[dcontroversal]

Ok, now back up your "universal meaning of son in the Bible" by telling me who the two sons represent in the parable in Matthew 21 starting in verse 28

You can make a strong case for your point if you can demonstrate both sons in Matthew 21 verses 28-32 were both saved. 🌝

Please reply

I do not need to prove that......it is not about both being saved......and the concept is simple......Mankind was always from one blood....the division came when God called Abram out and changed his name to Abraham <----who BELIEVED God and it was put to his account for righteousness.....when Jesus comes on the scene the first thing he does is go to the LOST sheep of the house of Israel....they on a whole, including the hyper religious Pharisees rejected him as the one, however the "sinful" whores, publicans etc. received him.....BOTH were lost and yet the "sinners" chose to believe and were saved....the Pharisees rejected and remained LOST.......

Humanity has always been divided into the lineage of faith and the children of the devil and is seen immediately between Cain and Abel.....and under the new covenant the TWO have become ONE....there is neither JEW nor GENTILE........

My point still stands and your are missing it. A son by birth is a son by birth.....

 

[Macabeus]

NO....you are missing the point....

My son, I call him booger, HE is my son by birth.....NOTHING will ever change the fact that he is MY SON by BIRTH

The same is true with ONE born again from ABOVE SPIRITUALLY by INCORRUPTIBLE SEED by the WORD of GOD which LIVES and ABIDES FOREVER <----NOTHING can change this fact......Physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to BE UNBORN and born from ANOTHER and MUCH LESS possible when ONE is born of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED....

As far as the PRODIGAL....HE was a SON throughout the WHOLE process and ONLY perceived as dead even though he was VERY MUCH ALIVE, even while LIVING in the pig pen....

That is my point......HE was NOT a SON, lost it and then was a SON again.......He was a SON throughout the whole process

I do not believe we can equate the Prodigal to being alive, lost and then saved.....the story is about a SON that burns his inheritance through riotous living.......and is comparable to 1st Corinthians 3 and one having works of wood, hay and stubble that gets burnt yet is still saved and received as a son. IMV[/QUOTQUOTE="Macabeus, post: 3829723, member: 279100"]Ok, now back up your "universal meaning of son in the Bible" by telling me who the two sons represent in the parable in Matthew 21 starting in verse 28

You can make a strong case for your point if you can demonsQUOTE="dcontroversal, post: 3829746, member: 183444"]I do not need to prove that......it is not about both being saved......and the concept is simple......Mankind was always from one blood....the division came when God called Abram out and changed his name to Abraham <----who BELIEVED God and it was put to his account for righteousness.....when Jesus comes on the scene the first thing he does is go to the LOST sheep of the house of Israel....they on a whole, including the hyper religious Pharisees rejected him as the one, however the "sinful" whores, publicans etc. received him.....BOTH were lost and yet the "sinners" chose to believe and were saved....the Pharisees rejected and remained LOST.......

Humanity has always been divided into the lineage of faith and the children of the devil and is seen immediately between Cain and Abel.....and under the new covenant the TWO have become ONE....there is neither JEW nor GENTILE........

My point still stands and your are missing it. A son by birth is a son by birth.....

...the bolded portion of your post is exactly what the parable of the prodigal is saying. The prodigal who represents Publicans and sinners came home. The elder, the Pharisees and scribes thought they were home and were in heart far away, and did not come in, even though they were entreated to come. Both were lost. One knew it, one didn't. Both had been far from their Father. One knew it, the other didn't. And one came back to the Father's heart. Jesus left the story open ended as an entreaty for the unbelievers to return to His heart

Just as in the other parable. The saducees and elders payed lip service to God, and said they would obey, but when Messiah came, they rejected. The Publicans and sinners had been disobedient formerly, but when Messiah came they flocked to Him. For it is only the poor in spirit that inherit the kingdom of God

 

[Macabeus]

BTW, were both sons in the parable in Matthew 21:28-32 sons by birth? I would say the sons in the parable were, but the person's they represented were not sons by new birth. Only one group represented was. That is why I think your application is stretching the meaning of son in these parables beyond what Jesus intended. Think about who the two sons represented in Matthew 21:28-32

BTW, I agree with what you said about Jew and gentile being one. We are in agreement on this. And I agree of man divided into two, believers and unbelievers. I am not arguing against any of that. My only point is that this is not a good OSAS proof text. There are some, but this is not one of them

 

[justpassinthrough]

Sorry. I didn't see this earlier. The lost are saved, in that Jesus came to seek and save the lost. The three parables are all about the same thing, sinners being found and saved

Can you define the word lost?




JPT

 

[Macabeus]

Can you define the word lost?




JPT

Separation from God

 

[Macabeus]

I was thinking about it today, and there is another possible interpretation, same meaning but to a different audience. I am pretty sure Jesus was talking to the Pharisees when he told the parable, and I think that position is strongest grammatically, but there may be a chance He is telling the parable either for the disciples ears or for the Publicans and sinners or both groups. Basically telling His disciples " don't have this attitude the Pharisees are having towards sinners coming to me, and to the sinners, reassuring them. But the parable has the same meaning in this still. The prodigal is definitely the Publicans and sinners in the primary sense, but can refer to anyone who has lived a grossly immoral life and comes to Jesus, and the elder is primarily the Pharisees but can also refer to any religious person who judges and despises the little sheep who come to Jesus. The context is clear, and this interpretation is based on the setting, occasion, speaker, hearers, and clear intention of the parable

If anyone disagrees, feel free to give your view of who the prodigal represents and who the elder represents, and if you can provide contextual basis for your interpretatiin

 

[Macabeus]

I was thinking about it today, and there is another possible interpretation, same meaning but to a different audience. I am pretty sure Jesus was talking to the Pharisees when he told the parable, and I think that position is strongest grammatically, but there may be a chance He is telling the parable either for the disciples ears or for the Publicans and sinners or both groups. Basically telling His disciples " don't have this attitude the Pharisees are having towards sinners coming to me, and to the sinners, reassuring them. But the parable has the same meaning in this still. The prodigal is definitely the Publicans and sinners in the primary sense, but can refer to anyone who has lived a grossly immoral life and comes to Jesus, and the elder is primarily the Pharisees but can also refer to any religious person who judges and despises the little sheep who come to Jesus. The context is clear, and this interpretation is based on the setting, occasion, speaker, hearers, and clear intention of the parable

If anyone disagrees, feel free to give your view of who the prodigal represents and who the elder represents, and if you can provide contextual basis for your interpretatiin

Let's do this, if anyone is interested...here are a series of questions if anyone wants to answer them

A. Who was Jesus speaking to when He told the three parables? (May or not be more than one answer)

B. What was the setting?

C. What was the reason He told these parables?

D. What is the SINGLE most important truth these parables convey?

E. Who does the prodigal represents?

F. Who does the elder son represent?

G. How do your answers to E and F relate to the context

 

[justpassinthrough]

Separation from God

Yes.


Unreconciled. With is the definition of a sinner.


Those who were once justified and wander away from Him, have become unreconciled; sinners in need of repentance, or be lost forever.




JPT

 

[justpassinthrough]

Let's do this, if anyone is interested...here are a series of questions if anyone wants to answer them

A. Who was Jesus speaking to when He told the three parables? (May or not be more than one answer)

B. What was the setting?

C. What was the reason He told these parables?

D. What is the SINGLE most important truth these parables convey?

E. Who does the prodigal represents?

F. Who does the elder son represent?

G. How do your answers to E and F relate to the context

A. His disciples. Also, when the tax collector’s and sinners drew near it caught the attention of the Pharisee’s who complain, so Jesus spoke in parables.
So Jesus was speaking to His disciples, sinners and tax collectors and the Pharisee’s and scribes.



D. That God loves sinners and welcomes those back who repent.



Do the lost need salvation?





JLB

 

[Macabeus]

A. His disciples. Also, when the tax collector’s and sinners drew near it caught the attention of the Pharisee’s who complain, so Jesus spoke in parables.
So Jesus was speaking to His disciples, sinners and tax collectors and the Pharisee’s and scribes.



D. That God loves sinners and welcomes those back who repent.



Do the lost need salvation?
Y




JLB

Do the lost need salvation? Of course.

I can agree with a and d is correct, but it can be argued that the lesson gleaned from the elder son is the point Jesus is driving home.

 

[Macabeus]

Yes.


Unreconciled. With is the definition of a sinner.


Those who were once justified and wander away from Him, have become unreconciled; sinners in need of repentance, or be lost forever.




JPT

I do not believe in multiple regenerations, but Christians do at times need to repent, realign, return, etc. But Hebrews teaches that you cannot get saved over and over and over again. One new birth only

 

[Macabeus]

...and the prodigal son does not teach repeated regeneration...

 

[Absolutely]

The two sons in the parable of Matthew 21:28-32 represent the same people as the two sons in the parable of the prodigal son. One represents publicans and sinners and the other represents the religious leaders/scribes and Pharisees. This answers the chief objection to the view set forth here, that the scribes and pharisees were not sons. But Jesus uses the figure of son here in Matthew 21 in reference to them (scribes and Pharisees).

He is not saying they are sons by new birth in either parable, it is just one of the figures in the parable. Again, we should not read too much into the individual parts of the parable, but first seek the single truth it is trying to teach first.

You mean kinda like how you made the sons publicans and Pharisees inspite of Jesus words that called them " of your father the devil"

You need the produgal to be a non reference to born again christians.
I wonder if you also need " whosoever" in jn 3:16 to be something else also.
Ya know what you are doing inadvertently?

You are ascribing publicans and Pharisees as having a righteous STARTING PLACE.
The produgal HAD a righteous STARTING PLACE. With his father.

Your deal is unbelievably convoluted.

Oh wait, i get it. You need the gospels to be irrelevant to modern believers.
Ok,lets see the next attempt.

I'll wait

 

[justpassinthrough]

I do not believe in multiple regenerations, but Christians do at times need to repent, realign, return, etc. But Hebrews teaches that you cannot get saved over and over and over again. One new birth only

Yes. I don’t believe we need to get born again, again.


However we can become lost and need to repent, or face an eternity in hell.




JPT

 

[justpassinthrough]

...and the prodigal son does not teach repeated regeneration...

If a person is dead to God, they must repent or remain in that state.