The Prodigal Son

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

So the pharisees and the scribes went to heaven then cause the parable is about them.

The parable isn't about Pharisees and scribes.  It is about a father with 2 sons.  Very clear.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

  FreeGrace said:

btw, what does itcb mean?

It means it. It rained on my phone.

I know "it" means "it".  But what does itcb mean?  

[Marathoner]

4 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

I sometimes meet backslidden Christians who have been welcomed into fellowship, have been water baptised, and groomed for ministry, have served on rosters, and occupied the pulpit . . . and then turned their back on it all. Some say they were never really saved, others that they would have been if they hadn't forfeited. God knows and doesn't let go of His Own.

Indeed. Unless the Lord illuminates us regarding a matter I maintain that it isn't over, until it's over. I abstain from making declarations I know nothing about. We should always be of the heart and mind for encouragement... exhortation... reminders when they are needed... setting an example... and being ready and able to counsel the struggling and/or the fallen as we are called to do. 

There is nothing quite as joyful as a brother or sister restored!

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

FreeGrace said:

Eternal security is clearly taught in Scripture.  

Yes if you abide in Him.

Nope.  That's trusting in your continued abiding in Him.  Which, btw, most believers have no clue what abiding means or is about.

There are 2 verses that prove eternal security.

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 - 5:24) eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

In 5:24 both "believes" and "has" are present tense verbs.  Meaning eternal life is possessed WHEN a person believes.  Or the MOMENT one believes.  Those who believe have eternal life.

In 10:28 Jesus notes the result of being given eternal life; they shall never perish.

So, from the MOMENT one believes, they HAVE eternal life, and shall never perish.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Just like with Paul and the ship. The angel said all these people would not die and were given him.

This isn't relevant to eternal security.  The angel told Paul that no one on the ship would drown (die) if they stayed with the ship.

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Then they tried to get off the ship and he said: Stay on the ship or else you die. Hey but the angel said they wouldn't die. It's just both true at the same time.

You are confused.  They wouldn't die/drown only if they stayed on the ship.  This has nothing to do with eternal security, which is a promise from the moment of saving faith.

To save time, please don't try to claim that 10:27 is the condition for receiving eternal life. v.27 is what believers DO or OUGHT TO DO.  There are NO WORDS that create a conditional clause.  

One becomes a sheep of Jesus through faith in Him.  v.27 is NOT about how do become a sheep, or how to receive eternal life.

John 5:24 clears that up beautifully.  Those who believe have eternal life.

So eternal security is from the moment of saving faith.  It is immediate.

Those who don't believe in eternal security don't believe what Jesus said.

[RdJ]

1 minute ago, FreeGrace said:

Nope.  That's trusting in your continued abiding in Him.  

No. You don't trust in your own ability to abide. You trust in Him.

being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

 

It's not legalism and trusting on your own flesh to be able to serve God, which it can't.

[RdJ]

There was a preacher, don't remember who. He said that in a church Steve Hill, an evangelist, preached all the time about repentance because he spoke to the unsaved and backsliders, but then the others who were not living in sin, but did sin of course, felt attacked by it and then they invited a grace preacher to preach eternal security to balance it out for them, but for the whole bunch you need both.

When I was 19 I was in a cultish church. That guy just got saved and preached. He did not know what being born again was. Every week he would accuse you and say if you sinned you have to become a christian again and we would sing the song Lord I come to you sinful and unclean forgive my sins now and cleanse my heart. They had 2 meetings on a sunday. I thought 1 is enough and then later I just stay home and go bike. Oyy. He'd throw the there is no forgiveness possible if you keep sinning wilfully text at you the next time for not going to the church meeting and I played guitar and he prayed: Lord give us a faithful guitar player (not that unfaithful one we have playing guitar here now). And he said he was God's personal mouth piece. So every week I came to get converted again because I felt accused and I had gotten mad or whatever. I had done a sin. At last he just ignored me. He did say that you had to get saved again but he meant that guy who was living in fornication with loads of women and he did not respond. So that was good but not for me. I left that church because God always hated me if I had the nerve to bike. Then I went to another church and all of a sudden God was full of grace and loving. Turned out he wasn't God's personal mouth piece.

So that was bad and legalistic but Steve Hill was good with his holiness and repentance preaching, but people need to hear both. You are eternally secure and work out your salvation with fear and trembling, just like Phillippians says. You can't leave one half out.

[Charlie1988]

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Eternal security is clearly taught in Scripture.  Election to salvation is not taught in Scripture.  Election is to service, taught plainly.  I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian.

I'm "applying" the word 'son' in the way Jesus used it.  The prodigal was the son of his father.  Rather clear to me.  How else can you take it?  And the 'father' represents our Heavenly Father, who always waits for his prodigal children, and greets them with love and grace when they have confessed and repented.

Then it would seem that you don't believe that fellowship can be broken.  Why?  The entire subject of 1 John 1 is about fellowship.

All will sin, of course.  As to backsliding, not all do.  I have no idea the percentage that will.

But this parable isn't about getting saved.  It's about breaking fellowship.  In the first century Palestine, it was considered the height of rudeness and crudeness for a son to ask his living father for his cut.  The children only got their cut when the father had died.  So the prodigal was basically telling his father he wished he was dead because he wanted his cut NOW.  That is definitely a break in fellowship.  Or the death of it.

I think what Jesus taught about the prodigal is essential.  Believers need to know how to get back into fellowship and how the Father receives a prodigal who confesses and repents.  This is BASIC to Christianity and the Christian life.

Unfortunately, there are way too many believers who are totally clueless about all this.

How many times do we hear people instruct to apologize to God, and ASK for forgiveness, when 1 John 1:9 tells believers to CONFESS their sins, NOT ask for forgiveness.  No verse tells believers to ask for forgiveness.

Ignorance abounds among evangelicals.  Blame goes to the pastors or seminaries for failing to teach this basic doctrine.

Our view and interpretation of scripture is always governed by the systematic theology we adhere to. 

Below is a snippet of what our senior pastor teaches about breaking fellowship with God. You will see it's radically opposed to your interpretation. That's why I say, there are many ways to interpret the bible, because we can always find verses which support our view.

The idea that a Christian can break fellowship with God comes from an Old Covenant mindset that if you will obey God, He will get close to you; but, if you don’t, He will turn away from you. See Deuteronomy 28.

The good news is that none of that is true since we are people under the New Covenant. Here is why:

1. We are united to God. You can’t get any closer to God than that and sin doesn’t break that union. See 1 Corinthians 6:17.

2. All your sins are already forgiven whether you confess them or not. See Colossians 2:13 and Ephesians 4:31-32. (Though it’s fine and probably healthy to tell God when you sin, that doesn’t get you more of His forgiveness.)

3. We are not under the law of blessing and cursing laid out in the Old Covenant. We are already blessed to the max with every spiritual blessing in Christ, according to Ephesians 1:3.

The word for fellowship in the New Testament is the word we use today for intimacy. John wanted the people he wrote to enjoy this intimacy just as he did. 1 John 1:3 says, “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.”

When we sin, we do not lose our fellowship with God, that is, our intimacy with God. It’s impossible because Jesus has finished everything required by the Father to get us into fellowship with Him and to keep us there. It’s totally based on Jesus’ performance on the cross, not our behavior.

There is no Scripture that says a Christian breaks fellowship with God when he or she sins. If that were the case, every Christians would constantly be breaking fellowship with God. Romans 14:23 defines sin as “not living by faith,” that is, not living dependent on God. If we are not depending on God, we are depending on our flesh. The context of that verse is certainly in the context of eating meat sacrificed to idols, but it is a truth which transcends that issue. Any time a person lives even one second depending on their flesh, rather than God, He considers it sin. This means we all may sin a lot more often than we are aware of!

As you can see, our theology is radically different to yours. In any case I don't think God will judge anyone for failing to understand the Bible correctly. That would be a works based a salvation, if He did.

 

  

Edited June 19, 2024 by Charlie1988

[Michael37]

27 minutes ago, Charlie1988 said:

The idea that a Christian can break fellowship with God comes from an Old Covenant mindset that if you will obey God, He will get close to you; but, if you don’t, He will turn away from you. See Deuteronomy 28.

[Charlie1988]

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This is totally contradictory.  If man IS responsible for "not responding to the gospel", then HOW in the world can he be IF he is UNABLE to?  That makes zero sense.

If your boss instructed you to complete a task, but you had no ability to complete the task, would it be fair for the boss to FIRE you for your inability?  Of course NOT.

The reason that man IS IS IS totally responsible for responding to the gospel is because God created man WITH freedom of choice.  Man uses his conscience to make decisions, choices.  

Rom 1:19-21 is clear that God HAS revealed His divine power and attributes through creation, so that man is "without excuse" as Paul says.  

This would clearly mean that man is NOT responsible for their inability to believe.  

When a jailer asked Paul what he MUST DO to be saved, Paul told him to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and he will be saved".  Acts 16:30-31.

Only predetermined in the sense that God is pleased to save those who believe.  Oh wait!  There's a verse about that!

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

This verse refutes Calvinism's doctrine of election.

It is God's choice to save those who believe.  God does NOT choose who will believe.

Yes.  God is omniscient.  No surprise.  But He didn't choose anyone to believe.

And this verse teaches that election is to service.  The "us" in 'God chose us' is defined in v.19 as "us who believe".  Therefore, we can put "believers" in place of "us".  It is believers in v.4 that God has chosen.  The verse DOES NOT SAY that God chose who would believe.

And the purpose of this election is clearly stated:  THAT (purpose clause) we WOULD BE (subjunctive mood) holy and blameless (lifestyle).

That is what God chose believers for.  A holy and blameless lifestyle.

I love this verse as well.  The Greek word (verb) for "chosen" is 'haireomai', which is not the verb used for God's election to service, which is 'eklegomai'.

And the verse isn't about God choosing for salvation, but rather, choosing the method of HOW one is saved:  "through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

Salvation is ALWAYS by faith, and never by election.  

The Greek "kai" (and) has a wide range of semantics.  It can also mean "even" and I believe that Paul equated "sanctification by the Spirit" and "faith in the truth".

I don't see salvation as a two step process, but simply "through faith" as Eph 2:8 plainly says.

This verse directly links to Eph 1:4 which is about lifestyle.  What comes first is salvation, and then our "calling", commonly translated as an 'invitation'.  God invites us to live holy, just as Eph 1:4 says.

This is another verse that proves that election is to service.  Here, Jesus was addressing "the eleven" as Judas had left the group.  Jesus tells the eleven that He chosen them to "go and bear fruit".  That is service.

John 6:70,71 also teaches that Jesus told the 12 that they didn't choose Him (which was the common way rabbis had disciples) but He chose them.  And here, Jesus includes Judas, an unbeliever.  And John adds in v.71 the reason for Judas' election;  service - betrayer.

Another verse that shows election to service.  "God's purpose in election" is "the older WILL SERVE the younger".  That is clearly purpose.

Already addressed above.

I hope you have read all my responses to these very good verses.  None are about God choosing who will believe, which is the actual bedrock of Calvin's doctrine of election.

All election is to service.  

Examples of Divine Election

1.  Election of Christ:  an individual election

1 Pet 2:6 Isa 28:16 Isa 42:1  Luke 9:35 Luke 23:35

2.  Election of Angels:  a group or corporate election

1 Tim 5:21 and Heb 1:14

3.  Election of Israel:  a group or corporate election

Amos 3:2 Deut 7:6 Acts 13:17

4.  Election of believers:  a group or corporate election

Eph 1:4a [note:  this verse doesn’t say that God chose who would be believers, but that He chose believers…to be holy and blameless]

1 Peter 2:9

5.  The Election of the 12 Disciples:  a group or corporate election  John 15:16

6.  The Election of Paul:  an individual election     Acts 9:15

In EVERY example, service is the purpose of that election.

In the first 3, there is NO WAY any of the examples could have been "chosen to salvation". 

Jesus Christ is the Chosen One.  Why?  To be the suffering SERVANT.  Bingo.

Angels were chosen to serve those who would be saved.

The people of Israel were chosen as "God's people" to preserve His Word and share it with the world.

Your understanding of the doctrine of salvation is very different to mine. There are no similarities at all and our theology is irreconcilably opposed. 

We thoroughly debated Calvinism v Arminianism, in another thread and the result was a stale mate. The Bible can be used to support both views, so it comes down to personal preference. 

I can't accept any of your views on the subject of salvation because you always change what God said. For example, you say salvation is by faith but God said it is by grace, so you oppose God Himself. 

Gods Word says we were chosen for salvation before time began, but you oppose Gods Word and claim we were chosen for a plan of salvation. So you can appreciate I can't accept your private view over what God clearly said.  

Edited June 19, 2024 by Charlie1988

[Charlie1988]

15 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Getting back to the parable,

Who do you think the older son represents,

and the parable is directed towards?

The older brother represents self righteous religious people, who think they are going to be saved by their works. The prodigal son represents a sinner who has placed his trust in the finished work of Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation.