Salvation...Can it be lost???

[Ovedya]

Was the Prodigal Son no longer his father's son when he was in the far country?

I don't believe this was answered.

I did answer that already. When the prodigal son left, and went into sin he became "dead". He was no longer a son of the Father. He returned to his former father the devil. When he came to his senses and repented he again became a son of God. The Bible teaches if we will confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse of all unrighteousness.

I will also refer once again back to the language used by the Father to describe the prodigal son in Luke 15:24 "For this my son WAS DEAD, and is ALIVE AGAIN; he WAS LOST and IS FOUND." The words dead and lost describe a person that is not saved. At the same time the words alive and found indicate he is now saved. But the fact he says his son is alive AGAIN, indicates he had been saved in the past but died in his tresspasses and sins and was lost for a time.

So the answer to this so-called unanswered question is, for a time the prodigal son was no longer son of the heavenly father. He became a son once again when he came to his senses and decided to return to God, represented by his earthy father in the parable.

Actually your quotation of the verses defeats you exaplanation of it. The prodigal's father said, "For this my son..." The father called him his son, which means that he never stopped being his son.

[apothanein kerdos]

The prodigal son doesn't work for either side. It is about the Jews that were not "spiritual." They had ran away from their original purpose and now with the Messiah they were welcome into the kingdom of God. Look at the context, who Jesus is around (sinners) and who He is addressing (pharisees).

We must keep in mind though, at no point did the son cease to be a son. Had he, then the stroy would have ended up much different.

[Avodah]

I did answer that already. When the prodigal son left, and went into sin he became "dead". He was no longer a son of the Father

I feel for your children, it must be very difficult for them knowing that you might disown them if they slip up.

I'm sorry, but what you are trying to say just does not make any sense to me. I am a mother and I would never under any circumstances disown or turn my back on my children. If they were to leave me and not speak to me for months at a time, or act out in rebellion, guess what...I would be waiting for them and watching for them to come home, because I love them and they are mine. If they stumble I will be there for them. The word tells me that when I fall the Father will pick me up; not turn His back on me. I choose to believe what my Father tells me.

[apothanein kerdos]

The prodigal son doesn't work for either side. It is about the Jews that were not "spiritual." They had ran away from their original purpose and now with the Messiah they were welcome into the kingdom of God. Look at the context, who Jesus is around (sinners) and who He is addressing (pharisees).

We must keep in mind though, at no point did the son cease to be a son. Had he, then the stroy would have ended up much different.

That is an interesting interpretation of the story, but I do not believe that is it's correct meaning.

Doesn't matter what you believe Burt, how many times do I have to tell you that?

What matters is the proof behind the circumstance. The linquistic proof of the passage proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the parable of the prodigal son is refering to the Jewish people that are sinners. The older brother represents the pharisees.

He gave the son a new position with a robe . . . a ring . . . and sandals. Jesus intentionally used the banquet motif again. He had previously spoken of a banquet to symbolize the coming kingdom (13:29; cf. 14:15-24). Jesus

[Arthur Durnan]

Okay, alright, now I do get it in crystal-clear fashion: our dear, kind "fall-away" folk are no longer the children of their earthly fathers when they commit one single sin. They become earthly orphans and cannot serve as family executors re their parents, definitely cannot claim family legacies, honor family birthdays or anniversaries, whatever. They must change their family name to something quite different because they're no longer the children of their parents. Our "fall-away" friends harbor much more momentum than either earthly or biblical rational. I am quite fond of obduracy in noble causes, but.......

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

P.S. Wouldn't you know it? I left my keys at Starbucks. Here we go again.

[Kabowd]

Was the Prodigal Son no longer his father's son when he was in the far country?

I don't believe this was answered.

Like I said, I tried my best ot answer this as best I knew it. People are asking questions about this parable that have nothing to do with lesson or meaning of the parable.

The parable has nothing to do "no longer being a son". it has to do with a child taking his inheritance and running away from home to live a riotous life.

Try to think of it this way. When we were born we were perfect and without sin before God, because we know that a sin is a transgression of the law and we don't know what age God starts holding us accountable for our sins. By way of the scriptures we know that our sins have driven us away from God. God didn't leave or forsake us, it is we who have forsaken him for our sins.

Just like the Prodigal Son we come to our senses and go back to our father who has always been there ready and waiting for us to come back. Just like the son, after he came back and was now alive, so are we when we come back and are born again.

Are you really trying to assert that we are born without sin?

[apothanein kerdos]

That is utter nonsence. That is just your opinion and is flawed for the following reason.

THat is not a valid response. Try harder.

Let's take a look at verse 31 "And he said unto him, SON, THOU ART EVER WITH ME, AND ALL THAT I HAVE IS THINE." Jesus said the Pharisees father was the devil, and they are not entitled to any inheritance from the heavenly Father. This proves you are wrong!

No it doesn't, look to the entire context again. Who is Jesus talking to at the beginning of chapter 15? Looking to one verse to determine context is what is absurd. Jesus also told them that they were already healthy (look in Luke where He says the sick need a doctor, not the healthy). Not all of the Pharisees were evil, and the group Jesus was addressing was a group trying to trap Him. Other Pharisees were quite good (look at Nicodemus) yet still had a hard time accepting the fact some sinners were being allowed into the kingdom of Heaven. I can't be proven wrong on this issue because context dictates the truth of the situation.

By the way Ernie, why would you tell someone they must provide a commentary to back up their beliefs? Are you saying a commentary is the Word of God? All commentaries are written by men, along with all of their biases, and the idea we need to site commentaries to back up our arguments is absurd.

Your interpretation is just as fallible then. I'd rather trust a fallible man that is educated, then one that is not.

You can say, "THey're fallibel" all you want, fact is, you have no contextual proof for your point.

[Ovedya]

Okay, alright, now I do get it in crystal-clear fashion: our dear, kind "fall-away" folk are no longer the children of their earthly fathers when they commit one single sin. They become earthly orphans and cannot serve as family executors re their parents, definitely cannot claim family legacies, honor family birthdays or anniversaries, whatever. They must change their family name to something quite different because they're no longer the children of their parents. Our "fall-away" friends harbor much more momentum than either earthly or biblical rational. I am quite fond of obduracy in noble causes, but.......

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

P.S. Wouldn't you know it? I left my keys at Starbucks. Here we go again.

There are cases where children legally divorce their parents, and where parents disown their children, including writing them out of their wills.

I think you're missing the point, brother. If you take this story and apply it to the natural realm, a father and a son, or any child, are genetically bonded, so regardless of whether the child signs a legal document or not, or whether the father signs a legal document, the child will still always be the child of the Father.

The statement you just made actually sounds a lot like the Law of Moses, actually. You are viewing the matter in legal terms rather than in "life terms." Our connection witht he Father is a matter of life, not just legality! It is a sonship based upon the impartation of God's divine life and nature into the spirit of the believer through the death of Christ. That is why the covenant established in the Lord's blood speaks better things than the old covenant. God became a man - He took on humanity, He lived the life of a human being and was subjected to the same temptations, He was tortured and beaten as a man, and He died as a man upon the cross. Jesus Christ was, and is, a real man. He died in His humanity and He resurrected in His humanity, and now He lives in us! All that Christ obtained and attained was imparted into our human spirit that moment that we believed into Him and called upon His name, and we were made partakers of the divine nature. That is an intrinsic bond that cannot b broken by us, nor can it be disregarded or broken by God. Were it possible for us to break that bond than the blood of Christ would be ineffectual to save eternally, and we might as well shed the blood of a cow or a goat!

So then, let me ask you: Why do we need the death of Christ at all? Why not just shed the blood of a cow or a goat, or a turtledove, etc. for the remission of our sins? Is Christ's shed blood not enough?

[Ovedya]

Okay, alright, now I do get it in crystal-clear fashion: our dear, kind "fall-away" folk are no longer the children of their earthly fathers when they commit one single sin. They become earthly orphans and cannot serve as family executors re their parents, definitely cannot claim family legacies, honor family birthdays or anniversaries, whatever. They must change their family name to something quite different because they're no longer the children of their parents. Our "fall-away" friends harbor much more momentum than either earthly or biblical rational. I am quite fond of obduracy in noble causes, but.......

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

P.S. Wouldn't you know it? I left my keys at Starbucks. Here we go again.

There are cases where children legally divorce their parents, and where parents disown their children, including writing them out of their wills.

I think you're missing the point, brother. If you take this story and apply it to the natural realm, a father and a son, or any child, are genetically bonded, so regardless of whether the child signs a legal document or not, or whether the father signs a legal document, the child will still always be the child of the Father.

The statement you just made actually sounds a lot like the Law of Moses, actually. You are viewing the matter in legal terms rather than in "life terms." Our connection witht he Father is a matter of life, not just legality! It is a sonship based upon the impartation of God's divine life and nature into the spirit of the believer through the death of Christ. That is why the covenant established in the Lord's blood speaks better things than the old covenant. God became a man - He took on humanity, He lived the life of a human being and was subjected to the same temptations, He was tortured and beaten as a man, and He died as a man upon the cross. Jesus Christ was, and is, a real man. He died in His humanity and He resurrected in His humanity, and now He lives in us! All that Christ obtained and attained was imparted into our human spirit that moment that we believed into Him and called upon His name, and we were made partakers of the divine nature. That is an intrinsic bond that cannot b broken by us, nor can it be disregarded or broken by God. Were it possible for us to break that bond than the blood of Christ would be ineffectual to save eternally, and we might as well shed the blood of a cow or a goat!

So then, let me ask you: Why do we need the death of Christ at all? Why not just shed the blood of a cow or a goat, or a turtledove, etc. for the remission of our sins? Is Christ's shed blood not enough?

Before salvation, we were sinners, children of the devil. Using your argument about a natural son still having the blood of his father, we would always have the blood of our original father the devil. There will always be problems with using natural arguments to build doctrinal arguments.

Actually, it's the flesh that is inherited from Adam, that is subject to the will of the fallen nature. Romans 6 and 7 is abundantly clear that there is nothing on this earth that can be done about the sinful nature of the flesh other than to bring it under subjection through the service of God. So actually the physical does coordinate with the spiritual in both cases. My argument stands.

Jesus blood is able to save us eternally. First, if one gets saved and actually follows the Bible's teachings, refusing to commit wilful or presumptuous sins, they will never lose their salvation. If a person gets saved and then goes out and commits wilful or presumptuous sins, they simply confess those sins and the one sacrifice Jesus made is sufficient to save us anew. Under the law that was not so. If the Priest made an offering for my sins, and I transgressed the law again, I could not simply repent and trust the earlier sacrifice was still sufficient. A new animal had to be sacrificed. In that, there is a huge difference.

What you are citing here is the exact pattern of the Law, however. But rather than sacrificing "a new animal" what you are talking of doing is sacrificing Christ anew! Again, as I cited in an earlier post, this is forbidden by Hebrews 6!

[Ovedya]

Okay, alright, now I do get it in crystal-clear fashion: our dear, kind "fall-away" folk are no longer the children of their earthly fathers when they commit one single sin. They become earthly orphans and cannot serve as family executors re their parents, definitely cannot claim family legacies, honor family birthdays or anniversaries, whatever. They must change their family name to something quite different because they're no longer the children of their parents. Our "fall-away" friends harbor much more momentum than either earthly or biblical rational. I am quite fond of obduracy in noble causes, but.......

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

P.S. Wouldn't you know it? I left my keys at Starbucks. Here we go again.

There are cases where children legally divorce their parents, and where parents disown their children, including writing them out of their wills.

I think you're missing the point, brother. If you take this story and apply it to the natural realm, a father and a son, or any child, are genetically bonded, so regardless of whether the child signs a legal document or not, or whether the father signs a legal document, the child will still always be the child of the Father.

The statement you just made actually sounds a lot like the Law of Moses, actually. You are viewing the matter in legal terms rather than in "life terms." Our connection witht he Father is a matter of life, not just legality! It is a sonship based upon the impartation of God's divine life and nature into the spirit of the believer through the death of Christ. That is why the covenant established in the Lord's blood speaks better things than the old covenant. God became a man - He took on humanity, He lived the life of a human being and was subjected to the same temptations, He was tortured and beaten as a man, and He died as a man upon the cross. Jesus Christ was, and is, a real man. He died in His humanity and He resurrected in His humanity, and now He lives in us! All that Christ obtained and attained was imparted into our human spirit that moment that we believed into Him and called upon His name, and we were made partakers of the divine nature. That is an intrinsic bond that cannot b broken by us, nor can it be disregarded or broken by God. Were it possible for us to break that bond than the blood of Christ would be ineffectual to save eternally, and we might as well shed the blood of a cow or a goat!

So then, let me ask you: Why do we need the death of Christ at all? Why not just shed the blood of a cow or a goat, or a turtledove, etc. for the remission of our sins? Is Christ's shed blood not enough?

Before salvation, we were sinners, children of the devil. Using your argument about a natural son still having the blood of his father, we would always have the blood of our original father the devil. There will always be problems with using natural arguments to build doctrinal arguments.

Actually, it's the flesh that is inherited from Adam, that is subject to the will of the fallen nature. Romans 6 and 7 is abundantly clear that there is nothing on this earth that can be done about the sinful nature of the flesh other than to bring it under subjection through the service of God. So actually the physical does coordinate with the spiritual in both cases. My argument stands.

Jesus blood is able to save us eternally. First, if one gets saved and actually follows the Bible's teachings, refusing to commit wilful or presumptuous sins, they will never lose their salvation. If a person gets saved and then goes out and commits wilful or presumptuous sins, they simply confess those sins and the one sacrifice Jesus made is sufficient to save us anew. Under the law that was not so. If the Priest made an offering for my sins, and I transgressed the law again, I could not simply repent and trust the earlier sacrifice was still sufficient. A new animal had to be sacrificed. In that, there is a huge difference.

What you are citing here is the exact pattern of the Law, however. But rather than sacrificing "a new animal" what you are talking of doing is sacrificing Christ anew! Again, as I cited in an earlier post, this is forbidden by Hebrews 6!

Jesus said the Father of the Pharisees was the devil. Could they get saved? If they could they would then have a different father. If their Father was the devil and they walked away from him, under your argument he would still remain their natural father. You can hold on to that argument but it is illogical.

No, it is not sacrificing Christ anew. To do that he would have to literally return time and time again to be hung on a cross. That is not necessary. The one offering for sin is sufficient for all the sins that could ever be commited. That was not true when it came to animal sacrifices.

Well, you're arguing against Hebrews 6 and 9-10 respectively, so I can't honestly add anything more than what the Scriptures say on the matter of the eternal nature of Christ's sacrifice. The nature of the sacrifice of Christ is such that it is eternal with respect to the blood only having been shed once for all, and applied once for all, for the sins of all, and for all of eternity. Either the blood was shed once and applied once for the sins of the unbeliever and the believer, past, present and future, or it was not. Either the work of Christ in redemption was complete and absolute the first time or it was not.

As far as Satan being the literal father of the Pharisees, I think you're going to have to prove that the Lord was speaking literally and not figuratively. Nevertheless, we are all children of the devil with respect to the fact that we all have the inherited fallen nature of Adam, and this fallen nature can not be truly and completely dispensed with in this age, prior to the glorification of our bodies. It can only be, as I said above, placed under the subjegation of the renewed and consecrated mind and spirit of the believer. The fact that Christ came to return us to our true Father is also abundantly evident in the parable we've been discussing, by the way.

Of course the Pharisees could have been saved, Paul was a Pharisee, and the son of a of Pharisee (Acts 23:6; 26:5 Phil. 3:5), and yet he got saved. Paul was one who approved of the killing of Stephen, and he pursued and ravaged the church to the uttermost, yet he got saved.