justbyfaith
justified sinner
- May 19, 2017
- 3,461
- 572
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvary Chapel
- Marital Status
- Married
I wrote:
This statement by Jesus about rejoicing angels clearly refers to, and concludes, the Parable of the Lost Coin. The statement does not directly relate to the Parable of the Prodigal; there is no parallel remark made at the end of the Prodigal parable. It seems evident to me, then, that the point of the Lost Coin parable is not identical to the point(s) made by Jesus in his Prodigal Son parable. Why, then, should I think the verse you cited has any direct bearing on the Prodigal parable?
justbyfaith wrote:
Because it is in the word of God, and scripture interprets scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14.
Yes, Scripture does interpret Scripture but how, for instance, does "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself," (Matthew 27:5)
interpret "And when Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor died, Hadar reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pau. His wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab"? (Genesis 36:39) Obviously, not every verse of Scripture interprets every other verse of Scripture. And so, I can make separations between thoughts, and themes, and ideas in God's word and thus say what I did about the parables of the Lost Coin and the parable of Prodigal Son.
Okay, fine; however the parable of the lost coin and the parable of the prodigal son are in the same immediate context and are actually different parables explaining the same exact principle, along with the parable of the 99 and 1 sheep.
They may not be vain but they were inaccurate, specious, and mistaken.
??? Was it not God Himself who through His prophet said, "Come, let us reason together..."? (Isaiah 1:18) Debate is simply a means of doing so. Now, endless debate that exists for its own sake is wrong, but debate through which the truth is obtained and clarified, well, that's exactly what Christians - starting with the apostles - have been doing since the advent of Christianity into human history.
Jude 1:3
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Didn't Jesus repeatedly contend with the Pharisees? Yup. How about Paul and Peter? Yes, they got into it with the religious leaders, too. I don't see, then, how you arrive at the notion from Scripture that debate, and rules of logic and proper argument are "something God doesn't want us to do."
I'm afraid that this simply isn't so. Arguing for the purpose of sowing discord and strife is prohibited in Scripture, but debate that defends and clarifies God's truth has been essential over the centuries to the preservation and establishment of the Church and correct doctrine.
I'll agree with you there. Contending for the faith might be defined differently than sowing discord and strife. The latter is my definition of debate mode, argument for argument's sake. I suggest that you also look up the verses (Romans 1:29 and 2 Corinthians 12:10) to see what I am saying about the scripture's indictment on what it in those verses calls debate.
So you're saying the analogy is inconsistent. Because if having the medicine is related to having salvation but if I don't take the medicine I am not availing myself of it, and if I don't avail myself of it I die, what happens to me if I have salvation but don't avail myself of it (as in not taking the medicine and dying from pneumonia as the result?) Do I die? What is the equivalent of dying from pneumonia as relates to its parallel of salvation?I wrote:
Well, if I've purchased medication at the behest of my doctor for the treatment of, say, pneumonia and I come to believe that the medication won't help and refuse to take it, does the medication cease to be mine? No. I am cut off by my unbelief from its medicinal benefit, but the medicine is still mine. In the same way, salvation may be emptied of most of its spiritual benefit and the believer made useless to God by the believer's unbelief, but they may still be in possession of their membership in God's family.
justbyfaith wrote:
The person would very likely die from pneumonia. What kind of salvation is that?
As I already explained to another poster who said much the same thing as you've said here, the point of the analogy wasn't about being sick but about possession of the medicine whether or not it is used. Your observation completely ignores this point.
Upvote
0