Which do not mean that God is not the Father of all men, as Scripture clearly and plainly states. This is the problem with "Scripture plainly states", because "Scripture plainly states" a lot of things according to a lot of people, so don't bring it in here. If it were so plain, then there would be unanimous agreement on the statement.
But it
does plainly state exactly what you say it doesn't. Our
spiritual adoption into God's family is by only one Way, the Person of Jesus Christ, our Saviour. If God is the Father of all men, it is not in a spiritual sense but only in a material one as Creator. And as the Bible makes very clear, those outside of God's spiritual family are headed for an eternity of punishment in Hell. Their being "fathered" by God, their being made by Him, does not confer upon them the familial relationship to God that only faith in Christ can obtain.
The existence of a variety of interpretations does not preclude the existence of a single, right interpretation. Not all interpretations are equal - which is why we are going back and forth in this thread. We think the other guy's views are off and we think our view isn't. I am not of the view that the Bible is entirely obscure and supports any and every interpretation people might want to give it. So, I will bring in the "Scripture plainly states" whenever I think it appropriate to do so.
The inheritance was just a financial benefit. It's no different, in practice, than the father giving the same amount of money to someone in charity. It isn't the true benefit of being in the family.
I'm sorry, but this is just an
ad hoc qualification made to strengthen your point. And this is why you're guilty of the NTS fallacy. You've arbitrarily made this distinction between benefits. Nothing but your own thinking supports what you're asserting about the Prodigal's inheritance. You will certainly find nothing in the parable itself to establish your ideas about what is a true benefit and what is not. And this ad hoc-ness is an integral part of how the NTS fallacy works.
But there are obviously benefits that he could never claim that are part of being in the family.
Certainly. But making them "true" benefits over and against the inheritance the Prodigal received is classic NTS arguing.
The parable doesn't say that he didn't leap over tall buildings, either. Shall we leave that in the realm of possibility simply because the narrative doesn't leave it out?
This would be a speculation that is much farther removed from the content of the parable than you're own, which, I think, makes it more obviously irrelevant. Your speculation sounds much more likely because it attempts to speak very directly to the content of the parable - but it is still, in the end, just speculation - which I think it is important to remember.
How does God artificially inflate the severity of our sins? Pretty simple to demonstrate:
1. Our sins are the finite actions of finite beings that naturally have finite consequences.
2. God takes our finite actions and transforms them into infinite consequences.
Do I need to tell you the logical conclusion here? If God did not put Himself into the equation, as any JUST being would avoid doing, then our punishment for our sins would be finite. Finite punishment for finite actions. Of themselves, our sins are finite.
This merely repeats what you've already explained and ignores the response I made to your explanation.
God is the Center of Everything. He is the Maker and Sustainer of All. Every single bit of the universe relies entirely upon God for its existence. God, then, does not "put Himself into the equation"; He is the Source and fundamental Ground of Reality and is, therefore, integrally and
necessarily involved in every part it. Your conclusion, therefore, is as flawed as your premises. There is no equation at all without God. And this is why we cannot avoid involving God in our moral or immoral choices and their consequences.
Good to know that God is finite, then. So now you're telling me that a FINITE being can somehow do something against my infinite sin. This is just getting worse, now.
As the Bible clearly states, there are some things, given His nature, that He cannot do:
Titus 1:1-2
1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness,
2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began...
2 Timothy 2:13
13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.
James 1:13
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
If you stop to think about it, there are some very evident, necessary things that make God, God - things that
must be in order for God to be who He is. God must be perfect in all His virtues, and abilities, and knowledge. If there is anything God does not know, He is not God. By definition, God must know all. This means God cannot be deceived, or mistaken about anything. If God makes a mistake, if He is ever deceived, He cannot be God. And so on. There are many things that must be true about God in order for Him to be God. And all of these things not only define God but constrain Him, too. God cannot do what is evil. God cannot have a beginning or an end. God cannot be weaker than anything, etc., etc.
That's not a constructive purpose. There isn't a single good thing that comes out of God torturing people.
This does not really address my point but dismisses it out-of-hand. Dismissal avoids reasoning.
So let's get this right. God set an arbitrary rule, just so that He would have someone to torture. And this is a loving God? You do know that the rules you're saying limit God were set by God Himself, right?
Come on, now, this is classic Strawman arguing. I'm sure you know this. God did not "set an arbitrary rule." His rules are never arbitrary. All of them express His perfect holy, just, truthful, loving and faithful nature.
And Hell was never intended for humans but was made originally for the devil and his "angels." Our sin, however, requires the just response of the holy Judge of All against whom we have ultimately sinned. And our sin is so awful only eternal Hell is the appropriate response to it.
God is only limited by His own nature, not by a set of rules. Many of the rules that apply to us do not apply to Him. We are not God. He is not us.
It's all that matters in reality. It's illustrated in how Protestants will ask "do you know if you died today if you would go to heaven?"
I'm afraid you don't get to speak for all Protestants in this matter. I have been in the Baptist denomination since birth and know very well what is and isn't true of their understanding of salvation.
That's the thing, I had already accepted Him into my heart. He is ALWAYS revealing Himself to us. Scripture even says this multiple times. The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork.
But Scripture also tells us that the unrepentant wicked are blind to that revelation:
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
1 John 2:11
11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
It takes the illuminating and convicting work of God to lift us from the darkness and give sight to our eyes that we might truly see Him.
So the only logical conclusion is that we are unable to see what He is revealing.
Yes, exactly.
Since Scripture never says that God causes the pain of hell, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that God Himself is actively torturing people, not the other way around.
I'm not sure what you mean by "actively torturing." Are you thinking that God is going about in Hell poking the damned with a pointy stick or some such thing? I don't think anything like that. But He has made Hell and casts the unrepentant wicked into it. Beyond that, I don't think God has any direct, active involvement.
Interpreting the pain of hell as the natural consequences of not being able to experience God's love for what it is is a lot older than the newbie concept of pure penal law that didn't really take hold until more than a millennia after Christ.
Well, I don't know about that. I've listened to Bible scholars draw a line from the present to the earliest Church times along which the doctrine of penal suffering was believed and taught. Besides, an old belief is not necessarily a right belief. I can think of a great many old beliefs that were totally wrong.
You know the saying, "You don't know what you've got 'til its gone"? I think that will be the experience of those in Hell. It won't be until they are there that they will understand what it means to be truly separated from God. And they won't like it one bit. But this is just one facet of the torment of Hell. I think part of it will also come by way of the damned understanding the full scope of their own depravity and realizing the hopelessness of atoning for their sin. And then, there will be the eternal fire and darkness and the utter loneliness of Hell. Truly our sin is far, far worse than we realize.
Selah.
