Parable of the Prodigal Son

[The Crusader]

I will say that I think the parable speaks of the possibility of the loss and regaining of salvation. All the key words are their, father, son, inheritance, repentance, lost found, dead, alive again etc.

michael,

I think, you think wrongly.

You have already lost the meaning of the parable before you even posted it (by your thought), and its not as though you are posting it, to consider it, nor even to be taught by it, but to simply critique it.

This parable is one of a relationship, which endures whether a son, obeys His father or not, the faithful Father granting to the son his request, and then the son who knows he has not done right, leaves to live a life of sin and debauchery out of sight of his father, and after he squanders all, and hits bottom, remembers the good life which he lead under his fathers roof and desires it again.

In recognizing his sin of unfaithfulness to his father he decides to return to his father and ask to be forgiven.
It is not a teaching that buttress's loss of salvation, at all, since if you read the parable carefully, you would see, that inspite of his froward nature and lose living which took its toll on his body, he remained a son of His Father.

Our God never disowns his children, Christians will be justified in the end inspite of many offenses. (Rom 4:25;5:16-18)

You have a distorted sense of understanding concerning Our God, I say it is because you do not know Him, but it doesn't need to be this way.

The teaching one can gather from this parable at its least is this;

Those who are saved are children of God, and regardless of how unfaithful sons are or become, He remains faithful to His Son, who was obedient unto death even death on the cross.

Christians are not saved for what they have done, but because of what God the Son has done for  them.
It is His righteousness which is imputed unto us, who know the truth of what God has done.

We KNOW, and this is why, we are able ministers of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, seeing we have His Spirit.
If you place your  trust in God's Word, and lean not unto your own understanding,  you too,  could understand these things..

Blessings,

Petro

I agree with Petro

Your friend and brother

The Crusader

[michael_legna]

I will say that I think the parable speaks of the possibility of the loss and regaining of salvation. All the key words are their, father, son, inheritance, repentance, lost found, dead, alive again etc.

michael,

I think, you think wrongly.

You have already lost the meaning of the parable before you even posted it (by your thought), and its not as though you are posting it, to consider it, nor even to be taught by it, but to simply critique it.

This parable is one of a relationship, which endures whether a son, obeys His father or not, the faithful Father granting to the son his request, and then the son who knows he has not done right, leaves to live a life of sin and debauchery out of sight of his father, and after he squanders all, and hits bottom, remembers the good life which he lead under his fathers roof and desires it again.

In recognizing his sin of unfaithfulness to his father he decides to return to his father and ask to be forgiven.
It is not a teaching that buttress's loss of salvation, at all, since if you read the parable carefully, you would see, that inspite of his froward nature and lose living which took its toll on his body, he remained a son of His Father.

Our God never disowns his children, Christians will be justified in the end inspite of many offenses. (Rom 4:25;5:16-18)

You have a distorted sense of understanding concerning Our God, I say it is because you do not know Him, but it doesn't need to be this way.

The teaching one can gather from this parable at its least is this;

Those who are saved are children of God, and regardless of how unfaithful sons are or become, He remains faithful to His Son, who was obedient unto death even death on the cross.

Christians are not saved for what they have done, but because of what God the Son has done for  them.
It is His righteousness which is imputed unto us, who know the truth of what God has done.

We KNOW, and this is why, we are able ministers of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, seeing we have His Spirit.
If you place your  trust in God's Word, and lean not unto your own understanding,  you too,  could understand these things..

Blessings,

Petro

I agree with Petro

Your friend and brother

The Crusader

Is that any reason for you and Petro to hide your opinion of the parable?

A Bible study is to share our opinions, it does not require that we agree.

The fact that you two disagree with my breif summary that I used hoping to get a response, should have urged you to share yours not hide your light under a basket.

[michael_legna]

As suggested by one of the posters I suspect I may have more luck providing a starting point.  I was hoping to keep this discussion away from merely attacking one persons views, so that we could hear what other had to say on their own, not just when they had a target to aim at.  But it seems some here can attack whether a target is presented or not so it seems my approach ddi not work.

Still so that I might still keep the attacks to a minimum I thought rather than post my own interpretation I would present those of scholars who I have learned alot from.

The following is the first of my posts of commentary on the Parable from the Catena Aurea, a compendium of quotes from the early church theologians on the Gospels.

++++++++

We start out by looking at the context which includes three parables

Ambrose of Milan sees Christ himself as the shepherd who carries the lost sheep "on his own body"; the Church, he says, "like the woman seeks for you, God, like the father, receives you." He sees the three parables as showing us "the first, pity, the second. intercession, the third, reconciliation."

Chrysostom sees a significant contrast between the sheep brought back on the shepherd’s shoulders, an image of the foolish person led astray by others "like an irrational animal", and the wastrel son who realises his own wrong-doing and returns, "exercising the freedom of his will", to be received as a penitent by his father. The foolish sheep wanders astray "and does not know how to get back" until the shepherd comes searching for it and carries it home.

+++++

Parable of the Prodigal Son

Luke 15:11  And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Chrysostom tells us that some people saw the elder son of the parable as an image of the angels and the younger as an image of fallen humanity. he questions this, however, since the younger son comes to a recognition of his wrong-doing "of his own accord, remembering the past plenty of his father’s house", but the Lord came to call the human race to repentance "because he saw that it had never been in their thoughts to return of their own accord." He also points out a serious inconsistence that would be raised by identifying the elder son with the angels: the elder son in the parable "is vexed at the return and safety of his brother, whereas the Lord says, ‘there is joy in Heaven over one sinner repenting.’"

Saint Cyril offers a more plausible interpretation, seeing the elder son as a figure of Israel and the younger as an image of the gentiles.

Augustine proposes a similar interpretation, but makes the distinction one between those who have always remained in the worship of the one God and those who have fallen into polytheism. "This man who has two sons is, then", says Augustine, "to be understood as god having two nations, as if they were the roots of the human race; and the one composed of those who have remained in the worship of God, the other of those who have deserted God to worship idols."

++++++

Luke 15:12  And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

Ambrose draws our attention to an important detail of the story, all too easily overlooked: "the divine patrimony is given to those who seek". He also warns us not to see the father as in error in giving in to the young man’s demands; it is not his age that is the problem, "no age is weak in the kingdom of God".

The younger claiming his inheritance is seen by Augustine as an image of the human soul "delighted with its own power" and seeking what belongs to it, "to live, to understand, to remember, to excel in quickness of intellect, which are all gifts of God..." The problem is that the wayward soul chooses to take these gifts "in its own power".

Chrysostom has a similar view: "the father divided equally between the two sons his wealth, that is the knowledge of good and evil which is a true and everlasting possession to the soul that uses it well. The wealth of reason, which flows from God to human beings at their earliest birth is given equally to all who come into this world, but after the intercourse that follows, each is found to possess more or less of this wealth; since one, believing it to be from his father, preserves it as his patrimony, another abuses it as something to be wasted away, by the liberty of his own possession."  But in abusing the divine inheritance the individual person begins to uproot himself from the divine ground in which we are planted, and sets off alone to a distant country, "not departing locally from God, who is present everywhere", says Chrysostom, "but in heart, for the sinner flees from God to stand afar off."

The catena aurea quotes from Augustine’s commentary on the Psalms; "but if he wants in a perverse way to imitate God, in that, just as God has no one by whom he is governed, he too desires to exercise his own power so as to live under no rules, what then is left for him, now that he has lost all warmth, but to grow cold and insensible, and, departing from truth, to vanish away."

++++++

Luke 15:13  And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

Augustine sees the departure of the younger son to a far country as "forgetfulness of God." He sees this departure as signifying that "not longer after the institution of the human race, the human soul chose of its own free will to take with it a certain power of its nature, and to desert him by whom it was created, trusting in its own strength, which it wastes more rapidly since it has abandoned him who gave it." The choice to live in complete autonomy is folly and an invitation to disaster: we come into being as dependent beings, we owe our lives to our parents, our home, our clothing our nourishment our education, all we owe to others. Our being and all we have received that meets our needs and serves our flourishing come to us as a gift: to claim as an autonomous possession what has been given to us is to live a dangerous and damaging lie.  Forgetting its home in God, the soul sets out on its adventure in truthless, ungrateful autonomy, and soon spends all its spiritual capital in "riotous living", in a life, says Augustine, "that loves to spend and lavish itself with outward show, while exhausting itself within..."

I will post more as time allows and if there is any interest.

[Petro]

As suggested by one of the posters I suspect I may have more luck providing a starting point.  I was hoping to keep this discussion away from merely attacking one persons views, so that we could hear what other had to say on their own, not just when they had a target to aim at.  But it seems some here can attack whether a target is presented or not so it seems my approach ddi not work.

Still so that I might still keep the attacks to a minimum I thought rather than post my own interpretation I would present those of scholars who I have learned alot from.

The following is the first of my posts of commentary on the Parable from the Catena Aurea, a compendium of quotes from the early church theologians on the Gospels.

++++++++

We start out by looking at the context which includes three parables

Ambrose of Milan sees Christ himself as the shepherd who carries the lost sheep "on his own body"; the Church, he says, "like the woman seeks for you, God, like the father, receives you." He sees the three parables as showing us "the first, pity, the second. intercession, the third, reconciliation."

Chrysostom sees a significant contrast between the sheep brought back on the shepherd’s shoulders, an image of the foolish person led astray by others "like an irrational animal", and the wastrel son who realises his own wrong-doing and returns, "exercising the freedom of his will", to be received as a penitent by his father. The foolish sheep wanders astray "and does not know how to get back" until the shepherd comes searching for it and carries it home.

+++++

None of the above commentaries, can be applied to the parable since, the son regardless of what occurs is stil a son, whether wayward, or lost.

Parable of the Prodigal Son

Luke 15:11  And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Chrysostom tells us that some people saw the elder son of the parable as an image of the angels and the younger as an image of fallen humanity. he questions this, however, since the younger son comes to a recognition of his wrong-doing "of his own accord, remembering the past plenty of his father’s house", but the Lord came to call the human race to repentance "because he saw that it had never been in their thoughts to return of their own accord." He also points out a serious inconsistence that would be raised by identifying the elder son with the angels: the elder son in the parable "is vexed at the return and safety of his brother, whereas the Lord says, ‘there is joy in Heaven over one sinner repenting.’"

Saint Cyril offers a more plausible interpretation, seeing the elder son as a figure of Israel and the younger as an image of the gentiles.

Augustine proposes a similar interpretation, but makes the distinction one between those who have always remained in the worship of the one God and those who have fallen into polytheism. "This man who has two sons is, then", says Augustine, "to be understood as god having two nations, as if they were the roots of the human race; and the one composed of those who have remained in the worship of God, the other of those who have deserted God to worship idols."

++++++

These commentaries, do not address the relationship, they ignore it.

Simply speaking, they are nothing more than ideas of what this parable might represent, this is clear from the words;

"Chrysostom tells us that some people saw the elder son of the parable as an image of the angels and the younger as an image of fallen humanity......."

"Saint Cyril offers a more plausible interpretation,....."

and,  

"Augustine proposes a similar interpretation,...."

When one begins spiritualizing a biblical teaching, it can mean anything the commentator wants it to mean, so ussually it simply is applied to a particular meaning of a doctrine they desire to advance as thou it is taught biblically.

Luke 15:12  And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

Ambrose draws our attention to an important detail of the story, all too easily overlooked: "the divine patrimony is given to those who seek". He also warns us not to see the father as in error in giving in to the young man’s demands; it is not his age that is the problem, "no age is weak in the kingdom of God".

Since the words "divine patrimony" are not found in scripture, one must turn to the user for the definition of such a term to understand it.

The word "patrimony" was coined by the Roman Catholic church in early times in refering to the revenues and landed possessions of the Holy See (the father)

From the point where this term is given in Ambrose's comment above onward, there is no biblical basis for any teaching to "those who seek", in fact to continue seeing Ambrose's comments in the light of the son's debauchery and lifestyle lived after obtaining his inheritance, is simply nonsense.

The younger claiming his inheritance is seen by Augustine as an image of the human soul "delighted with its own power" and seeking what belongs to it, "to live, to understand, to remember, to excel in quickness of intellect, which are all gifts of God..." The problem is that the wayward soul chooses to take these gifts "in its own power".

Chrysostom has a similar view: "the father divided equally between the two sons his wealth, that is the knowledge of good and evil which is a true and everlasting possession to the soul that uses it well. The wealth of reason, which flows from God to human beings at their earliest birth is given equally to all who come into this world, but after the intercourse that follows, each is found to possess more or less of this wealth; since one, believing it to be from his father, preserves it as his patrimony, another abuses it as something to be wasted away, by the liberty of his own possession."  But in abusing the divine inheritance the individual person begins to uproot himself from the divine ground in which we are planted, and sets off alone to a distant country, "not departing locally from God, who is present everywhere", says Chrysostom, "but in heart, for the sinner flees from God to stand afar off."

So these teachings of Crysostom and Agustine, would have us believe men who are being drawn to Christ by the Father, become more base in his living, because of the parable where the son is set at liberty being given an set free by the receiving the inheritance.

It makes no sense that the recieivng of the "divine patrimony" would cause the sinners heart to "flee from God to stand afar off".

The catena aurea quotes from Augustine’s commentary on the Psalms; "but if he wants in a perverse way to imitate God, in that, just as God has no one by whom he is governed, he too desires to exercise his own power so as to live under no rules, what then is left for him, now that he has lost all warmth, but to grow cold and insensible, and, departing from truth, to vanish away."

++++++

Luke 15:13  And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

Augustine sees the departure of the younger son to a far country as "forgetfulness of God." He sees this departure as signifying that "not longer after the institution of the human race, the human soul chose of its own free will to take with it a certain power of its nature, and to desert him by whom it was created, trusting in its own strength, which it wastes more rapidly since it has abandoned him who gave it." The choice to live in complete autonomy is folly and an invitation to disaster: we come into being as dependent beings, we owe our lives to our parents, our home, our clothing our nourishment our education, all we owe to others. Our being and all we have received that meets our needs and serves our flourishing come to us as a gift: to claim as an autonomous possession what has been given to us is to live a dangerous and damaging lie.  Forgetting its home in God, the soul sets out on its adventure in truthless, ungrateful autonomy, and soon spends all its spiritual capital in "riotous living", in a life, says Augustine, "that loves to spend and lavish itself with outward show, while exhausting itself within..."

I will post more as time allows and if there is any interest.

Thanks but no thanks.......



Petro

[michael_legna]

I will post more as time allows and if there is any interest.

Thanks but no thanks.......



Petro

Then offer your own interpretation, stop hiding behind the security of vaguries of your position and actually come out for something instead of always being against something.  

Identify the individuals and the symbolism of this parable if you can without completely abandoning your doctrine of free will and forced grace and salvation.

[michael_legna]

None of the above commentaries, can be applied to the parable since, the son regardless of what occurs is stil a son, whether wayward, or lost.

True he remains a son but that is only part of the story.  He starts out a son and an heir, he then takes in inheritance so he is no longer an heir, just a son, then as his father sees him he is dead, then he comes back and once again becomes a son and an heir because he repents and is completely forgiven.  Salvation depends on more than just being His son, we must also be an heir with Christ.

These commentaries, do not address the relationship, they ignore it.

Well we are just getting started aren't we Petro if you were not afraid to see the rest of the commentaries you would see that they do address the relationship.

Simply speaking, they are nothing more than ideas of what this parable might represent, this is clear from the words;

Yes they are just ideas, even the great theologians did not put forward their opinions as facts, they unlike you had a modicum of humility.

[Fewarechosen7F]

Hello,

The father is God.
The younger son is the one we know as the mediocre Christian.
The older son is the one we know as the very faithful Chirstian.

[michael_legna]

Hello,

The father is God.
The younger son is the one we know as the mediocre Christian.
The older son is the one we know as the very faithful Chirstian.

That covers the first verse.  What about all the following symbols in the parable what do they mean?

Alive Again
Arose and came to father
Best Robe
Bread
Come safe and sound
Compassion
Dead
Eating husks
Ever with me
Famine
Far Country
Fathers Field
Fatted Calf
Fell on neck
Found
Gathered
Great way off
Harlots
Hired servants
Hunger
Husks
Inheritance
Joined citizens
Kid
Kisses
Lost
Merriness
Music and Dancing
No man gives him anything
Not worthy to be called son
Older Sons anger
Ring
Riotous living
Servants
Shoes
Sinned against heaven
Sinned against the Father
Swine
Swine Fields
Transgress Commandments
Want
Wasted

[Allinall]

Salvation depends on more than just being His son, we must also be an heir with Christ.

Do you know what I find most interesting about this parable?  He never loses his sonship.  He never stops being a son.  What's more...he loses no inheritance.  He simply cashes in to early.  When he comes back, all that was his father's was once again his to enjoy and partake of.  Do you wonder why the older brother was upset?  He was coming back for seconds!  

But to more important matters.  To be a son, is to be an heir.  One does not lose that inheritance, anymore than one loses his sonship.  The parable teaches this.  Not that salvation is dependent upon inheritance.  The parable isn't about the inheritance afterall.  It's about the wayward son, who is graciously accepted home by his father.

[michael_legna]

Salvation depends on more than just being His son, we must also be an heir with Christ.

Do you know what I find most interesting about this parable?  He never loses his sonship.  He never stops being a son.  What's more...he loses no inheritance.  He simply cashes in to early.  When he comes back, all that was his father's was once again his to enjoy and partake of.  Do you wonder why the older brother was upset?  He was coming back for seconds!  

But to more important matters.  To be a son, is to be an heir.  One does not lose that inheritance, anymore than one loses his sonship.  The parable teaches this.  Not that salvation is dependent upon inheritance.  The parable isn't about the inheritance afterall.  It's about the wayward son, who is graciously accepted home by his father.

Actually you are wrong.  He does stop being both a son and loses his inheritance.  

First the son himself admits that he is no longer worthy to be called the father's son, then the father graciously accepts him back putting a robe on him and giving him a ring welcoming him back into the family, to show that he is once again his son.

Secondly he does lose his inheritance, not just by wasting it away but by dying.  There is no inheritance in death all you have passes to another, you can't take it with you.  But he is reborn, he is made alive again by the father's proclamation, so he regains his portion, his inheritance.

See it is just this type of superficial analysis, ignoring all the symbols within a story, that leads people to miss the true meaning of the scriptures.  

I don't blame the individuals.  It is a huge job interpreting all of scripture in light of all others scripture.  Too big for one person alone.  The fault lies with sola scripture that most Protestants handcuff themselves with.

[JudgeNot]

From ML

Actually you are wrong.

No – not “wrong” – simply a different interpretation from yours.  I find it sad you are able to make such judgments.  The correct response should have been “I have been taught differently”.

From ML

The fault lies with sola scripture that most Protestants handcuff themselves with.

Not really worth commenting on, however most of us refrain from bashing Catholicism – it would be nice if the courtesy was extended both ways.

From ML

I was hoping to keep this discussion away from merely attacking one persons views, so that we could hear what other had to say on their own, not just when they had a target to aim at.  But it seems some here can attack whether a target is presented or not so it seems my approach ddi not work.

Maybe you should practice what you preach???  

[michael_legna]

Actually you are wrong.

No – not “wrong” – simply a different interpretation from yours.  I find it sad you are able to make such judgments.  The correct response should have been “I have been taught differently”.

That is saying exactly the same thing.  If we have two different interpretations, one of us must be wrong, I am simply contending that it is the other guy.  If I disagree with someone it is expected that neither of us think we are infallible so when I say they are wrong that means in every language or debate style known to man that I contend they are wrong.  It may not be as polite as your form or turn of phrase but it says the same thing and at the same time displays a courage of conviction that I felt needed to be expressed.

The fault lies with sola scripture that most Protestants handcuff themselves with.

Not really worth commenting on, however most of us refrain from bashing Catholicism – it would be nice if the courtesy was extended both ways.

Expressing a logical argument against an theory is not bashing, otherwise all disagreements would be such.  I don't have a problem with those here who give reasons backed up by independent sources and or logic why they feel the Catholic Church is wrong about an issue.  If someone has a logical argument against Tradition I will address it, debate against it and probably not agree with it, but I don't consider it Catholic bashing.

That is what I was doing with regards to sola scripture, arguing that being left to ones own devices in the effort to interpret any work as large as scripture is going to result in a superficial result just based on shear time constraints alone.  

Bashing is when people attack a position or group just because they don't like them, or making up points of weakness or relying on biased representations of fact rather than addressing the reality of the situation.  That I have not done.

I was hoping to keep this discussion away from merely attacking one persons views, so that we could hear what other had to say on their own, not just when they had a target to aim at.  But it seems some here can attack whether a target is presented or not so it seems my approach ddi not work.

Maybe you should practice what you preach???  

Initially, I was refusing to comment on this thread until I was encourage to take the lead by another posted in an effort to get anyone to participate.  So yes, I have attacked personal views on this thread, but only to point out errors I see in them.  I didn't want this to be a debate, I had hoped to hear a real analysis of the parable from someone on the otherside of the issue.  But that was not forth coming so I have decided to treat this as any other thread and open it up to debate.  

In retrospect maybe I should have made that clearer when I took the advice of the other poster, but hind sight is twenty twenty they say.  I am sorry if I offended you by debating the points of any of the posters but I am certainly not guilty of any of the charges you would lay at my door.

[JudgeNot]

ML - I was not offended at all - In fact I enjoy your posts.
Sometimes I just have to get my 4 cents-worth in.  (Maybe my opinion is only worth 3 cents - but with inflation the way it is...)

I didn't mean to offend either - keep your good posts flowing!

(If you haven't noticed - I also come to the defense of my Catholic brothers when I feel the occasion is right.)  

PS - I've been a member on a lot of forums over the years - but I find this one better than ALL the others - it is so much fun!!!

[michael_legna]

ML - I was not offended at all - In fact I enjoy your posts.
Sometimes I just have to get my 4 cents-worth in.  (Maybe my opinion is only worth 3 cents - but with inflation the way it is...)

I didn't mean to offend either - keep your good posts flowing!

I was not offended, I just didn't want to think I ignored the criticism.  Even when I (or anyone for that matter) argues against a complaint it does not mean they didn't hear some of the truth deep down.  That is why I continue on site like this even though there are some you just bet you aren't reaching.  So believ me I heard what you said.

(If you haven't noticed - I also come to the defense of my Catholic brothers when I feel the occasion is right.)  

I thought you had but it is so hard to keep track of who is on one side or the other of issues.  I try to keep everyone straight but I have never been good with names even in real life.  I guess I am not the warm and cuddly type.    Still working on it through.

PS - I've been a member on a lot of forums over the years - but I find this one better than ALL the others - it is so much fun!!!

I agree, so far this board has been the best in my experience.  I have been blocked from posting on more forums than I care to mention; just because I would dare to defend the Catholic Church or straighten out misconceptions of the beliefs held by the Church.  

So far at least the board seems to allow free exchange, even if some members aren't as accomodating; but you get those types all over.

[Allinall]

Actually you are wrong.  He does stop being both a son and loses his inheritance.  

First the son himself admits that he is no longer worthy to be called the father's son, then the father graciously accepts him back putting a robe on him and giving him a ring welcoming him back into the family, to show that he is once again his son.

No longer being worthy does not negate relationship.  Are you ever worthy to be God's child?  Not according to scripture.  None of us are.  It is God's gift.  Yet you focus on the son.  The focus of this parable my friend is not the son.  It is the father, his patient waiting and sorrowing for his son - not his punishment of his son by denying familial relation.  That simply is not in the story, and to be honest, requires a great stretch to even imply.  The son left his family and his father, but his father never left him.

Secondly he does lose his inheritance, not just by wasting it away but by dying.  There is no inheritance in death all you have passes to another, you can't take it with you.  But he is reborn, he is made alive again by the father's proclamation, so he regains his portion, his inheritance.

Where in the parable does it say that the son died?  He only says that he's perishing with hunger, not that he died.  And his father didn't enliven him, he accepted him home!

See it is just this type of superficial analysis, ignoring all the symbols within a story, that leads people to miss the true meaning of the scriptures.  

What you call superficial analysis I call grammatical, literal and contextual interpretation.  It's far from superficial.  The symbols you search for lead people to miss the meaning clearly given.