Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, they are.Are these verses in your Bible?
The father put a robe on his returning son and a ring on his finger. Sounds like complete restoration. Not in the kingdom? Lost inheritance?How is universalism compatible with exclusivistic texts like these?
"Don't you know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor., 6:9)?"
"Those who do such things [a list of sins] shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21)."
In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 1619-31), the younger son demands his inheritance right now and then squanders it all in "riotous living."
The fact that the father joyfully welcomes him back does not mean his inheritance is restored, and so, the father reassures his bitter elder son: "All that is mine is yours." In other words, it is possible to be restored to the Father's house and be saved even though one has not, properly speaking, inherited the kingdom of God.
Which of those verses "abrogated" the Biblical concept of 'torment' that you denied and the verses which I posted affirmed?Yes, they are.
Are these verses in your Bible?
Do your verses nullify my verses?
Does Bible versus Bible really get us anywhere?
Restoration of the "sonship" but not of the squandered inheritance. The story is silent on the Father giving the younger son a third of all he NOW owns (a second inheritance), but the father does tell the older son that "all I have is yours" (not 2/3 of all I have is yours because your brother gets another portion as a second inheritance).The father put a robe on his returning son and a ring on his finger. Sounds like complete restoration. Not in the kingdom? Lost inheritance?
We seem to be at an impasse.Which of those verses "abrogated" the Biblical concept of 'torment' that you denied and the verses which I posted affirmed?
It is YOU who are claiming Bible versus Bible nullifies what was printed ... the Bible verses described torment and YOU claimed "no torment".
Why do you assume that God's inheritance is limited?Restoration of the "sonship" but not of the squandered inheritance.
I assume nothing about GOD's inheritance. It was @Berserk that applied it to UA and God.Why do you assume that God's inheritance is limited?
Pardon my ignorance... what is UA?I assume nothing about GOD's inheritance. It was @Berserk that applied it to UA and God.
Why wouldn't sonship come with all the inheritance rights. I think that should be a given.I was simply speaking of the inheritance described in the actual STORY (parable) of the Prodigal Son. I could post it and we could both NOT READ where the father gives the son a second inheritance or denies that EVERYTHING belongs to the "non-prodigal" son. I was pointing out the eisegesis in assuming the father gives a second inheritance when the verses say no such thing. The "ring" and "cloak" could simply symbolize restoration of "sonship" when the prodigal came seeking to live as a hired servant (which the words of the father affirm).
That's a support for UR. - IMHOFor Biblical support of the concept, what do you make of: 1 Corinthians 3:15
What was devoured, according to the older son? Inheritance, or something else?Luke 15:11-32 [NKJV]Then He said: “A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me.’ So he divided to them his livelihood. And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything.“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’“And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’“But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.“Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’“But he was angry and would not go in. Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him. So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’“And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”
Sorry, I thought that was the standard abbreviation for Universal Atonement (isn't that what "Universalism" - as in this topic - us all about)?Pardon my ignorance... what is UA?
I will not speak to this as an ETERNAL INHERITANCE matter (I am unqualified to decide what God gives to whom), however, I will adress it from a Jewish Historical perspective:Why wouldn't sonship come with all the inheritance rights. I think that should be a given.
Are you taking sides with the older son?
The second letter is usually always an R. Universal Restoration, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Redemption... UR.Sorry, I thought that was the standard abbreviation for Universal Atonement (isn't that what "Universalism" - as in this topic - us all about)?
I am more of an Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), 5-point Calvinist, Credo-Baptist ... Biblical Literalist ... so this topic is a bit out of my usual wheelhouse.
The son asked to be recieved like the hired servants. From that perspective the robe and ring had great significance.However, squandering his wealth, only cost the younger son his wealth. It NEVER cost him the love of his father or his innate "sonship". He was always a son, so he was always welcome "home".
Particular Baptist for short.The second letter is usually always an R. Universal Restoration, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Redemption... UR.
So, you're a ECT TULIP CredoBapt Biblit? - LOL
The parable allows no 2nd inheritance for the Prodigal Son. The father won't cut into his elder son's prior inheritance to placate his younger son; so the elder son gets what he was always promised before his younger brother's demand: "All that I have is yours." In other words, it is possible to be celebrated by our heavenly Father (hence, the fatted calf, the new ring, the party), despite forfeiting inheritance of the kingdom of God and precisely that point makes this parable relevant to universalism.Restoration of the "sonship" but not of the squandered inheritance. The story is silent on the Father giving the younger son a third of all he NOW owns (a second inheritance), but the father does tell the older son that "all I have is yours" (not 2/3 of all I have is yours because your brother gets another portion as a second inheritance).
That's a good one. - LOLJoke: Who was most disappointed when the prodigal son returned?
Anwer: The fatted calf!
I though more of this:The parable allows no 2nd inheritance for the Prodigal Son. The father won't cut into his elder son's prior inheritance to placate his younger son; so the elder son gets what he was always promised before his younger brother's demand: "All that I have is yours." In other words, it is possible to be celebrated by our heavenly Father (hence, the fatted calf, the new ring, the party), despite forfeiting inheritance of the kingdom of God and precisely that point makes this parable relevant to universalism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?