Not all analogies are complete, Beth. One can simply jump back into the river and parish as they try to go back to the other side.
Beth is half-right. The older son is similar to the Pharisees who refuse to associate with “the lesser ones”.
The elder son is no self righteous hypocrite; he is an obedient and faithful son. Please show me from the scripture any hypocrisy or wrongdoing on his part. His father, (who represents God) acknowledges his obedient fidelity and promises to reward it. Does God reward hypocrisy? He needs to learn mercy even if he himself is not in need of mercy. To categorize him as the primary figure of the parable and to call it a representation of “evil hypocrisy” is not only contrary to the scripture, but distorts Christ’s meaning about the greatness of His Father’s mercy. You might want to read the Church fathers on the scriptures rather than some self-appointed expert
Slow down, Danno. Many Catholic Apologists equate the older son with the Pharisees.
Hmm. I have re-read my posts and find it surprising that you think I have spoken bitterly or angrily. However, I appreciate your prayers as “the prayers of the righteous availeth much” and one can never have too many people praying for one.
Again, I don’t see where you see anger, slander and hatred. I think most people who know my posts here would suggest otherwise (in fact just a couple of days ago I was rebuked for “den-mothering.”) As for the Bible being a stumbling-block, far from it! It is the written Revelation of our loving Lord.
Now I’m really confused.
Apologetics tends to be a pretty free-wheeling forum! We enjoy lots of different kinds of discussion, and my intent in my post was only to question your repeated assertions that you weren’t here to challenge Catholic beliefs or to argue.
Thank you - may He bless you as well. I’m sorry that I have somehow come across in such an unfortunate and unpleasant way, and hope that we will be able to have more charitable discussions in the future.
He is representative of the Pharisees (among others), but not as an “evil hypocrit.” He is the representative of every hard-working, right-living, faithful person who has ever found himself resenting the salvation God offers to the wanton, lazy, or otherwise “unworthy.” There are plenty of Christians who have fallen into this trap at one time or another. In fact, you can make the case that each of us has, at one time, played the role of the younger brother, and at others, the older.
Saint Paul said that he was working out his salvation “with fear and trembling”. This supposes, of course, that, although He knew of his own salvation, he was afraid to lose it. If salvation was such a surety, then Saint Paul wouldn’t have cared. He would have believed in OSAS, which he clearly doesn’t in any of his writings. Your friend pre-supposes too much about his own salvation.
I agree, but I don’t recall Beth using the word “evil hypocrite”. I think the term was “self righteous hypocrite”.
Then your objection is to your words, not Beth’s. I may be wrong, but I haven’t found where she called the son evil.
That’s why the son’s further actions are left unsaid. Jesus is inviting the Pharisees in to celebrate the feast, just as the Father is inviting the older son to celebrate the feast.
What is the name of the legalistic Phasee that wrote this? Caiaphas ? In case you are unaware, the rules, also know as the law, are to reveal the sin nature in order to show the failures of the man before God and the need for a Savior. No man can obey the Lord as He has called the Christian to; only the Savior Himself was able, which is why we have to have His righteousness imputed to our account. Without having His account, no man will be in heaven.
No where does it say that in any of those parables that any statrted with salvation; that is imposing on the text and since this is a parable and not a real story, Jesus is making a point(s) to the pharasees, just as MacArtur rightly states because he is looking at the entire context of the culture, the scene, the chapter and the context of Scripture. Some of you seem to overlook to whom Jesus is speaking; something MacArthur does not overlook.
If you actually read the entire story, you will see that God did not change His mind concerning the wisdom he promised of Solomon during his lifetime. Also, it is implied that he repented because at the end it gives the account that "And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of his father David" Just because something is not explicitly written; if the evidence is implicitly strong, which in this case it is, based in the fact that God set His love on Solomon and in the end he slept with his fathers, which would indicate other patriarchs and followed by the physical burialplace, which distinquishes the slept apart from the burial. I expect to see Solomon in heaven.
As I said before you must understand to whom Jesus is speaking, the culture and the context of the chapter as well as salvation. If this is understood, then the phrase makes sense in the whole context of Scripture and of salvation. But from your perspective; it makes perfect sense since you believe you can lose your salvation, gain it back, lose it and all by your choice. Sounds like God is sitting back and just hoping and waiting as opposed to what He purposed before the foundation of the world.
That is interesting I wonder who would be that stupid? And I wonder how the lifeguard who loses none could have let that happened; he must not be in control - just thinking aloud, no need to respond. This subsrciption is rather depressing at best; so I am moving along to better waters.
Read again; 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 ecelebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, fwho has devoured gyour property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, hyou are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting eto celebrate and be glad, for this your brother iwas dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’ ”
Forgiven, apology accepted and appreciated and I concur with the last statement. God bless!
No one will be in heaven who does not have the desire to be there. No one can do anything except that which is in their nature; which is why God said no one seeks after Him, not one and why He says we love Him because He first loved us, so unless God gives one a new nature, the free-will you speak of is the free-will to do evil in the sight of God.
Was the sheep part of the flock? And then it got lost? And then it was found.