The lie of eternal security refuted once and for all.

[PapaZoom]

I give you that. Lie is a harsh word and I don't often use it. It is also inflammatory around here and I apologize to anyone who may have been upset that read that. I am editing that now.

You're not the only one. I probably have used that term myself. BTW, even the OP is wrong. Those that hold to eternal security of the saints cannot be lying unless they know it isn't true but they say it is anyway.

 

[brotherjerry]

Simply God extends his kindness to the dead son. God causes all people to be able to live breath and have their being. And provides for the sparrow, the green grass, the flowers in the fields, all creation, that includes people. God cause the sun to shine on all and the rain, God is good to all yet all do not return His kindness.

The parable shows the dead son squanders what God gives him. So too all lost people waste the life, the good things God gives them.

But Downey you have not answered some of the key questions. Something specific in the parable is the inheritance. If the youngest son was just given life to breath and enjoy God's creation but was still unsaved, and then went out and squandered what he was given...What verse in the Bible backs up that our inheritance is to enjoy what God created from the time we are born? Also in your example what role does the oldest son play that did not go out and squander being "able to live breath and have their being"?

 

[PapaZoom]

The story of the Prodigal Son is my favorite story from the Bible. For those interested, I recommend this book. I love Keller's writings (he has a podcast too). http://www.timothykeller.com/books/the-prodigal-god

Blessings all.

 

[LaSorcia]

My question is this: if God would make an everlasting covenant with the Hebrew people under the law, why wouldn't he make an everlasting covenant with those who are Christian believers?

 

[MennoSota]

My question is this: if God would make an everlasting covenant with the Hebrew people under the law, why wouldn't he make an everlasting covenant with those who are Christian believers?

The Mosaic Covenant is not everlasting, but temporal, which is why God introduces the New Covenant via Jeremiah and Ezekiel and then establishes the New Covenant through Jesus atonement.

 

[sdowney717]

But Downey you have not answered some of the key questions. Something specific in the parable is the inheritance. If the youngest son was just given life to breath and enjoy God's creation but was still unsaved, and then went out and squandered what he was given...What verse in the Bible backs up that our inheritance is to enjoy what God created from the time we are born? Also in your example what role does the oldest son play that did not go out and squander being "able to live breath and have their being"?

A parable is a story told to hide a deeper spiritual understanding. The words don't have to exactly match up to hard doctrine.
And if Christ did not give the interpretation as He did with others, then neither you or I can with absolute unqualified certainty say exactly what it means. I can however share with others what I think it means. And of course compare that with other scriptures, since there will not be any conflict if your have a basic truth of what the parable says inline with them.

 

[LaSorcia]

I don't conceive of it as an old and new covenant. I see Jesus as the fulfillment of the covenant. A covenant, by definition will not be broken by God. Even if we break our side.

Yeah, it might be temporal, but as long as there are Jews, the covenant exists.

 

[brotherjerry]

A parable is a story told to hide a deeper spiritual understanding. The words don't have to exactly match up to hard doctrine.
And if Christ did not give the interpretation as He did with others, then neither you or I can with absolute unqualified certainty say exactly what it means. I can however share with others what I think it means. And of course compare that with other scriptures, since there will not be any conflict if your have a basic truth of what the parable says inline with them.

Oh I completely agree with that. Funny though that on one hand people say "lost and found" indicates salvation, but then you say that words don't have to exactly match up....

What is true however is that even if words do not match up, concepts do. And all the "players" in the parable (coins, sheep, people, etc) represent something. So if the younger brother is supposed to be a picture of a lost person who is then found, what picture is the older brother supposed to be? The older brother is a important reason why I do not hold this parable to equate to salvation. Also the fact that we have the younger brother going through 3 different states: Safe, part of the family, has inheritance / in the wild, with the pigs, squanders inheritance / returns to family, part of the family, safe. There are different terms that could be used but that does indicate the different states. But the older brother remains in the first state and never changes.

 

[sdowney717]

I don't conceive of it as an old and new covenant. I see Jesus as the fulfillment of the covenant. A covenant, by definition will not be broken by God. Even if we break our side.

Yeah, it might be temporal, but as long as there are Jews, the covenant exists.

A covenant is done away with when a newer one is put in force.
For example
Hebrews 8
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

A covenant is simply codifying the relationship say between multiple parties. The New covenant implies it is new and different than the old.
The new covenant was written with the blood of Christ, established by God superseding the old obsolete covenant. No longer the blood of animals or sacrifices have any more importance. The new covenant says God has written His laws into their heart and put His laws into their minds so that He will be their God and they will be His people. The new one is setup on much better promises, the big one is eternal life for the believer within whom God has written His laws and put them into their minds, so that they believe in Christ.
The Jews no longer have a viable covenant as a way to get to God. God has no longer any regard for animal sacrifices to be made right with Him.

 

[sdowney717]

Oh I completely agree with that. Funny though that on one hand people say "lost and found" indicates salvation, but then you say that words don't have to exactly match up....

What is true however is that even if words do not match up, concepts do. And all the "players" in the parable (coins, sheep, people, etc) represent something. So if the younger brother is supposed to be a picture of a lost person who is then found, what picture is the older brother supposed to be? The older brother is a important reason why I do not hold this parable to equate to salvation. Also the fact that we have the younger brother going through 3 different states: Safe, part of the family, has inheritance / in the wild, with the pigs, squanders inheritance / returns to family, part of the family, safe. There are different terms that could be used but that does indicate the different states. But the older brother remains in the first state and never changes.

The older brother is not the main part of the story, plays a minor role.
The main theme is centered on the lost son of the father and the father and how the lost son is brought back to the father. Lost here means 'lost' to God, but the lost ones will be found. Anyone who is lost, is dead in sins.
The Lost sheep, are sheep who are not abiding in Christ, so dead, but they will be found. Read about what Christ says about 'the sheep'.

Adding in a verse from 1 Peter about the 'lost sheep'
1 Peter 2:25
For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Lost sheep return to the master, since they are drawn to Christ. They just can't help themselves.

 

[LaSorcia]

A covenant is done away with when a newer one is put in force.
For example
Hebrews 8
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

A covenant is simply codifying the relationship say between multiple parties. The New covenant implies it is new and different than the old.
The new covenant was written with the blood of Christ, established by God superseding the old obsolete covenant. No longer the blood of animals or sacrifices have any more importance. The new covenant says God has written His laws into their heart and put His laws into their minds so that He will be their God and they will be His people. The new one is setup on much better promises, the big one is eternal life for the believer.
The Jews no longer have a viable covenant as a way to get to God. God has no longer any regard for animal sacrifices to be made right with Him.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[sdowney717]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why?

 

[sdowney717]

'The sheep' described here by Peter,
1 Peter 2:25
For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

are those of the chapter 1 Peter 2 of whom Peter writes have obtained mercy from God to believe and be saved.

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Sheep belong to a shepherd, they return to the shepherd since the shepherd calls his sheep and knows them by name.
Sheep going astray are those people who were unsaved, but were those whom God foreknew whom He predestined individually to be justified by faith and glorified.
So it is with the lost son of the father in the parable. He was a lost sheep gone astray who then eventually has returned to the shepherd.

 

[brotherjerry]

The older brother is not the main part of the story, plays a minor role.
The main theme is centered on the lost son of the father and the father and how the lost son is brought back to the father. Lost here means 'lost' to God, but the lost ones will be found. Anyone who is lost, is dead in sins.
The Lost sheep, are sheep who are not abiding in Christ, so dead, but they will be found. Read about what Christ says about 'the sheep'.

Minor role or not, he is still a role in the parable and thus important to the message that is being presented. His role is even more prominent then the 99 sheep that were not lost, and they played a role is showing proportions...no matter how many are saved, Christ will still seek the one who is lost...could have been 1000 sheep and the story would have remained the same. But here we specifically have two brothers, Both share in the same inheritance but one goes out while the other stays. This is not really minor, it is not like we do not hear from the older brother, we have interaction with him. So it is important and has to be considered when using the younger brother as a picture for something.

disregarding him as unimportant because he is a minor character is like ignoring portions of the Bible because you don't agree with them...dangerous waters to float in there.

 

[sdowney717]

Minor role or not, he is still a role in the parable and thus important to the message that is being presented. His role is even more prominent then the 99 sheep that were not lost, and they played a role is showing proportions...no matter how many are saved, Christ will still seek the one who is lost...could have been 1000 sheep and the story would have remained the same. But here we specifically have two brothers, Both share in the same inheritance but one goes out while the other stays. This is not really minor, it is not like we do not hear from the older brother, we have interaction with him. So it is important and has to be considered when using the younger brother as a picture for something.

disregarding him as unimportant because he is a minor character is like ignoring portions of the Bible because you don't agree with them...dangerous waters to float in there.

You're trying to say this parable is not about salvation. But what convinces me it must be, is the younger son, the father says is dead.

The elder son thinks the father owes him for working in the field and doing the right things all the long years. He thinks rewards from the father are owed him for his meritorious behavior. However the loving response of the father to the lost son shows salvation is not a reward for doing good works, it is entirely God's gracious free gift.

 

[brotherjerry]

I can understand that...however the oldest son still receives inheritance, is still rewarded for being faithful to the father. "All that I have is yours" is what the father tells the oldest. The oldest also gets to partake of the celebration for the youngest, not as a slave but as a family member.

See this is why I cannot simply say it is about salvation, because to say that is to hang your belief on just one phrase when there are many other things going on in these verses.

 

[sdowney717]

I can understand that...however the oldest son still receives inheritance, is still rewarded for being faithful to the father. "All that I have is yours" is what the father tells the oldest. The oldest also gets to partake of the celebration for the youngest, not as a slave but as a family member.

See this is why I cannot simply say it is about salvation, because to say that is to hang your belief on just one phrase when there are many other things going on in these verses.

The elder son shows jealousy for the father to show kindness to the lost son. I suppose he thinks it is not fair, but the fairness is determined by what the father decides to do alone outside of any input from the sons. And that choice is to be forgiving, merciful, and show loving kindness. Nowhere does either son experience wrath or anger. Both sons are in the family of the father, one was lost and dead and now is found, alive and safe. The other son, the story does not explore his own redemptive story, but it does not need to do this, as we see the emphasis on the redeeming love of God working it's way in the life of this dead son. The elder son's story shows he was focused not on the father, but on what he had done for the father. That is not a good place to be thinking about oneself.

So you have two stories potentially here, one about salvation of the dead son, and one about the living son who is unforgiving and proud and feels like God owes him something.
The truth is God owes us nothing, He chooses to be merciful to our ungratefulness. We owe God everything. Everything which we have, we have because God chose to give it to us. That is entirely grace and not of works. The elder son worked so hard for the father but felt slighted. But is it not in the father's right to do what HE wills with what belongs to Him?

 

[brotherjerry]

But again...the older son does not have a redemptive story because he has no redemption to be had. He never left the father. So how do you contrast one to the other when it is to consider salvation? If the story is about salvation, then what represents salvation?
And you are right that God "owes" us nothing, but in this story we are talking about inheritance and while we can say it is not "owed" the father here clearly says that everything he has belongs to the oldest son. So again how does that work into the idea of salvation for this parable?

 

[sdowney717]

But again...the older son does not have a redemptive story because he has no redemption to be had. He never left the father. So how do you contrast one to the other when it is to consider salvation? If the story is about salvation, then what represents salvation?
And you are right that God "owes" us nothing, but in this story we are talking about inheritance and while we can say it is not "owed" the father here clearly says that everything he has belongs to the oldest son. So again how does that work into the idea of salvation for this parable?

I already said what I think this parable means and my understanding of the elder son I already told you.
However you keep rejecting that the guy was dead. If your dead to the father then your not a saved person.

Dead as in dead not alive. You go teaching the guy was not dead, and people ought to notice it says dead in the text. whether they will, I don't know. I have heard plenty of odd and weird sermons over the years, and people never seem to object at least publicly.

 

[LaSorcia]

Why?

'Cause I disagree lol.