P.S. I just reread the prodigal story and this is how it actually ends.
"And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.
Luk 15:32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”
Clearly in Scripture God considers our separation from him as a form of death, which can only be rectified by our returning, submitting to Him. I don't understand why that troubles you so much.
Daniel, because I can see the compassionate heart behind your posts, and videos I am willing to endure some of your creative interpretations of the biblical texts. I too have interpretations that are not explicitly stated in the texts. But why not just address the issue of misrepresenting the character of God head on, with a real text or personal example that specifically addresses the point you want to make? Why do you feel the need to change the actual story?
When people do this I don't think it helps their case. Rather it gives people reason to question their scholarly integrity. And it's so unnecessary!
The point you are trying to make is a valid point!
No doubt, many people are dissuaded from a personal relationship with God because of the shame that other people pile upon them, but why use a text that never makes point as your proof text?
The story of the prodigal is a story that address the lavish love of our Heavenly Father, and the jealousy of the self righteous, but it not really a story that speaks to the issue of shaming others.
I think a story that better speaks to the issue of shaming others is the one where the Pharisees bring the woman caught in the act of adultery. In this story we see people actually using other people to justify their own sins. That never happened in the story of the prodigal son.
Thank you as always for your response and your concern. I think you totally misread what's going on here, though.
I think your assertion that I'm misrepresenting the character of God head-on is totally unfounded and unfair. If anything, I'm trying to faithfully and accurately portray the character of God.
The reason why I wrote this short story using the introduction to the actual story composed by Jesus is that I thought how wonderful it is that the father made it to the son first. What would have happened if the older son was the first person the younger son met. I don't mean to change the biblical text; instead, I intend to honor it by expanding upon Jesus's own description of the older son.
The older son was working in the field, he became angry at his brother's return, he wasn't willing to go in, he pretends that he has no sin in never neglecting a single command, he doesn't see that his father has given him so much more than a goat, and he disowns his brother by calling him "your son" instead of "my brother."
Unfortunately, many modern "Pharisees and scribes" have this same attitude, and they say some of the very things I put into the mouth of the older brother here. And many a lost son has met these people before they hear about who God actually is.
The Bible often takes popular stories, like the flood or the rich man and Lazarus, and intentionally modifies the ending to shock and challenge and transform this audience.
My friends who have messaged me about this particular post all know me well enough to know that I have far too much respect for the text to throw it away. And I think this is an accurate depiction of what happens in churches today, especially ones overrun by legalism.
Also, I have no problem with the original ending to the story. I actually think it's much better than anything I could ever come up with. And I have no problem speaking of spiritual separation as death. I'm not sure why you think I do.
Brother, thank you for taking the time to engage with my concerns. It's not my ex expectation that you will always reply to my comments, but I don't just post stuff flippantly. I actually am concerned about you and the issues that I address, and not just trying to be a heel.
You misunderstood what I was saying in my first comment. I was not saying that you were misrepresenting the character God. I said that you were misrepresenting the prodigal son story, and that it was not necessary in order to make the point you were wanting to make about the character God.
Sorry for not making that more clear.
I trust that you do understand the character of God, I just think that you seem to want to superimpose God's character upon us, as though we are inherently begotten of God just as Jesus is. Scriptures are clear that we do not start out the way that Jesus is. It is a process for us, in which we are born first physically and then spiritually, and much of what you write and say seems to promote a streamlining of that process.
Certainly I could be misunderstanding you, but I am just giving you my honest feedback so that you will know what your readers and listeners are getting from what you're saying.
Iron sharpening iron is not always fun but it is part of the process that God has set in place for his disciples. I am very thankful for brothers, like yourself, who are willing to endure with that process!
I don't believe in total hereditary depravity. I think that all things come into being through Jesus and that apart from Jesus nothing comes into being that comes into being. I certainly think we can (and do) lose our way, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But I also think that Jesus's atonement was for all, and so grace and salvation and mercy are available to all. When they encounter the gospel in this way and it takes hold of them through the Spirit, they are "born of above" as they rediscover their true Abba.
Yeah, I don't think total depravity is a good way of describing our original created state, before we are born from above. It implies that we are almost useless, or arch enemies of God until we are born again. And I don't think there's any passages of scripture that support those conclusions.
I think the problem is we tend to think that everything is "ok" with God if we are intending well, while doing our own thing.
Jesus never did his "own thing", but we do. Hence the need to repent and receive His Holy Spirit for guidance. To me that's the heart of the Gospel. All of the mushy stuff about accepting God as our "Abba" may help some people to receive God's plan for us, as adopted children, but it seems watered down to me if the focus of the gospel is just "accepting God as our Father".
For "He has created us IN Christ for good works." And until we start manifesting that practical righteousness we have not fulfilled God's intent for our lives.
I’m not sure why you describe God as “Abba” as mushy. We only know God is “Abba” because Jesus perfectly demonstrated the character of God through the cross. We wouldn’t know God is “Abba” apart from the crucifixion, and that’s the furthest thing from mushy.
And this cruciform view of God compels us to live out the same radical love for one another, which is far from doing whatever we want to do.
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "Abba", Daniel. I don't have a problem with identifying our heavenly Father in that way either, it's just that most people who use that word, who I have come across, tend to treat God as their big teddy bear, or some other being which has no characteristics other than warm and tender, and free of all judgment. Our Heavenly Father is far more multidimensional than that.
Chiefly we know God in a personal way through His Holy Spirit. And so if we want to experience His personal touch, we must let Him lead us in the way that we should go, and as we discover where that leads us, usually in loving others and being loved by others, we do sense His presence.
Sometimes bearing a cross is what He asks of us, and it is important to know that He shares in those times with us as well. Good point!
This is brilliant, so realistic! I would want to add some signals the father sent to the younger son from the porch as he waited (to both of them,
really).
It can take awhile for those words to sink in, can’t it?
P.S. I just reread the prodigal story and this is how it actually ends.
"And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.
Luk 15:32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”
Clearly in Scripture God considers our separation from him as a form of death, which can only be rectified by our returning, submitting to Him. I don't understand why that troubles you so much.
Daniel, because I can see the compassionate heart behind your posts, and videos I am willing to endure some of your creative interpretations of the biblical texts. I too have interpretations that are not explicitly stated in the texts. But why not just address the issue of misrepresenting the character of God head on, with a real text or personal example that specifically addresses the point you want to make? Why do you feel the need to change the actual story?
When people do this I don't think it helps their case. Rather it gives people reason to question their scholarly integrity. And it's so unnecessary!
The point you are trying to make is a valid point!
No doubt, many people are dissuaded from a personal relationship with God because of the shame that other people pile upon them, but why use a text that never makes point as your proof text?
The story of the prodigal is a story that address the lavish love of our Heavenly Father, and the jealousy of the self righteous, but it not really a story that speaks to the issue of shaming others.
I think a story that better speaks to the issue of shaming others is the one where the Pharisees bring the woman caught in the act of adultery. In this story we see people actually using other people to justify their own sins. That never happened in the story of the prodigal son.
Hey brother,
Thank you as always for your response and your concern. I think you totally misread what's going on here, though.
I think your assertion that I'm misrepresenting the character of God head-on is totally unfounded and unfair. If anything, I'm trying to faithfully and accurately portray the character of God.
The reason why I wrote this short story using the introduction to the actual story composed by Jesus is that I thought how wonderful it is that the father made it to the son first. What would have happened if the older son was the first person the younger son met. I don't mean to change the biblical text; instead, I intend to honor it by expanding upon Jesus's own description of the older son.
The older son was working in the field, he became angry at his brother's return, he wasn't willing to go in, he pretends that he has no sin in never neglecting a single command, he doesn't see that his father has given him so much more than a goat, and he disowns his brother by calling him "your son" instead of "my brother."
Unfortunately, many modern "Pharisees and scribes" have this same attitude, and they say some of the very things I put into the mouth of the older brother here. And many a lost son has met these people before they hear about who God actually is.
The Bible often takes popular stories, like the flood or the rich man and Lazarus, and intentionally modifies the ending to shock and challenge and transform this audience.
My friends who have messaged me about this particular post all know me well enough to know that I have far too much respect for the text to throw it away. And I think this is an accurate depiction of what happens in churches today, especially ones overrun by legalism.
Also, I have no problem with the original ending to the story. I actually think it's much better than anything I could ever come up with. And I have no problem speaking of spiritual separation as death. I'm not sure why you think I do.
Brother, thank you for taking the time to engage with my concerns. It's not my ex expectation that you will always reply to my comments, but I don't just post stuff flippantly. I actually am concerned about you and the issues that I address, and not just trying to be a heel.
You misunderstood what I was saying in my first comment. I was not saying that you were misrepresenting the character God. I said that you were misrepresenting the prodigal son story, and that it was not necessary in order to make the point you were wanting to make about the character God.
Sorry for not making that more clear.
I trust that you do understand the character of God, I just think that you seem to want to superimpose God's character upon us, as though we are inherently begotten of God just as Jesus is. Scriptures are clear that we do not start out the way that Jesus is. It is a process for us, in which we are born first physically and then spiritually, and much of what you write and say seems to promote a streamlining of that process.
Certainly I could be misunderstanding you, but I am just giving you my honest feedback so that you will know what your readers and listeners are getting from what you're saying.
Iron sharpening iron is not always fun but it is part of the process that God has set in place for his disciples. I am very thankful for brothers, like yourself, who are willing to endure with that process!
Thank you for responding.
I don't believe in total hereditary depravity. I think that all things come into being through Jesus and that apart from Jesus nothing comes into being that comes into being. I certainly think we can (and do) lose our way, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But I also think that Jesus's atonement was for all, and so grace and salvation and mercy are available to all. When they encounter the gospel in this way and it takes hold of them through the Spirit, they are "born of above" as they rediscover their true Abba.
Yeah, I don't think total depravity is a good way of describing our original created state, before we are born from above. It implies that we are almost useless, or arch enemies of God until we are born again. And I don't think there's any passages of scripture that support those conclusions.
I think the problem is we tend to think that everything is "ok" with God if we are intending well, while doing our own thing.
Jesus never did his "own thing", but we do. Hence the need to repent and receive His Holy Spirit for guidance. To me that's the heart of the Gospel. All of the mushy stuff about accepting God as our "Abba" may help some people to receive God's plan for us, as adopted children, but it seems watered down to me if the focus of the gospel is just "accepting God as our Father".
For "He has created us IN Christ for good works." And until we start manifesting that practical righteousness we have not fulfilled God's intent for our lives.
I’m not sure why you describe God as “Abba” as mushy. We only know God is “Abba” because Jesus perfectly demonstrated the character of God through the cross. We wouldn’t know God is “Abba” apart from the crucifixion, and that’s the furthest thing from mushy.
And this cruciform view of God compels us to live out the same radical love for one another, which is far from doing whatever we want to do.
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "Abba", Daniel. I don't have a problem with identifying our heavenly Father in that way either, it's just that most people who use that word, who I have come across, tend to treat God as their big teddy bear, or some other being which has no characteristics other than warm and tender, and free of all judgment. Our Heavenly Father is far more multidimensional than that.
Chiefly we know God in a personal way through His Holy Spirit. And so if we want to experience His personal touch, we must let Him lead us in the way that we should go, and as we discover where that leads us, usually in loving others and being loved by others, we do sense His presence.
Sometimes bearing a cross is what He asks of us, and it is important to know that He shares in those times with us as well. Good point!