Questions on the extent of God’s sovereignty.

[concretecamper]

Unfortunately, that doesn’t fit the context.

At the risk of seeming to cop out ..........

 

[Hammster]

At the risk of seeming to cop out ..........

Not at all. Look at the two parables before. They all three go together. They are all directed to the Pharisees. The elder son is not one who is worshipping. He’s one who is proud of his works.

 

[bling]

The younger son is the people of God. The older son is the Pharisees. The Pharisees were so caught up in what they did (they were very much works related) that they had no concern for those under them that didn’t do things the right way.

The main character in the parable is the father and you completely avoided telling us who he represents in the parallel spiritual meaning? You have been telling me it cannot be God (which makes you possible the only person who thinks it is someone else). If you do not know or come up with someone else, I would start a thread on it.

I agree with you that the “older son is the Pharisees”, but that would mean these Pharisees trying to trap and kill Jesus are also children of God also, if the father is representing God, which I do believe.

The younger son and the older son are children of God the same as the Pharisees and everyone else is a child of God.

 

[Hammster]

The main character in the parable is the father and you completely avoided telling us who he represents in the parallel spiritual meaning? You have been telling me it cannot be God (which makes you possible the only person who thinks it is someone else). If you do not know or come up with someone else, I would start a thread on it.

I agree with you that the “older son is the Pharisees”, but that would mean these Pharisees trying to trap and kill Jesus are also children of God also, if the father is representing God, which I do believe.

The younger son and the older son are children of God the same as the Pharisees and everyone else is a child of God.

I explained the parable in context. You can’t try to make it fit with your understanding. That’s why you aren’t understanding what I said.

 

[bling]

I explained the parable in context. You can’t try to make it fit with your understanding. That’s why you aren’t understanding what I said.

Tell me who the father is representing in the parallel spiritual meaning?

 

[Hammster]

Tell me who the father is representing in the parallel spiritual meaning?

The focus is on the sons. It’s a parable. Stop trying to make it walk on all fours.

 

[bling]

The focus is on the sons. It’s a parable. Stop trying to make it walk on all fours.

The father's Love is a huge part of the story.
All the other parables, especially those Christ explains, have parallel spiritual descriptions for everyone mentioned, you cannot leave out the hugely significant character of the father in the story, so who is he representing?

 

[Hammster]

The father's Love is a huge part of the story.
All the other parables, especially those Christ explains, have parallel spiritual descriptions for everyone mentioned, you cannot leave out the hugely significant character of the father in the story, so who is he representing?

A father with two sons. Here’s a similar picture.

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.
— Matthew 21:28-31

Do you also think the father here is God? Or is he just a father being used to make a point?

 

[bling]

A father with two sons. Here’s a similar picture.

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.
— Matthew 21:28-31

Do you also think the father here is God? Or is he just a father being used to make a point?

Matt. 21:28-31 comes right after the chief Priests and elders came try to trap Jesus by asking: “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”

And this comes after: "But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant."

Matt. 21:28-31 come right before; The Parable of the Tenants where God is obviously the “Landlord”, since he says right after: 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

After these parables: 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

Jesus specifically says after the chief priest, elders and Pharisees said “the first” who the first son is and who they are and are they not a huge group of hypocrites to God’s commands?

These chief priests, Pharisees and elders new these parables (plural) were about them: they were the son, who said to their father: “‘I will, sir’; but he did not”. Those sinners who did not say they would be obedient to begin with, have turned and obeyed, so they are pleasing to God even though they refused earlier on.

So, yes, I see God as being the spiritual meaning of the father, in the parable of the two sons the same as God is the father in the Prodigal son parable.

 

[Hammster]

Matt. 21:28-31 comes right after the chief Priests and elders came try to trap Jesus by asking: “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”

And this comes after: "But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant."

Matt. 21:28-31 come right before; The Parable of the Tenants where God is obviously the “Landlord”, since he says right after: 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

After these parables: 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

Jesus specifically says after the chief priest, elders and Pharisees said “the first” who the first son is and who they are and are they not a huge group of hypocrites to God’s commands?

These chief priests, Pharisees and elders new these parables (plural) were about them: they were the son, who said to their father: “‘I will, sir’; but he did not”. Those sinners who did not say they would be obedient to begin with, have turned and obeyed, so they are pleasing to God even though they refused earlier on.

So, yes, I see God as being the spiritual meaning of the father, in the parable of the two sons the same as God is the father in the Prodigal son parable.

Then we disagree. There’s no context for it, but you’ve based so much of your theology on the prodigal son parable that you won’t see it any other way.

 

[bling]

Then we disagree. There’s no context for it, but you’ve based so much of your theology on the prodigal son parable that you won’t see it any other way.

Can you find in literature anyone else who feels the father in the prodigal son story is not represent God in its spiritual meaning?

 

[Hammster]

Can you find in literature anyone else who feels the father in the prodigal son story is not represent God in its spiritual meaning?

The issue is that the father, called a man in the parable, is a God-like figure in the parable. What he isn’t is God as revealed in His entirety. There are too many differences to make that work.

The purpose of the parable is to show that while God will receive with gladness those who repent, the Pharisees wouldn’t because they didn’t see the need to repent because they thought their righteous deeds were enough.

The parable where a man is a placeholder for God almost always show the wickedness of the self-righteous. And that’s the case here.

 

[bling]

The issue is that the father, called a man in the parable, is a God-like figure in the parable. What he isn’t is God as revealed in His entirety. There are too many differences to make that work.

The purpose of the parable is to show that while God will receive with gladness those who repent, the Pharisees wouldn’t because they didn’t see the need to repent because they thought their righteous deeds were enough.

The parable where a man is a placeholder for God almost always show the wickedness of the self-righteous. And that’s the case here.

Your getting closer with: “the father, called a man in the parable, is a God-like figure in the parable”.

This “man” is a father in the earthly parable story, not meant to be “God-like”, since he is not Christ who is “God like”, but a “father” which is describing how God (the Father) works to some degree and in some ways. Jesus can use any words He wants, but uses only the very best words, none of His words will mislead you into the wrong ideas about God, who the father is representing. The parable is not meant to be an earthly story paralleling everything about God or the father would literally have to be Spirit, but does tell us about some of God’s attributes, especially Love, His allowing humans to make their own free will choices, God’s patience, man’s part man plays in his salvation, and man’s selfish nature.

Did the father in the story do something that God would not do in a Spiritual world?

Are you finding anything misleading in the parable, that is not correctly representing the Kingdom, in a parallel Spiritual meaning?

 

[Hammster]

Your getting closer with: “the father, called a man in the parable, is a God-like figure in the parable”.

This “man” is a father in the earthly parable story, not meant to be “God-like”, since he is not Christ who is “God like”, but a “father” which is describing how God (the Father) works to some degree and in some ways. Jesus can use any words He wants, but uses only the very best words, none of His words will mislead you into the wrong ideas about God, who the father is representing. The parable is not meant to be an earthly story paralleling everything about God or the father would literally have to be Spirit, but does tell us about some of God’s attributes, especially Love, His allowing humans to make their own free will choices, God’s patience, man’s part man plays in his salvation, and man’s selfish nature.

Did the father in the story do something that God would not do in a Spiritual world?

Are you finding anything misleading in the parable, that is not correctly representing the Kingdom, in a parallel Spiritual meaning?

What brought this on was because the father is a God-like figure, you were ascribing all of God’s attributes to him, namely omnipotence and omniscience. So you had the father being as sovereign over the sons as God is over us. That is taking the parable way too far, such as “Any good wonderful intelligent father would know what his young rebellious unwise son would do with his inheritance.” That’s going too far.

 

[William Lefranc]

Are you saying that God doesn’t intervene in the affairs of men?

I'm saying that give men free will like in the story of Joseph. Of course, He does intervene in men's affairs, but He does not violate man's will to do what he wants. A criminal may do what he wants, but God stops him through the police and the judge, yet God did not forcibly intervene in making this person go a different direction.

 

[bling]

I'm saying that give men free will like in the story of Joseph. Of course, He does intervene in men's affairs, but He does not violate man's will to do what he wants. A criminal may do what he wants, but God stops him through the police and the judge, yet God did not forcibly intervene in making this person go a different direction.

You might just want to leave it with the thoughts of man, since God can and does intervene in the actions of man.

 

[bling]

What brought this on was because the father is a God-like figure, you were ascribing all of God’s attributes to him, namely omnipotence and omniscience. So you had the father being as sovereign over the sons as God is over us. That is taking the parable way too far, such as “Any good wonderful intelligent father would know what his young rebellious unwise son would do with his inheritance.” That’s going too far.

I am not suggesting the earthly father in the story is omniscient, but just as God allows us of our own free will to do bad stuff, the father in the story is allowing the young son to do bad stuff, he as a wonderful wise father would know he would do. I take that from my own experience and the experience of other fathers.

 

[Hammster]

I'm saying that give men free will like in the story of Joseph. Of course, He does intervene in men's affairs, but He does not violate man's will to do what he wants. A criminal may do what he wants, but God stops him through the police and the judge, yet God did not forcibly intervene in making this person go a different direction.

How do you know that? How do you know that the criminal wouldn’t have done worse things? Joseph’s brothers wanted to kill Him. How do you know God didn’t intervene so that he was only sold into slavery, and purchased by the right individual? After all, Joseph told them what they meant for evil, God meant for good.

 

[Hammster]

I am not suggesting the earthly father in the story is omniscient, but just as God allows us of our own free will to do bad stuff, the father in the story is allowing the young son to do bad stuff, he as a wonderful wise father would know he would do. I take that from my own experience and the experience of other fathers.

And you miss the point of the parable, which was to show the wickedness of the elder brother.

 

[RDKirk]

And you miss the point of the parable, which was to show the wickedness of the elder brother.

The main point of the parable is to show the goodness of the father. You're the one who missed the point.