Parable of the Prodigal Son

[Petro]

hats a good one..........

The prodigal son,

(regained his salvation).

Now...........that is a typo..


For those reading michaels dumb logical exegesis of this parable, note;

The son was never disowned by his father.

Neither of them were...

Why get involved in discussions, with some who has a diferent gospel, based on error.

ducking out..........Petro

[michael_legna]

hats a good one..........

The prodigal son,

(regained his salvation).

Now...........that is a typo..


For those reading michaels dumb logical exegesis of this parable, note;

The son was never disowned by his father.

Neither of them were...

Why get involved in discussions, with some who has a diferent gospel, based on error.

ducking out..........Petro

Petro trying reading slower next time and read the whole parable - the son wasn't disowned but the Father considered him dead.  He had his inheritance (was an heir - was saved), he wasn't thrown out (as God will never abandon us) but he left the Father willingly (he tossed aside the free gift), it was then that his Father considered him dead (lost his salvation), he lived a life of sin but finally repented (repentance), and was accepted back into the home with the Father and the other son, the Father declared him alive again (regained his salvation).

Simple if you read the whole parable or if you followed along through the whole thread.

[Petro]

He had his inheritance (was an heir - was saved), he wasn't thrown out (as God will never abandon us) but he left the Father willingly (he tossed aside the free gift), it was then that his Father considered him dead (lost his salvation), he lived a life of sin but finally repented (repentance), and was accepted back into the home with the Father and the other son, the Father declared him alive again (regained his salvation).

The father never declared him dead at all, this is a presumption, this son only died to him, yet physically he lived, at his return to his father's home, becoming alive to the father merely reintated him as an heir, once again.

Only problem is he never died, of course someone that fails to see the real teaching of this parable, ...............

(that of the ungratefull son, who had served the father faithfully and never transgressed his commandments according to him, to his way of thinking had never been properly rewarded for all this, which made him,  nothing more than a hypocrite and guilty sinner, of course this was directed at the Pharisees and scribes who murmured)

Because Jesus received sinners and ate with them

.........would go on to teach, see, this prodigal son lost His salvation and now has regained it, missing the entire point of what Jesus was teaching....

Must ex roman catholics return to the pope, to be resaved??

The son was never dis inherited ( he received it), and therefore never lost  his salvation at all.

Wrong concusions, will always end in wrong teachings..........


Petro

[michael_legna]

He had his inheritance (was an heir - was saved), he wasn't thrown out (as God will never abandon us) but he left the Father willingly (he tossed aside the free gift), it was then that his Father considered him dead (lost his salvation), he lived a life of sin but finally repented (repentance), and was accepted back into the home with the Father and the other son, the Father declared him alive again (regained his salvation).

The father never declared him dead at all, this is a presumption,

The Father says in Luke 15:24  "For this my son was dead, and is alive again;"  Sounds to me that the Father declared him dead.

this son only died to him, yet physically he lived,

Yes but that is all it means to have no salvation - to be dead to the Father.  We can be physically alive, our spirit can be alive (having not yet been condemned to hell) and yet we are dead to the Father (not saved).  Really Petro this is one of the most fundamental issues of salvation and you miss it completely!

at his return to his father's home, becoming alive to the father merely reintated him as an heir, once again.

Yes he is alive again to the Father and is one again an heir - he regains his salvation.  Obvious and simple.

Must ex roman catholics return to the pope, to be resaved??

No and they didn't have to go to the Pope to be saved in the first place.  More of your strawmen Petro?  Tsk Tsk

The son was never dis inherited ( he received it), and therefore never lost  his salvation at all.

He received it - wasted it - returned and recieved it again.  Or do you think he lived in the house with his brother but didn't get any of the advantages of being a son, since he had used his all up?  That would be completely missing the point of the parable but based on what you have said so far I have to ask.

[Petro]

It doesn't matter if the father thought him dead, the son never died, he still possessed the father name, and would have passed on his name to his offsrping, which would have been grandchildren to the father of this man, the son never died physically nor spiritually......and thats the truth...


Petro

[michael_legna]

It doesn't matter if the father thought him dead, the son never died, he still possessed the father name, and would have passed on his name to his offsrping, which would have been grandchildren to the father of this man, the son never died physically nor spiritually......and thats the truth...


Petro

Its a parable Petro.  The happenings in the story are symbolic.  The son died to the father and wasted his inheritance.  What does it mean for you if were to you die to the Father and waste away your inheritance?  It means loss of salvation - that simple.

[Petro]

Sorry, but the son never died..............


Petro

[Reba]

Petro trying reading slower next time and read the whole parable - the son wasn't disowned but the Father considered him dead.  He had his inheritance (was an heir - was saved), he wasn't thrown out (as God will never abandon us) but he left the Father willingly (he tossed aside the free gift), it was then that his Father considered him dead (lost his salvation), he lived a life of sin but finally repented (repentance), and was accepted back into the home with the Father and the other son, the Father declared him alive again (regained his salvation).

Michael_legna,
 the words  "considered him dead." sound a whole lot different then the Dad "thought he was dead".  Considered him sounds like the the dad has rejected the son. When i read the story i read the dad thought he was dead. How are you meaning the phrase?

[Petro]

The happenings in the story are symbolic.

When anyone starts allegorizing a parable, it can mean whatever that person wants it to mean.

The fact is this young man never did die, that is an indisputable fact...........

I would have to say, that if the father looked for his return (which is obvious, since the Jesus tells us; when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him,
, it is clear the father didn't believe he was dead at all.

There is no reason to spin this parable...

The son never died and therefore never ceased being a son, pure and simple...


Petro

[michael_legna]

The happenings in the story are symbolic.

When anyone starts allegorizing a parable, it can mean whatever that person wants it to mean.

That is exactly what you have to do with a parable, since it is written specifically to be interpreted allegorically.

But know you can't make it say anything you want anymore than you can interpret any scripture anyway you want.  You have to make sure your interpretation is consistent with all of scripture that is why your simplistic literal interpretation of this parable and the rest of scripture for that matter is wrong and why your doctrine is wrong it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture as I have shown repeatedly.

The fact is this young man never did die, that is an indisputable fact...........

I would have to say, that if the father looked for his return (which is obvious, since the Jesus tells us; when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him,
, it is clear the father didn't believe he was dead at all.

This is symbolic as well to show that God (the Father in case you missed that symbol too) never gives up on us and is always more ready to take us back then we are to come back.  His love for us exceeds our love for Him.  Additionally, though the Father clearly declares that indeed He did see the son as dead (Luk 15:24  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. ) the Father new it was in His power to bring Him back to life.

Tell me Petro if your interpretation is correct how do you interpret verse 24 without allegorizing it?

[david749]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATqJ1azhr_A

[Brother Jerry]

Wow....Necropost.  Nothing like reviving a 7 year old post