The Prodigal Son

[FreeGrace]

On 6/12/2024 at 6:43 PM, Mr. M said:

Yes, and fathers often speak in anger as a wayward son departs:  "You are dead to me".

In the parable, there was never anger in the father.  Only eagerness to see his son return (repent) and confess his sin, which he finally did.  When he said "this my son was dead" he meant loss of fellowship.  But he didn't say it in anger. 

On 6/12/2024 at 6:43 PM, Mr. M said:

Adam departed the garden with a death sentence, and without access to the tree of Life.

And it's a good thing, too, because if he had eaten of the tree of life, while STILL spiritually dead, he would have remained in that dead condition until his body finally died.  No hope of salvation.

On 6/12/2024 at 6:43 PM, Mr. M said:

Christ has restored that access to Life, and the very Throne of God!

Christ gives eternal life to those who believe.  John 5:24 - Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 10:28 - I give them (believers) eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

[FreeGrace]

On 6/13/2024 at 12:15 AM, Charlie1988 said:

The story of the Prodigal Son was told in a way that places more emphases on the reaction of the brother, rather than the parodical son's salvation. 

The prodigal son's salvation is a very common story, we're all born as slaves to sin and Satan and unless God saves us out of that slavery we will remain enslaved for our whole lives.

Rather, the parable is about a rebellious son who broke fellowship with his father, and his return restored that fellowship.

On 6/13/2024 at 12:15 AM, Charlie1988 said:

 God opened the spiritual eyes of the prodigal son and allowed him to see his true state, which was enslavement to sin and Satan. When he saw his true state, he was shocked and was willing to do whatever it took to change it.

Rather, the son "came to his senses" while in the pig sty.  Nothing about God having any effect on the son.  Throughout the parable the son is called "a son", revealing that his relationship with his father was secure the whole time.  The parable begins with a rebellious son, and ends with a restored son.  There is nothing about getting saved, or restoring salvation.

On 6/13/2024 at 12:15 AM, Charlie1988 said:

God then granted him repentance, and that led to his salvation.

Commonly thought and taught, but still way off base.  Restoration of fellowship requires the person to "come to his/her senses", confess their sins, and return to God.

On 6/13/2024 at 12:15 AM, Charlie1988 said:

 The real tragedy in the whole story was the older brothers jealousy and hatred of him. The older brother was a hypocrite, because he thought he was better than his brother. But we know that all have sinned and God is no respecter of persons, even our best works are as filthy rags in His sight. The brother had no right to judge him, that's Gods job and if God forgives someone who are we to not forgive them as well.

The older brother had been faithful and obedient to his father, but had no grace, unlike his father.  So when the prodigal returned, the older brother got his nose out of joint and got out of fellowship himself.

On 6/13/2024 at 12:15 AM, Charlie1988 said:

I think the main lesson of this story is "Judge not, or you will be judged with the same measure you use to judge others". 

No, it's about restoring fellowship when out of fellowship.

[FreeGrace]

On 6/13/2024 at 3:03 AM, Mr. M said:

When I came back to the Lord in 1990,

a sister told me that the angels were rejoicing.

I was deeply moved by that, and I know it is true.

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence

of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

Right!!  Restoration of fellowship!!

[Mr. M]

18 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

In the parable, there was never anger in the father.

This was not in reference to the parable, but as stated,

something that occurs often when a father and son

relationship is broken. For example, think of a Jewish

father who rejects his son's conversion to Christianity.

[NConly]

On 6/12/2024 at 2:55 PM, Mr. M said:

Why does the Lord say that the son who turned from his father's way

"was dead, but is now alive again"?

This brought to mind Luke 9

59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

I am thinking of the second death or spiritual death. Not saved.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Mr. M said:

FreeGrace said:

In the parable, there was never anger in the father.

This was not in reference to the parable, but as stated, something that occurs often when a father and son

relationship is broken.

My bad.  I thought your comment was in regard to the parable.  I would point out, though, that there is a huge difference between relationship and fellowship, which seem not appreciated generally.

As to father and son, their relationship is permanent.  The birth cannot be undone.  The son will always have the father's DNA.

The same is true spiritually.  The believer is a son of God permanently, and the new birth cannot be undone.  And the believer will always have the Holy Spirit in them.  I call that "spiritual DNA".

1 hour ago, Mr. M said:

For example, think of a Jewish father who rejects his son's conversion to Christianity.

Yes, this is a good example of broken fellowship.  The son still remains the father's son.  

[Rockson]

I don't think anyone can add their own pet theologies  into this parable about is this just written about people who knew God beforehand or not. 

I think one is imposing into the text something not clearly stated. I think it just basically means if one doesn't know God, didn't beforehand or even if they did....the point is God is revealing his number 1 desire he has towards all humanity....to know they can come to God and he will receive them. 

[Charlie1988]

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Rather, the parable is about a rebellious son who broke fellowship with his father, and his return restored that fellowship.

Rather, the son "came to his senses" while in the pig sty.  Nothing about God having any effect on the son.  Throughout the parable the son is called "a son", revealing that his relationship with his father was secure the whole time.  The parable begins with a rebellious son, and ends with a restored son.  There is nothing about getting saved, or restoring salvation.

Commonly thought and taught, but still way off base.  Restoration of fellowship requires the person to "come to his/her senses", confess their sins, and return to God.

The older brother had been faithful and obedient to his father, but had no grace, unlike his father.  So when the prodigal returned, the older brother got his nose out of joint and got out of fellowship himself.

No, it's about restoring fellowship when out of fellowship.

The parable doesn't teach that the prodigal son, simply backslid and then repented. In Luke 15:31-32 we read;

31 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. 32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”

The father describes the parodical son as being dead, and we know that we are all born dead in sins and trespasses. and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that one can be born again and then die and be born again. The language the father uses to describe his sons condition, is consistent with being an unconverted person. 

So my understanding is that salvation is by grace and not by the choice of men, that's why I believe God granted the young man repentance in that pig stye and that caused him to come to his senses. 

The Bible teaches that a person is saved once, I haven't found anything to suggest that we can be saved multiple times. If you believe that, then please provide some supporting scripture, or if you think the prodigal son was only a story about a backsliding then provide scriptures to support that. I don't think you can build a case for backsliding, on the fact that the prodigal son was always referred to as a son. The father said his son was dead, and that doesn't support the notion that he was always saved.   

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

The parable doesn't teach that the prodigal son, simply backslid and then repented.

Yes it does.  I explained all that occurred.  If you disagree, then please go to that post and point out any errors.  I would appreciate being corrected if in error.

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

In Luke 15:31-32 we read;

31 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. 32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”

The father describes the parodical son as being dead, and we know that we are all born dead in sins and trespasses.

I already addressed that.  The father said he was "dead" and "lost".  He was speaking of a son who had broken FELLOWSHIP with him.  In 1st century Palestine, EVERY Jew understood how OBNOXIOUS and OFFENSIVE it would be for a so ask for his share of the inheritance while the father was STILL ALIVE.  That was tantamount to saying, "I wish you were dead (so I could have my inheritance)".  So the father wasn't speaking in spiritual terms at all, but simply human life.  Remember, parables are principles demonstrated through normal human experiences.

Jesus was teaching about how loving and gracious His Heavenly Father is toward ALL of his children, even those who stray.  This is seen in the parable, clearly.

Luke 115:20 - And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

The red words demonstrate that the father had been looking for his son to return.  And not in anger or revenge.  But in love and grace.

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that one can be born again and then die and be born again.

Of course not.  That is why the parable cannot be about spiritually dying and then being born again.  Not even close.  Nor can the parable be about an unbeliever who becomes a believer, because the son WAS a son throughout the parable.  So you would have to argue against what Jesus said to come up with what you think.

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

The language the father uses to describe his sons condition, is consistent with being an unconverted person.

Impossible for the reason I gave above.

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

 So my understanding is that salvation is by grace and not by the choice of men, that's why I believe God granted the young man repentance in that pig stye and that caused him to come to his senses.

The only point Jesus made was that the prodigal did "come to his senses", confessed his sin and repented by returning to his father.

Throughout the parable the son WAS the son of the father.  

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

 The Bible teaches that a person is saved once, I haven't found anything to suggest that we can be saved multiple times.

That is correct.

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

If you believe that, then please provide some supporting scripture, or if you think the prodigal son was only a story about a backsliding then provide scriptures to support that.

My explanation of the parable proves that the son represents a saved person who broke fellowship with his father, then got into grievous sin, but came to his senses, confessed and repented (returned) to his father, AND the father received him in love and grace all the way.  That is the point of the parable.  Not everyone is happy with that teaching.  Arminians clearly take the attitude that the son lost salvation because of what he did.  And that one can be saved again, which is total nonsense.

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

I don't think you can build a case for backsliding, on the fact that the prodigal son was always referred to as a son.

That is the whole point and proof.  Children CAN backslide.  How could the prodigal be unsaved (non child of God) at the beginning of the parable since Jesus CALLED him a son of the father.  

12 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

The father said his son was dead, and that doesn't support the notion that he was always saved.   

And "lost", neither of which described spiritual states.  This is a normal human experience story (parable) to teach biblical principles, which unfortunately, many believers just don't like.  Because it steps on their theological toes.  OUCH!!

But it is a simple story that does occur among families.  A child highly offends the father, leaves, but after coming to his/her senses, confesses their sin, and returns to the father (restoration of fellowship).

This is exactly what happens spiritually when a believer sins, and not even getting into grievous sin.  ANY sin offends the Father and the believer is out of fellowship, which is the subject of 1 John 1.  The ONLY solution to sin and the break in fellowship is to confess the sin(s) to God and he "is faithful and just(ified) to FORGIVE and CLEANSE (PURIFY) of all unrighteousness".

If this is all new to you, those who have discipled you (pastors, SS teachers) have FAILED to understand this very basic doctrine.

[enoob57]

14 hours ago, Charlie1988 said:

So my understanding is that salvation is by grace and not by the choice of men, that's why I believe God granted the young man repentance in that pig stye and that caused him to come to his senses. 

Then you are faced with the reasoning of this Scriptures:
Matthew 23:37 (KJV)

[37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Isaiah 42:24 (KJV)

[24] Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.

2 Peter 2:21 (KJV)

[21] For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

Isaiah 30:15 (KJV)
[15] “For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel: In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.”

clearly God's Word is saying man is responsible for not responding and you are claiming God is responsible...