Election

[Ragman]

In Lk. 15 Jesus tells the story of a Father with two sons. One son demands his inheritance, squanders it away on wild living, becomes destitute and eventually returns to his father. The other remains at home, fulfils his obligations yet does not rejoice with his father on his brother's return.

My question is, if one believes in the doctrine of election as some are elected for salvation and some are not, which son was of the elect or were they both or neither?

RM

 

[Gamecock]

In Lk. 15 Jesus tells the story of a Father with two sons. One son demands his inheritance, squanders it away on wild living, becomes destitute and eventually returns to his father. The other remains at home, fulfils his obligations yet does not rejoice with his father on his brother's return.

My question is, if one believes in the doctrine of election as some are elected for salvation and some are not, which son was of the elect or were they both or neither?

RM

Since he came back he was obviously elect!

That howerver, is not the point of this parable. Thei parable warns us against the sin of Hyper-Calvinism......

 

[Ragman]

Since he came back he was obviously elect!

That howerver, is not the point of this parable. Thei parable warns us against the sin of Hyper-Calvinism......

Was the older son "not" elect?

 

[Mounts]

In Lk. 15 Jesus tells the story of a Father with two sons. One son demands his inheritance, squanders it away on wild living, becomes destitute and eventually returns to his father. The other remains at home, fulfils his obligations yet does not rejoice with his father on his brother's return.

My question is, if one believes in the doctrine of election as some are elected for salvation and some are not, which son was of the elect or were they both or neither?

RM

This parable's point was to explain God's mercy and grace upon the worst sinner ever. You can't really discern the other son's condition with his father by this parable, since the parable isn't really about election.

His reactions showed that the Holy Spirit most likely wasn't dwelling in him. It was a very fleshly reaction. But, yes, the returning son most definitly was elect.

 

[Gamecock]

Was the older son "not" elect?

I would say he was, he never left his Fathers tent, he was just crabby.

 

[duster1az]

In Lk. 15 Jesus tells the story of a Father with two sons. One son demands his inheritance, squanders it away on wild living, becomes destitute and eventually returns to his father. The other remains at home, fulfils his obligations yet does not rejoice with his father on his brother's return.

My question is, if one believes in the doctrine of election as some are elected for salvation and some are not, which son was of the elect or were they both or neither?

RM

Both are sons. This couldn't apply to anyone who has never been a child of God, therefore, they are both elect.

But, it is my belief the point of this story is to reveal the heart of the father, not election. He had two sons, and one of them was typical of a "publican and sinner," and the other of a "Pharisee and scribe." One left the blessings of his father's house (but didn't cease to be a son); the other murmured, like the scribes and Pharasees, when the "sinner" was restored. The Lord is declaring, in the terms of His own time and people, that a wandering son may return by confession.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Ragman]

I would say he was, he never left his Fathers tent, he was just crabby.

What I find interesting about election and Calvanism is that on one hand a great deal is made of the grace of God and man's inability (depravity) but to decide if one is elect or not the entire deal is put on the back of the person to see if there are "evidences of election". As in this post the younger son is elect because "he came back" and the older son is elect because "he never left".

Where is the focus on the Father who calls them both son and hugs & kisses the one and entreats the other telling Him that all He has belongs to him.

 

[snerkel]

I would say he was, he never left his Fathers tent, he was just crabby.

One of the frozen chosen? Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Gamecock]

One of the frozen chosen? Sorry, couldn't resist.

HEY!

 

[BBAS 64]

Since he came back he was obviously elect!

That howerver, is not the point of this parable. Thei parable warns us against the sin of Hyper-Calvinism......

Good Day Gamecock,

What is hyper Calvinism?

Thank you

BBAS

 

[geebob]

Biblical Historian N T Wright has an interesting arguement about this parable. It's been awhile since I've read it so this might not be entirely accurate. The older brother and younger brother represent the Jews (Israel according to the flesh specifically) and Gentiles respectively. The older brother is not happy that God is gracious to the younger and is made jealous. Thus the older brother faults the father for letting this younger brother back in without having kept the law.

Following that logic, the older brother is the original elect, but as paul argues, those branches would be cut off.

again, it's been a while since I've read it so this may not be quite accurate.

 

[Dan1824]

What is hyper Calvinism?

From "A Critique of Hyper-Calvinism" by C. Matthew McMahon:

apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm........

In summary, a Hyper-Calvinist would be one who holds any of the following points due to their logical extensions. (Those points with asterisks are those who are slowly leading themselves into Hyper-Calvinism.)



1.*That God elect or damns without considering men as fallen creatures.

2.That the mind of man, due to the fall, is utterly destroyed.

3. That fallen men have no duty to believe in the Gospel by faith.

4. That men must have a subjective theological knowledge of regeneration before they can believe the Gospel.

5. That the Gospel should not be universally tendered or offered to all men, everywhere.

6. That the Gospel should not be offered to men except they are regenerate.

7. That God does not have a general love for all men in His indiscriminate providence.

8. That Limited Atonement must be believed in order to hear the Gospel, and be saved and converted.

9. *That God cannot desire things He has not decreed, or decree things He has not desired.

full article:
..........apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm........

 

[Mark the Builder]

Just wondering, was the younger son elect before he came back or after? You say that because he came back he was obviously elect. If the younger son would have died while in his state of rebellion would he still have been received by the Father as a son - spiritually speaking? I suppose the arguement I will hear will be that if the younger son was elect then there's no way he could have died without an opportunity to repent? Or would it even matter?

Also, doesn't the older son sound a lot like the Pharisees? He's self-righteous, prejudice, and indifferent toward his repenting brother? How then can he be elect? Simply because he bares the same name as his Father?

Just wondering.

mark

 

[Dan1824]

Just wondering, was the younger son elect before he came back or after?

He was and is elect from all eternity (Eph 1:4).

You say that because he came back he was obviously elect. If the younger son would have died while in his state of rebellion would he still have been received by the Father as a son - spiritually speaking?

God not only has eternally ordained who shall be saved, but also has eternally ordained the means to bring all those whom He has chosen to final salvation.

These means (aka, the means of grace) that God has chosen to use to bring His chosen to Himself are absolutely certain. It is both absolutely certain that all whom the Father gave to the Son shall come (John 6:37), and that all those who come shall persevere unto complete salvation of both soul and body(Philip 1:6).

Hence, not only was the younger son elected from all eternity, but also the means by which God would draw him to Himself were also eternally ordained of God.

I suppose the arguement I will hear will be that if the younger son was elect then there's no way he could have died without an opportunity to repent? Or would it even matter?

If the younger son be elect, then he must be drawn to God by the ordained means.

I cannot put it any better than do both the Westminster and the London Confession:

Chapter III:6 -

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

 

[Mark the Builder]

I agree. But how about the older brother?????

Mark

 

[Dan1824]

Biblical Historian N T Wright has an interesting arguement about this parable. It's been awhile since I've read it so this might not be entirely accurate. The older brother and younger brother represent the Jews (Israel according to the flesh specifically) and Gentiles respectively. The older brother is not happy that God is gracious to the younger and is made jealous. Thus the older brother faults the father for letting this younger brother back in without having kept the law.

Following that logic, the older brother is the original elect, but as paul argues, those branches would be cut off.

again, it's been a while since I've read it so this may not be quite accurate.

Just for the record, N.T. Wright holds the doctrines which have come to be refered to as "The New Perspective on Paul". Wright denies the historically orthodox definitions and doctrines of "justification by faith" and "the imputation of Christ's righteousness." He has redefined justification to be an eschatalogical term, the reward for "covenant faithfulness".

Hence, if he has said that the older brother, "the original elect" has been "cut off", then I would not be surprised.

By the way, the PCA has an excellent article describing the views of Wright concerning justification and the New Perspective, which can be found at...

christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0%2C%2CPTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1538370%2C00.html

 

[Dan1824]

I agree. But how about the older brother?????

I cannot, nor will I speculate as to whether the older brother in the parable is to be viewed as elect or not.

 

[Mark the Builder]

I cannot, nor will I speculate as to whether the older brother in the parable is to be viewed as elect or not.

I don't want to make this thing walk on all fours but I really don't think the older brother issue is that big. He typifies the attitude of the religious hypocrite who will not recognize his own sin but will go completely overboard on the sins of others.

His strength was his pride -- "I never transgressed your commandment at any time." That's highly unlikely. His very comment shows contempt for his father for not participating in his father's great joy.

"You never gave me a young goat." It's plain that his service was motivated by what he could get out of it.

"This son of yours." He couldn't even refer to his sibling as 'brother.'

"All that I have is yours." Just like the Pharisees who had easy acess to God and truth and yet somehow, they totally missed it.

So even though this parable is not meant to teach election, one cannot escape the fact that you can live in the Father's house and yet still not know the Father.

mark

 

[michael servetus]

Just wondering, was the younger son elect before he came back or after? You say that because he came back he was obviously elect. If the younger son would have died while in his state of rebellion would he still have been received by the Father as a son - spiritually speaking? I suppose the arguement I will hear will be that if the younger son was elect then there's no way he could have died without an opportunity to repent? Or would it even matter?

Also, doesn't the older son sound a lot like the Pharisees? He's self-righteous, prejudice, and indifferent toward his repenting brother? How then can he be elect? Simply because he bares the same name as his Father?

Just wondering.

mark

He was elect from the foundation of time! Ephesians 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

God decides who dies when, right? So he wouldn't allow someone to die if they are wandering.

Now, why are they wandering? Becuase God will use it for His own glory! I know this guy who lived in the woods for years because he was hooked on drugs. God restored him and he is now a preacher!

Cool!

 

[Chappie]

My understanding of the parable is that whither one is saved or not is not the primary issue. How can we attempt to assign salvation to one or the other, or both based on only the information given in the parable.

From my understanding, the father in the parable represents God, The father. The sons represent you and I. The focus being on the goodness and love of God in recieving us back as his sheep even after we stray, if we return with a penentent heart. The older brother suggest that when God is willing to recieve one that strays back with joy, we should be willing also.

God judges the heart. No way that we can assign elect or non elect to either of the brothers. God does not judge as a man judges...

We brought election from someplace else, and applied it even before we allowed the parable to speak to us...