The Prodigal Son

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformedguy said:
Again, you presume free will. It's your assertion and the burden of proof lies with you.

He does not have to order him, He can simply move his heart to do so.
Click to expand...

He also ignores the previous two parables in the same chapter, where neither the lost coin nor the lost sheep had "free will" to be found.
 
Reformedguy said:
Again, you presume free will. It's your assertion and the burden of proof lies with you.

He does not have to order him, He can simply move his heart to do so.
Click to expand...
So you actually believe Jesus would have us believe that the Father MOVED upon the heart of the Son to LEAVE his home where EVERY emotion created by the hearers of this parable goes THIS direction, that the Father was broken hearted when the Son left? It staggers the mind to consider you believe Jesus would do this to the human mind...take them one direction with their thoughts and emotions feeling the grief of the Father when his Son was gone and you without any scriptural justification you put it in reverse and say it really means the opposite? You should consider the danger of doing this....Jesus (God) preached to get across to the minds of humanity the loving gracious character of God is like this Father to get across to them GOD WANTS TO RECEIVE THEM. Your doctrine does the EXACT OPPOSITE! Calvinism puts forth God is NOT willing to receive all sinners making then doubt he'll receive them. As for me I'd back off from suggesting such a thing immediately.
 
Reformedguy said:
Again, you presume free will. It's your assertion and the burden of proof lies with you.

He does not have to order him, He can simply move his heart to do so.
Click to expand...
I'm satisfied that to at least some readers they would consider that the burden of proof doesn't lie with me but with you. It is you who acknowledge the Prodigal son story implied freedom of will. You said this, "...the prodigal son didn't mean exactly what it implied." It's a hefty thing to suggest Jesus didn't mean what he said especially when he's talking about the character of God in order to reach people. Sorry but consider your doctrine hinders that. I'd weigh what you're saying carefully.
 
Rockson said:
I'm satisfied that to at least some readers they would consider that the burden of proof doesn't lie with me but with you. It is you who acknowledge the Prodigal son story implied freedom of will. You said this, "...the prodigal son didn't mean exactly what it implied." It's a hefty thing to suggest Jesus didn't mean what he said especially when he's talking about the character of God in order to reach people. Sorry but consider your doctrine hinders that. I'd weigh what you're saying carefully.
Click to expand...
as we know there is no proof from his side hence there has been none provided.
 
Rockson said:
I'm satisfied that to at least some readers they would consider that the burden of proof doesn't lie with me but with you. It is you who acknowledge the Prodigal son story implied freedom of will. You said this, "...the prodigal son didn't mean exactly what it implied." It's a hefty thing to suggest Jesus didn't mean what he said especially when he's talking about the character of God in order to reach people. Sorry but consider your doctrine hinders that. I'd weigh what you're saying carefully.
Click to expand...
Your wrong. You claimed free will. Not I. You simply cannot prove your premise so are attempting to shift the burden of proof. You are in the affirmative and the burden lies with you. You may begin.

Lying is unbecoming and sinful. I NEVER said " the prodigal son didn't mean exactly what it implied." Ease provide the post # or retract.
 
Rockson said:
So you actually believe Jesus would have us believe that the Father MOVED upon the heart of the Son to LEAVE his home where EVERY emotion created by the hearers of this parable goes THIS direction, that the Father was broken hearted when the Son left? It staggers the mind to consider you believe Jesus would do this to the human mind...take them one direction with their thoughts and emotions feeling the grief of the Father when his Son was gone and you without any scriptural justification you put it in reverse and say it really means the opposite? You should consider the danger of doing this....Jesus (God) preached to get across to the minds of humanity the loving gracious character of God is like this Father to get across to them GOD WANTS TO RECEIVE THEM. Your doctrine does the EXACT OPPOSITE! Calvinism puts forth God is NOT willing to receive all sinners making then doubt he'll receive them. As for me I'd back off from suggesting such a thing immediately.
Click to expand...
None of this proves free will. It's called a distraction. A poor one but a distraction none the less.

I would also remind you it is God who moves the heart to do whatever He has purposed to occur. If God wants you to recieve Him you will. Nothing can thwart His hand. Not even your free will.
 
Last edited:
Rockson said:
So you actually believe Jesus would have us believe that the Father MOVED upon the heart of the Son to LEAVE his home where EVERY emotion created by the hearers of this parable goes THIS direction, that the Father was broken hearted when the Son left? It staggers the mind to consider you believe Jesus would do this to the human mind...take them one direction with their thoughts and emotions feeling the grief of the Father when his Son was gone and you without any scriptural justification you put it in reverse and say it really means the opposite? You should consider the danger of doing this....Jesus (God) preached to get across to the minds of humanity the loving gracious character of God is like this Father to get across to them GOD WANTS TO RECEIVE THEM. Your doctrine does the EXACT OPPOSITE! Calvinism puts forth God is NOT willing to receive all sinners making then doubt he'll receive them. As for me I'd back off from suggesting such a thing immediately.
Click to expand...
Well said brother !
 
Rockson said:
And I'm satisfied to believe others readers might conclude I made my point well. And others might not view your position valid on this matter.
Click to expand...
Well of course the oppositions view is invalid, the scriptures make that evident as does Jesus teaching in the OP.
 
Rockson said:
And I'm satisfied to believe others readers might conclude I made my point well. And others might not view your position valid on this matter.
Click to expand...
I have not stated my position on this matter. I am questioning your position which contains the presumption of "free will". A presumption you are unwilling to substantiate. You assume it so we all should. That's not how it works.

Thanks for the discussion
 
Chalcedon said:
Taking Luke 15:-25 - 32
25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”

Now notice that the Son was the following :

A ) he was dead
B ) he was lost

So we have a dead son who was lost and on his own realized that he was better off as a slave back at his Fathers house. So as one who is dead he realized his lost state and was able to make his own decision to repent and return to his Fathers house and become a servant. This is the opposite of what Calvinists teach.

We know that Salvation is of the Lord . We know that the Father was not obligated to forgive and restore the son. The son recognized his sin and repented of it and his Father forgave and restored him. The son humbled himself, God didn't, the son repented, God didn't do that for him by granting it to him, the dead son retuned home, the Father did not call him home. The Father restored the son after the son repented . Calvinists conflate Gods salvation( Savior ) and mans responsibility to humble themselves and repent of their sin.

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
Interesting, the prodigal son, the younger, was entitled to a part of the property, that is, a part of the terrestrial globe, but it was a very far land, by allegory, in the Gentilic regions of the earth, and he felt so entitled and thought the world would revolve around him, and JESUS revealed that the younger son anticipated his possession of the property by asking the part of his inheritance, actually a very far land from the familiar origin.

By taking possession of the faraway land the youngest son, instead of managing the property within the heavenly rigor of the Father's life, he simply became involved with the devilish social structures, and sinful customs of that so far away land that rightfully belonged to him, and the excelent goods that Father had given it to him he lost, evaporated, had been completely dissipated.

Speaking of legitimate sons and not adopted sons, the question is:
Who were the two sons, that is, the two brothers, of whom Jesus was speaking?
Who was/is the older brother?
Who was/is the younger brother?
 
Reformedguy said:
I have not stated my position on this matter. I am questioning your position which contains the presumption of "free will". A presumption you are unwilling to substantiate. You assume it so we all should. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...
And I'd say to you and I'd sincerely hope that you'd understand this. I don't need to substantiate it.

It'd be as silly as asking me to substantiate 1+ 1 = 2 !

Why should I be asked to substantiate something so clear and self-evident that Jesus put forth? The Lord in Lk 15 was NOT talking in mysteries and even you stated prior, "... the prodigal son didn't mean what it implied." You knew EXACTLY what Jesus implied and not just you but all Calvinists should have stayed with that.
Reformedguy said:
Thanks for the discussion
Click to expand...
Of course. You're welcome.
 
Chalcedon said:
Well of course the oppositions view is invalid, the scriptures make that evident as does Jesus teaching in the OP.
Click to expand...

Rockson said:
And I'd say to you and I'd sincerely hope that you'd understand this. I don't need to substantiate it.

It'd be as silly as asking me to substantiate 1+ 1 = 2 !

Why should I be asked to substantiate something so clear and self-evident that Jesus put forth? The Lord in Lk 15 was NOT talking in mysteries and even you stated prior, "... the prodigal son didn't mean what it implied." You knew EXACTLY what Jesus implied and not just you but all Calvinists should have stayed with that.

Of course. You're welcome.
Click to expand...
Never said. " the prodigal son didn't mean what I implied". Lying is unbecoming and you should repent.

Also, it's so clear and evident you cannot even begin to prove it. LOL. I dont have to does not qualify as evidence.
 
Reformedguy said:
Never said. " the prodigal son didn't mean what I implied". Lying is unbecoming and you should repent.
Click to expand...
You're right. I apologize! That was Calvinist poster, Armyngst in post number #290. I got mixed up what Calvinsit here I was talking to but that is what the other one said.
 
Reformedguy said:
Also, it's so clear and evident you cannot even begin to prove it. LOL. I dont have to does not qualify as evidence.
Click to expand...
And I think that's a challenge I don't think it's warranted to take up and try to do. I think God in the judgement will tell you it was absolutely self evident by the nature of the parable that the Son had freedom of will to choose, that is leave and come back. Not to say I won't have to give account in the judgement for a great many things for none of us are perfect but this will be one for Calvinists.
 
Rockson said:
And I think that's a challenge I don't think it's warranted to take up and try to do. I think God in the judgement will tell you it was absolutely self evident by the nature of the parable that the Son had freedom of will to choose, that is leave and come back. Not to say I won't have to give account in the judgement for a great many things for none of us are perfect but this will be one for Calvinists.
Click to expand...
Question begging.

It will only be one if your understanding is correct. You cannot prove your premise by which you derstand the parable. Free will.

So in the parable is the prodigal son a believer who lost his salvation only to be restored?? According to your understanding
 
Reformedguy said:
Question begging.

It will only be one if your understanding is correct. You cannot prove your premise by which you derstand the parable. Free will.

So in the parable is the prodigal son a believer who lost his salvation only to be restored?? According to your understanding
Click to expand...
Lol he was dead . Jesus word to describe him.

next
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top