FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

And since we are on the topic, it is harder for me to fathom a God whom loves all human beings equally with his special, saving love, but yet for many who do not repent, he gives an ultimate judgement of eternal separation from him. Almost mind blowing to think of a God loving all the same and handing out such different judgement in the end.

---

Paraphrasing CS Lewis here - In the end, there are two types of people: those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "Thy will be done." Those who end up in hell choose that as their final destination. And, our all loving God, respecting their free will because that's what authentic love requires, grants their wish.

---

Blue star.

Again, we can find many stories in the Bible, but the one this most shines through is the prodigal son. His dad never came and picked him up and made him come home. The implication being that he could have easily stayed apart from his father and died that way. That's would not change the fathers love for the son, but their relationship would be forever broken.

Agree.

You won't like my answer, but the part in which this son decides to go back would be something that is only enabled by God by his special grace.

Luke 15:17-19
"But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."'

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You won't like my answer, but the part in which this son decides to go back would be something that is only enabled by God by his special grace.

Luke 15:17-19
"But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."'

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

---

I don't mind that answer at all. God does the grace. We simply believe He does it to everyone and not in some overwhelming manner that we can't refuse.

So take the son again. The grace is the father being good and merciful and loving and caring for the son. None of those things are facts the son didn't know about prior. He knew that prior and rejected it. It was a knowledgeable choice to eschew these things for a worldly life. Hence the son had to come to his senses and go back. There is nothing new about what is being offered to him. He simply has to get up and accept it.

Take the conversation with the elder son after. The elder son states how he has stuck around and done everything the father has asked, indicating again that there is a choice. This isn't some overwhelming force. Grace is there for everyone. It is always there to accept and refuse.

If you see this moment as God monergistically changing the prodigal son so that he is now capable of making a good choice, then you're reading that into the parable rather than just reading it for what it is

Do you see the elder son as the picture of the Pharisees? I do.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You won't like my answer, but the part in which this son decides to go back would be something that is only enabled by God by his special grace.

Luke 15:17-19
"But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."'

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

---

I don't mind that answer at all. God does the grace. We simply believe He does it to everyone and not in some overwhelming manner that we can't refuse.

So take the son again. The grace is the father being good and merciful and loving and caring for the son. None of those things are facts the son didn't know about prior. He knew that prior and rejected it. It was a knowledgeable choice to eschew these things for a worldly life. Hence the son had to come to his senses and go back. There is nothing new about what is being offered to him. He simply has to get up and accept it.

Take the conversation with the elder son after. The elder son states how he has stuck around and done everything the father has asked, indicating again that there is a choice. This isn't some overwhelming force. Grace is there for everyone. It is always there to accept and refuse.

If you see this moment as God monergistically changing the prodigal son so that he is now capable of making a good choice, then you're reading that into the parable rather than just reading it for what it is

---

Agree. We interpret Scripture through the lens we are using.

I think there's several ways. The Pharisees, sure. And the Judaeans, generally - making the younger son the gentiles.

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

And since we are on the topic, it is harder for me to fathom a God whom loves all human beings equally with his special, saving love, but yet for many who do not repent, he gives an ultimate judgement of eternal separation from him. Almost mind blowing to think of a God loving all the same and handing out such different judgement in the end.

---

Paraphrasing CS Lewis here - In the end, there are two types of people: those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "Thy will be done." Those who end up in hell choose that as their final destination. And, our all loving God, respecting their free will because that's what authentic love requires, grants their wish.

---

Blue star.

Again, we can find many stories in the Bible, but the one this most shines through is the prodigal son. His dad never came and picked him up and made him come home. The implication being that he could have easily stayed apart from his father and died that way. That's would not change the fathers love for the son, but their relationship would be forever broken.

---

I like this explanation.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Do you see the elder son as the picture of the Pharisees? I do.

---

Could be. Not sure what that would have to do with the idea of the prodigal son having a choice in his return.

It doesn't, just curious.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You won't like my answer, but the part in which this son decides to go back would be something that is only enabled by God by his special grace.

Luke 15:17-19
"But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."'

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

---

I don't think there's anything sus about saying it's a special grace of God that turns the prodigal back. But it does beg the question of what is grace.

Grace, in Catholic theology, is a profound gift from God that ENABLES us to participate in His divine life. It is through grace that we are justified and sanctified. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1996) states, "Grace is favor, the free and undeserved HELP that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God."

In the case of the prodigal son, it was actual grace, which enabled the son to turn and go back (repent) but it would ultimately be sanctifying grace that saved him from perdition and for communion with his father.

Be very careful with the parable interpretations folks. As a vital hermeneutical principle, Jesus told parables to make a point through an illustration (usually just one point, although the prodigal is one of the few that has legit multiple), in some context and usually in response to a question, and if you try to break down the character's actions into potential alternate possibilities or assign multiple layers of meaning you'll get way out of bounds. The meaning of parables is typically right on the surface.

Sorry been trying to go back and type something up on the conversation on God's love but there is so much to cover to at least get others on the same track of my reasoning.

tk111 said:

---

Be very careful with the parable interpretations folks. As a vital hermeneutical principle, Jesus told parables to make a point through an illustration (usually just one point, although the prodigal is one of the few that has legit multiple), in some context and usually in response to a question, and if you try to break down the character's actions into potential alternate possibilities or assign multiple layers of meaning you'll get way out of bounds. The meaning of parables is typically right on the surface.

---

I agree. I generally don't like biblical proof texting, but sometimes I can't resist the temptation. That's why this thread started on the logical underpinnings of what "faith alone" must mean and I intentionally stayed away from tossing out Bible passages for as long as I did.

My thesis was that true monergistic "faith alone" essentially requires Calvinism, which you would agree with I assume. I thought free grace/OSAS type of theology would satisfy monergsitic "faith alone" too, but as you pointed out on the other board, there is still an element of choosing to respond to the altar call that exists there.

But when St Paul writes for specific purposes and to answer questions we should glean whatever theology we can to extrapolate, right?

Zobel said:

---

But when St Paul writes for specific purposes and to answer questions we should glean whatever theology we can to extrapolate, right?

---

I know you're being a bit facetious but this is wildly weird statement. There is no "extrapolation" of theology from the epistles - quite the opposite. If I write a word, I have to have the alphabet to do so. If I write a letter to a mixed church of Jews and gentiles to (among other things) explain the various ways in which they have unity in Christ, the explanation has to be based on a framework of biblical/theological principles. Is Paul just shootin from the hip to get them to get along?

tk111 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But when St Paul writes for specific purposes and to answer questions we should glean whatever theology we can to extrapolate, right?

---

I know you're being a bit facetious but this is wildly weird statement. There is no "extrapolation" of theology from the epistles - quite the opposite. If I write a word, I have to have the alphabet to do so. If I write a letter to a mixed church of Jews and gentiles to (among other things) explain the various ways in which they have unity in Christ, the explanation has to be based on a framework of biblical/theological principles. Is Paul just shootin from the hip to get them to get along?

---

In the case of the Pauline epistles don't we all agree tbat it's the Holy Spirit working through Paul?

it can't be based on biblical principles because "the bible" didn't exist yet. i'm not sure anything like what we would call "theology" in modern parlance existed either. you had teaching, but not strict systematic theology or anything like it.

the point isn't whether or not St Paul is shooting from the hip, and he wasn't. it's that you say hey, the words of Jesus' parables should be understood narrowly because they are focused in context to respond to a specific question. well, St Paul's letters are focused in context, usually to respond to a question or set of questions or a problem as well. why the difference?

you're all about narrow on one, but broad on the other. seems like we should be consistent.