Denied the Faith

[Pastorbps]

Why not just say, "He is worse than and infidel?" The part that strikes me is "He has denied the faith."

[dolfan]

Seems to me like you guys are all saying the same thing. We work because we love God, because we want to be obedient. It isn't a quid pro quo where God "gets" something from us. The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof. It's all His. We are His. You are not your own, you are bought with a price.

The "question" about works is really not even a real question. What I mean is that there's never really a competition in the mind of anyone in the Bible between the stuff we do and the stuff we believe. There's no example of someone who bases any relationship with God on what he does as opposed to what he believes. Even the rich young ruler said that he did what he did because of what he believed. And, when Jesus would guide him to real faith in His own message, the guy did what he did based on what he believed.

More often what I personally am aware of in myself is a temptation (and too often a tendency) to rest on what I believe in order to make up for my faults as those appear in what I do (or don't do). Well, Me, that's hypocrisy. What I "believe" in my head is of zero importance if I am not doing what God has revealed to me through His word that I am to do; of even less value to anyone is what I say I believe in that instance (that's pretty much the sum and substance of sounding brasses and tinkling cymbals). Repentance and obedience share this one thing: doing. A truly repentant or truly obedient person will do what Jesus said and did. Why? Because of love for God. The one who loves Him is the one who does what He says. That is relationship.

We can saw the parable of the prodigal son apart in many different ways. I wonder just how much we should. It stands for a simple proposition: God has open arms and endless expressions of love for His children, and it would take far more imagination than we're capable of exhausting to invent theoretical ways of stopping Him; yet, we're wholly capable of simply not doing what He tells us that He wants us to do and be.

[MacUser]

truly obedient person will do what Jesus said and did. Why? Because of love for God. The one who loves Him is the one who does what He says. That is relationship.

Yep... LOL.. but the amazing thing is that it isn't based/measured on what you do.. so you can't boast or earn ( Give a 5 step to success seminar - LOL ). It's doing what Jesus did. Following after his Father and doing what He says to do via son/spirit filled relationship... not a new religious set of measurement rules.

We can saw the parable of the prodigal son apart in many different ways. I wonder just how much we should...

Ahh my lawyer friend.. we should.. we should... as it so well applies especially here.. because this wayward son was given acceptance, love, forgiveness [ insert the wonders of God's Grace here ] and he had not done a thing to deserve it ( as the older son so clearly stated ).

Go back and read again.. it's beautiful!!

[beckrl]

Would this scripture apply to the context of the 1 timothy 5:9 ?

1 Timothy 5:16
If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

Or do we extend the meaning to apply to believers that just don't work to support their family?

It's as if the believer has turn from his faith, because he has chosen to not support his widow. Therefore he is counted worst than an infidel. For once knowing what is good and acceptable before the Lord and then turning.

[Pastorbps]

In verse 31 he calls him SON again to set his relationship straight.. and reminds him that this GOAT / CALF he desired etc was already his to make merry with his friends if he so choose. He NEVER EVER had to earn it. It was a FREE GIFT. Praise God!!!

We can saw the parable of the prodigal son apart in many different ways. I wonder just how much we should. It stands for a simple proposition:

Ahh my lawyer friend.. we should.. we should...

There are many beautiful lessons to be learned from the parable of the Prodigal Son. I think Dolfan's point (And I agree) is that you can over dissect a parable and read things into it that weren't intended. We've seen that in our own organization through the years. A good example would be the Parable of the Wise & Foolish virgins. Some preached the Bridegroom represented Jesus (True) but then they say the bride represented the church (It doesn't in that parable) and the wise virgins (and here's the kicker) represented the "kingdom saints" who were at the wedding feast but who weren't the bride (church). I think most here would agree that is inaccurate and an over dissection of the parable into something unintended.

The same could be true with the Prodigal Son. I can see him representing the Gentiles or all sinners who "like sheep have gone astray." The older son clearly represents the Jews and either their attitudes toward a sinners acceptance or the coming acceptance of the Gentiles into God's kingdom. I cannot see the older brother's role having anything to do with having his own goat. Sorry, I just don't see that. I think it was Jesus way of telling the Jews not to feel "less special" because the Gentiles were accepted or because sinners receive forgiveness. After all, it doesn't affect their standing as heirs.

[Pastorbps]

Would this scripture apply to the context of the 1 timothy 5:9 ?

1 Timothy 5:16
If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

Or do we extend the meaning to apply to believers that just don't work to support their family?

It's as if the believer has turn from his faith, because he has chosen to not support his widow. Therefore he is counted worst than an infidel. For once knowing what is good and acceptable before the Lord and then turning.

Beck
I do believe this parable is about people caring for their own families and especially those who are unable to care for themselves (widows). My point is, there are many who believe once a person has accepted Christ and been converted, they can never depart from the faith. I just think this scripture must be difficult, for those with that belief, to explain. How can one "disavow" the faith? He must be speaking to Christians because the whole essence of his instructions was about how the CHURCH should care for its widows. If he is speaking to the church, then he leaves open the possibility for one to believe and then to deny or disavow that faith.

[MacUser]

I cannot see the older brother's role having anything to do with having his own goat. Sorry, I just don't see that.

29. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

This insult is pretty specific and doesn't require a theological degree to dissect. I think these simple meanings are what we have missed. Jesus spoke in simple parables so the people could understand.

The elder son was working for His father to give him something as reward .. because he thought he had to still earn it ( You never gave me ). When it was impossible for his father to give him something that was already his by inheritance. It was already his to take as he desired ( see below ).

11. Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

This parable shows the explosively beautiful Father that apparently neither of the sons really knew. Now this is for us ( as sons ) not to not miss it also. Dwell on it...

[dolfan]

Running my own risk of overdissecting, here..... ..... but, I wonder if the "division" that the father did can be read to signify that he already "distributed". In the law, if you die and leave an estate of any degree to more than one person, someone behind you has to -- in some measure -- come in and allocate the interests. "This here's yours, that there's his, and that over yonder is hers." But, there is a time where creditors and other people who may have higher claims on those interests to assert them before actual distribution can be made free and clear. I just wonder if the elder son here REALLY could have just taken his "share". What would the father have done had he come and asked for his, even if he was going to "run it right"?? Since we're discussing the relational "rights" of the elder son to his father, what effect would that have had on the relationship?? What do you think the father in the parable would've said had the elder son made that request?

[MacUser]

Running my own risk of overdissecting, here..... ..... but, I wonder if the "division" that the father did can be read to signify that he already "distributed". In the law, if you die and leave an estate of any degree to more than one person, someone behind you has to -- in some measure -- come in and allocate the interests. "This here's yours, that there's his, and that over yonder is hers." But, there is a time where creditors and other people who may have higher claims on those interests to assert them before actual distribution can be made free and clear. I just wonder if the elder son here REALLY could have just taken his "share". What would the father have done had he come and asked for his, even if he was going to "run it right"?? Since we're discussing the relational "rights" of the elder son to his father, what effect would that have had on the relationship?? What do you think the father in the parable would've said had the elder son made that request?

I'm posting exactly word for word.. what the simple parable is saying. Now your truly legal ( istic? ) view above isn't.. LOL.

Again in simple parable language review this answer:

Luke 15:31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.

Beautiful, Simple, Direct, & Unmistakeable.

[dolfan]

Yeah, but that depends on what the meaning of "yours" is!

[MacUser]

Yeah, but that depends on what the meaning of "yours" is!

At least we've narrowed it down then.

In the modern online translation:

Yours: that which belongs to you
Function: pronoun, singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from your + -s -'s
Date: 1526

Someone can post the original Aramaic word?

[dolfan]

Now, I'm doing this to be funny, BUT, "belong" can mean different things, too. If I'm in a car with a bag of crack and I know it is there and I can reach it, but I don't own it and don't want it, but I also don't get the heck out of there after I know it is there, and I get stopped with it in there, the law of Alabama says the crack "belongs" to me and I'm looking at a felony conviction. The law also says when you inherit something by will, as soon as the testator dies, the title to the property "devolves" to you (passes to you then, you are the equitable title holder, it belongs to you), but it is "subject to administration" (in other words, someone with a superior claim has a time period to assert the claim and prove it). It belongs to me but it doesn't. When a trustor establishes an irrevocable living trust, and puts property into the trust, he may choose to allocate it during his lifetime into shares (in other words, divvy up who gets what), but not distribute the shares and not allow distribution of shares until some future time, like after he's dead or after the beneficiary reaches a certain age, etc.. It belongs to the beneficiary, but it doesn't belong to them.

So, saying it "belongs to you" is just another way of saying "yours" without really saying what "yours" is!! Isn't it???

[MacUser]

[quote="dolfan"]Now, I'm doing this to be funny, BUT, "belong" can mean different things, too. If I'm in a car with a bag of crack and I know it is there and I can reach it, but I don't own it and don't want it, but I also don't get the heck out of there after I know it is there, and I get stopped with it in there, the law of Alabama says the crack "belongs" to me and I'm looking at a felony conviction. The law also says when you inherit something by will, as soon as the testator dies, the title to the property "devolves" to you (passes to you then, you are the equitable title holder, it belongs to you), but it is "subject to administration" (in other words, someone with a superior claim has a time period to assert the claim and prove it). It belongs to me but it doesn't. When a trustor establishes an irrevocable living trust, and puts property into the trust, he may choose to allocate it during his lifetime into shares (in other words, divvy up who gets what), but not distribute the shares and not allow distribution of shares until some future time, like after he's dead or after the beneficiary reaches a certain age, etc.. It belongs to the beneficiary, but it doesn't belong to them.

Yes.. but it doesn't relate to this simple parable my friend. When one Son asked.. the Father clearly divided as it states. So much to the fact that the YOUNGER son was able to disconnect and take his wealth and leave ( extended leave here) and essentially waste it. So it was available for the Elder son to access at any point yet he was looking for a reward via work.. when it was his via inheritance all along.

Beautiful! Praise God!

[Pastorbps]

Sorry Mac but I still don't believe that has anything to do with the meaning of the parable. In Luke 15 there are 3 parables and all end with a celebration (Sheep, Coin, Prodigal). The fatted calf was simply talking about the celebration and the joy God takes in sinners coming home. The religious leaders asked why He didn't spend His time with those who were focused on spiritual things instead of the publicans and sinners who had been rebellious to God's law. The point is God is focused on the lost but it doesn't mean God doesn't love the faithful or they are not blessed. "I'm glad if you are truly focused on spiritual things and the reward for such people is waiting for you. Instead of being disgusted with the sinners, rejoice in their conversion." God is not focused on the well but the sick but it doesn't mean He has less love for the whole. Their reward is waiting.

You are reading a teaching of grace versus works into this passage and I just don't believe it is there. That doesn't mean I don't believe it isn't taught elsewhere. It just isn't taught here.

[MacUser]

Sorry Mac but I still don't believe that has anything to do with the meaning of the parable.

Ohhh... It's absolutely beautiful and sooo simple!
Don't miss out on living as a Son.

Mark 4:33. With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand.