Calvinism and the Prodigal Son

Kjam22

[kjam22]

Then he says welcome home my son. My son that was lost is found. Put a ring on his finger and kill the fatted calf. My lost son has come home.

I would point out that the young man was Already His son He was already positionally His son..this was not someone coming to be adopted. This is about the Father...not the son...believe it or not this is not all about you..

Man's ONLY purpose is to glorify God..this is NOT about you !

[kjam22]

During the course of yesterday's debate on calvinism, a lot of of positions were taken. Frankly, some were pretty alarming. And during the course of the debate the above was posted regarding the prodigal son.

I would be interested in hearing the hardline calvinist take on this famous parable.

Myself, I always believed that positionally the son was LOST until he "came to his senses" and went to be with his father. RNmom.... please feel free to ping all your buds, because I would really like to hear their take on this parable.

[kjam22]

PING

[Busywhiskers]

You need to look at the parable in context. Luke 15.1 says, "Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him. And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them...". Jesus then goes on to tell three parables. The parable of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and this parable of the lost son. The whole point prodigal son parable, in context, seems to be to contrast the grace and forgiveness of the father to the callous attitude of his oldest son. The father is an example of the love of God for wayward human beings. The older son illustrates the attitude of the Pharasees and scribes.

[kjam22]

I agree that the three parables go together. But you are saying that in the parable of the prodigal son that the older son represents the scribes and the pharisees? Yet in the parable the older son is told that his inheritance is in tact. That everything the father has belongs to him. Surely this can't be said of the scribes and the pharisees.. can it?

What would have happened if the prodigal son had died while in the far country? Would he have been lost forever? Clearly we are told he was lost while he was there.

The three parables do go hand in hand. In two of them we are told of God's search for the lost (coin or sheep). In the other we are told of the lost son's repentance and return to the father. In two the father goes to get the lost. In one the father doesn't go after the lost one.

I agree that among other things, the parable contrasts the forgiveness of the father, and the attitude of the older son. But, maybe the older son could apply to those who say.. hey God.. you can't really forgive my brother. His doctrine is wrong. He is a sinner. Look at what he has done. Look at me.... I've studied your word all my life. I know all the doctrine. I've done everything you told me to do.

But in the parable both are saved. Both are sons. Isn't that right?

[kjam22]

Why the contrast of God's method between the three parables? Why doesn't the father go find the prodigal in the far land where he is lost. And drag him out of the bar, away from the harlots... and bring him home? Why does He leave it to the prodigal to find his own way home in this parable? And how does this reconcile with calvinism?

[kjam22]

ping

[RnMomof7]

I should have clarified that was MY observation..not a "Calvinist one" *grin* I will bump for input from Calvinists Kjam

[sola gracia]

But you are saying that in the parable of the prodigal son that the older son represents the scribes and the pharisees? Yet in the parable the older son is told that his inheritance is in tact. That everything the father has belongs to him. Surely this can't be said of the scribes and the pharisees.. can it?

No. You have to be very careful not to press every point of a parable. Parables teach "general" truths. To try and make every word of a parable mean something is to miss the major teaching. Every illustration has built in weaknesses.

[Gophack]

I always believed that the parable of the Prodigal Son shows that God's love is merciful and endless, that He will always welcome home a "lost sheep" (also in the parable of the Lost Sheep) because He loves us so much and wants us to be with Him. So, when one of us falls from Grace, leads wanton and Godless lives, and then has a complete change of heart, realizes the error of our ways, and asks God for forgiveness, He will forgive and welcome us home.

In the lost sheep, one little sheep wanders away and the Shepherd leaves the other 99 in search of the lost one. This shows that God cares about and loves those who wander away from Him, and will always be looking for them. Some people don't want to be found, some are just waiting for something. But God will always be looking for us to bring us back into the flock.

[DittoJed2]

The son never ceased being the son, even when he was in rebellion against the Father. The Father also never disowned the son, even though the son for a time desired nothing to do with him. The son returned, as all straying Christians will (unless they face the ultimate chastisement, death). Relationship wise, they never cease being a member of the family.

[kjam22]

But it does say twice in the same parable that the son was "dead"... was "lost". That's the only statement that is stated twice in the parable.

[kjam22]

I take it back... twice it is stated "father I have sinned against you and are no longer worthy to be called your son"

[kjam22]

No. You have to be very careful not to press every point of a parable. Parables teach "general" truths. To try and make every word of a parable mean something is to miss the major teaching. Every illustration has built in weaknesses.

So deciding which parts are really teachings... and which parts are just "in there".... that's pretty important I guess?

[RnMomof7]

The son never ceased being the son, even when he was in rebellion against the Father. The Father also never disowned the son, even though the son for a time desired nothing to do with him. The son returned, as all straying Christians will (unless they face the ultimate chastisement, death). Relationship wise, they never cease being a member of the family.

Thanks Ditto..that was what I thought ,glad I am not alone. To me it is a parable about the assurance

[RnMomof7]

I take it back... twice it is stated "father I have sinned against you and are no longer worthy to be called your son"

Something we all need to remember..not one of us is worthy to be His

[Ward Smythe]

The son never ceased being the son, even when he was in rebellion against the Father.

He chose to be in rebellion. He chose to come home, even though He didn't think the Father would receive him.

When he was out there sloppin' it up with the pigs he didn't get a letter or a phone call or an email from the Father. He decided he'd had enough and chose to go home and face the consequences.

The story is about how good the Father was to receive him, just as he was - before he was cleaned up. (or as you might say "regenerated")

[RnMomof7]

He was always the son..he did not come out of the pig sty looking to be adopted..knock on the door and say I choose you to be my Father..

He was the son by birth.

[DittoJed2]

Personal shame one the son's behalf did not change him from being a son to not being a son. Once a son, always a son. This shows God's grace in restoration. It is not an illustration of one losing their sonship.

[kjam22]

But it does clearly say that while he was gone he was dead and lost. This tells us a natural course of a person who becomes "of age". And when this person becomes of age he rebells. He takes everything he had learned and everything God had gifted him with.... and enters into rebellion. And the parable says he is dead and lost. Until he chooses to repent and come home. It tells me that at some point in our lives... we reach an age of accountability just as this young man did. An age that lets us make our own decisions and accept the responsibility and consequences that come with making those decisions. And it is a common tale.

I'm not sure how you can say he was saved during the time the text says he was dead and lost.

[kjam22]

It is not an illustration of one losing their sonship.

True. And I agree with you regarding eternal secuity. But here is where I would disagree with you. I don't believe we are all born dead in sin. I think we are all born with a sinful nature that leads to death. And then when we reach an age of accountability just as this young man did... we sin. And we become lost and dead in our sins. And I think this parable demonstrates that.... among other things.