The Elect

[praise_yeshua]

Sorry but you're trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Salvation for the devil and his cohorts may not be possible simply because it's not offered.

The natural man can understand and respond to the gospel. When you Calvinists go down the road talking about spiritual discernment that the natural man understands not the things of the spirit, but you're misrepresenting 1 Cor 2:14 which has nothing to do with salvation truths. It's talking about discernment of the deep things of God or things that only mature believers can perceive. It would be good if you read even a few verses later which confirms this in 1 Cor 3: 1 which states he couldn't give them meat but had to stay with MILK truths.

Exactly!

Satan well understands what is offered to humanity. It is why Satan hates man to the level he does.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The prodigal son was made alive first. Thats resurrection from the dead. Man dead in sin and to God has no spiritual senses.

No he wasn't.

He came to "himself". That is exactly what the Scriptures declare. You might want to read it again.

Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luk 15:20

He realized, because of his previous experience with his father, what he had from God and what this world could not give him.

Any natural man can understand this through natural experience and the Gospel.

 

[praise_yeshua]

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Is that why you deny God's words?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ha ha! so YOU are the one who plays that game! No, you have scored no points! You are still wrong about "...the principle that one doesn't have to consider they've worked for something merely because they've been told they need to do something in relation to possessing something," Kind of interesting to me, though, that you can write these very self-contradicting words and deny the contradiction! And, by the way, the question of whether they consider something one way or another is not the point —the question of whether one doing something can be a means of salvation by grace is the point.

Just how does it work that you "claim Grace" for yourself while denying it to others?

Is that a "work" of salvation for you?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

No he wasn't.

He came to "himself". That is exactly what the Scriptures declare. You might want to read it again.

Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luk 15:20

He realized, because of his previous experience with his father, what he had from God and what this world could not give him.

Any natural man can understand this through natural experience and the Gospel.

You do realize it's a parable, right?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You do realize it's a parable, right?

Sure.

Which part do you want to accept and which part do you not want to accept given it is a parable?

The fact of the matter is clear. Parables have context in this natural world. They parallel our natural experiences. Such gives context to what we naturally observe.

You're a smart man. When Jesus said "let him who thirsts, let him come and drink". We naturally know what it is to thirst. When Jesus said his "yoke is easy and His burden is light", those that heard Him well knew the comparison.

We learn from things around us. You have. I have. Without those natural constructs, you have no knowledge whereby to discern much of anything.

 

[brightfame52]

No he wasn't.

He came to "himself". That is exactly what the Scriptures declare. You might want to read it again.

Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luk 15:20

He realized, because of his previous experience with his father, what he had from God and what this world could not give him.

Any natural man can understand this through natural experience and the Gospel.

Yes he was made alive from the dead and then he came to his spiritual senses, Jesus had granted him repentance. These parables are to show the blessings of the Person and Work of Christ and what He accomplished.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes he was made alive from the dead and then he came to his spiritual senses, Jesus had granted him repentance. These parables are to show the blessings of the Person and Work of Christ and what He accomplished.

You're adding your false claim to what was written. There is nothing in the parable that teaches such. As I referenced. The Scripture declare

he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger!

That is a natural understanding not requiring regeneration.

 

[brightfame52]

You're adding your false claim to what was written. There is nothing in the parable that teaches such. As I referenced. The Scripture declare

he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger!

That is a natural understanding not requiring regeneration.

Oh no, he was dead and lost and Jesus healed him and returned him back to God 1 Pet 2:24

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Oh no, he was dead and lost and Jesus healed him and returned him back to God 1 Pet 2:24

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

You're not a very good representative of Calvinism. You're just repeating the same claim over and over again without dealing with any response.

 

[brightfame52]

You're not a very good representative of Calvinism. You're just repeating the same claim over and over again without dealing with any response.

Insults now. This is the word of God I witnessing to you

 

[Rockson]

Yes he was made alive from the dead and then he came to his spiritual senses, Jesus had granted him repentance. These parables are to show the blessings of the Person and Work of Christ and what He accomplished.

Hold it now. You can't rightly do that to this parable. The Father represents God in the parable not sure how that can be denied. If you're going to bring this into the Calvinism mode you'd have to say the Father went and tracked down the Son and put a collar on him and dragged him back to his home. The parable with the Father as a type of God does absolutely the opposite of what you claim.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Sure.

Which part do you want to accept and which part do you not want to accept given it is a parable?

The fact of the matter is clear. Parables have context in this natural world. They parallel our natural experiences. Such gives context to what we naturally observe.

You're a smart man. When Jesus said "let him who thirsts, let him come and drink". We naturally know what it is to thirst. When Jesus said his "yoke is easy and His burden is light", those that heard Him well knew the comparison.

We learn from things around us. You have. I have. Without those natural constructs, you have no knowledge whereby to discern much of anything.

My point is that a parable is meant to illustrate a point. This one illustrates the joy of the father when a wayward son comes to repentance. Reading any more detail into that is adding to the parable what's not there.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Insults now. This is the word of God I witnessing to you

No. You are repeating Calvinism talking points without actually dealing with the mistakes you're making with dealing with the parable.

 

[praise_yeshua]

My point is that a parable is meant to illustrate a point. This one illustrates the joy of the father when a wayward son comes to repentance. Reading any more detail into that is adding to the parable what's not there.

There is much more in the parable...

However, it wasn't "I" that first extended the parable beyond your assessment.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is much more in the parablee.

However, it wasn't "I" that first extended the parable beyond your assessment.

I haven't read every post in the thread, so I don't know who extended it. But just to make my point, notice that the wayward son IS a son right from the start. Since he is a son, he must already be saved, since when you are saved you are adopted as a son. You aren't a son before that. So therefore this parable must be about a saved son who was backsliding, not a man who is lost who comes to God.

See what I mean about reading too much into a parable?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I haven't read every post in the thread, so I don't know who extended it. But just to make my point, notice that the wayward son IS a son right from the start. Since he is a son, he must already be saved, since when you are saved you are adopted as a son. You aren't a son before that. So therefore this parable must be about a saved son who was backsliding, not a man who is lost who comes to God.

See what I mean about reading too much into a parable?

I understand your position. That is the traditional application I've heard my entire life.

However, I disagree. The son was lost and apart from his father. To me, it is applicable to Adam. There are several historical Calvinists that apply the parable thusly. Such is a traditional teaching in Covenant Theology.

 

[brightfame52]

Hold it now. You can't rightly do that to this parable. The Father represents God in the parable not sure how that can be denied. If you're going to bring this into the Calvinism mode you'd have to say the Father went and tracked down the Son and put a collar on him and dragged him back to his home. The parable with the Father as a type of God does absolutely the opposite of what you claim.

All Parables point to Christ and His Glorious Work, as well as the Trinity

 

[Rockson]

All Parables point to Christ and His Glorious Work, as well as the Trinity

Oh come off it! What you're really saying is regardless of what is clearly spoken of in the parable we must set all that aside and know it must affirm Calvinistic thinking in some unknown way.

You're just hiding behind wonderful words like Glorious and Trinity to make an appeal to your belief. I trust readers can see through it.

 

[brightfame52]

Oh come off it! What you're really saying is regardless of what is clearly spoken of in the parable we must set all that aside and know it must affirm Calvinistic thinking in some unknown way.

You're just hiding behind wonderful words like Glorious and Trinity to make an appeal to your belief. I trust readers can see through it.

Thats the Truth, Im not surprised you dont believe it, nothing I can do to change your mind.