Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Marvin Olasky :: Townhall.com Columnist
Prodigal sons: Part of the evangelical problem is knowing which brother we are
by Marvin Olasky
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


As Tim Keller points out in The Prodigal God (Dutton, 2008), the parable of the prodigal son should have a plural in its name: sons. We all know of the younger brother's libertine living, but the elder brother has a more subtle problem: He is self-righteous and lacks joy.

Part of the evangelical political problem in contemporary America is that much of the press and public sees us as elder brothers. Sometimes we are that way in reaction to younger brothers. Sometimes younger brothers go their way in reaction to us.

In higher education, younger brother colleges are party schools that proffer sex and stimulants. Some Christian colleges try to avoid that by imposing tight rules in elder brother fashion. Those rules may lead to external conformity rather than deep belief. Both younger brother and elder brother colleges divert students from learning more about God.

In journalism, younger brother magazines ranging from Rolling Stone to People sell a continuation of younger brother college life. Elder brother reporters tend to be self-righteous fault-finders—and it's always someone else's fault. Elder brother journalism lacks love, charity, compassion, and a sense that all of us are in this mess together. Christian publications that look only at sin among secularists can also be elder brothers.

In the realm of "social justice," younger brothers want governmental redistribution so that everyone, regardless of conduct, gets part of the national inheritance. Some recipients of Washington's largesse are widows and orphans, but others are younger brothers or sisters who should go home but do not because government checks allow them to keep destroying themselves. Elder brothers, though, wax sarcastic about wastrels while they overlook the needy. "Social justice" turns into either social universalism or Social Darwinism.

The gay rights debate is another younger vs. elder brother combat zone. While covering Manhattan's annual humongous Gay Pride parade I didn't see any lip-locks except when the marchers observed a dozen souls from a church waving Bibles and screaming at them, "You're going to hell, sodomite" or "You're an abomination in the sight of God." The presence of elder brothers allowed younger brothers to feel self-righteous: ironically, ranting reminders about sin provided the opportunity to forget about sin.

Younger brothers who perceive self-righteousness or joylessness in their elders head toward mockery. On the Comedy Network, Jon Stewart is a snarky younger brother and Stephen Colbert pretends to be an elder as he parodies FOX's tut-tutting Bill O'Reilly. Elder brothers tend to forget that truth without love is like sodium without chloride: Poison, not salt.

What's rare on television and in life are third brothers who, because they know deeply that the Father loves them, have love for and patience with both elder and younger brothers. Third brothers, knowing they have been forgiven, are not prideful.

A third brother Christian college helps students to see that all people are made in the image of God and all people are sinners. Because of that, beauty shows up where we expect banality, and evil emerges where we anticipate excellence. At a third brother college students become bilingual and bicultural, able to move in both Christian and secular circles without ignoring the problems of the former or the knowledge generated in the latter, through common grace.

Third brother journalism rises out of the history lecture in chapter seven of the book of Acts: Stephen, with neither an elder brother's pridefulness nor a younger brother's sarcasm, realistically emphasizes the fallenness of his people and the holiness of God. He does not seek life's meaning in the formation of or adherence to a man-made religion that sets up a code of morality.

Third brother politics is also different. The Founders fought for both liberty and virtue: Elder brothers tend to forget the former, younger brothers the latter. Third brothers know that we can never have enough laws to banish sin. They tell the truth but do not rant at abortionists and gay rights activists. They control their tongues and lungs not because killing babies and killing marriage is right, but because their goal is to change hearts.

Third brothers ask pointed questions, and here are ones for each of us to answer: Am I a younger, elder, or third brother? Can we, through God's grace, leave behind elder- and younger-brotherism?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of the national news magazine World, provost of The King's College, and a professor of journalism at The University of Texas at Austin. For additional commentary by Marvin Olasky, visit www.worldmag.com.
 
Be the first to read Marvin Olasky's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Thoughtful column
I like the points the author makes.

One older brother
Well this older brother would have a lot more joy if he did not have to constantly pay, in a myriad of ways, for the younger brother’s libertine behavior.

God does love the sinner
It's amazing. Two out of the first three comments illustrate Marvin Olasky's point so perfectly.

God does love the sinner. He would have none perish. But He gave us free will. He wants us to serve Him out of love, 'because He loved us first.' I John 4:19

"When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners...But God showed His great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners..For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of His Son while we were still His enemies, we will certainly be save through the life of His Son." Romans 5:6-10 NLT

"This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it. 'Christ came into the world to save sinners'..." 1 Timothy 1:15 NLT

I know what the blood of Jesus Christ, His sacrifice, saved me from. And I know that He loves sinners. Do we?

did this blogger pass the 3rd grade?
I think this is the most insipid and idiotic blog I have read in about 5 years. Not only does it lack substance, it lacks any and all theological and philosophical elements.

Besides the purpose driven elementary school drivel that underlies it. Next he will tell us that there is a third way economic system between communism and capitalism. That evil and good are reconcilable, that food and poison can be mixed to the health of all! That a system of morality is not possible and that only free floating life style choices are all there is.

This column shows fully what is wrong with Christianity today. NO brains, backbone or intellect. I recommend that he puts down the bible and pick up Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek for starters. Warrens works are useless toilet paper glued together by emotive nonsense and made to capture the unintelligent and make them true believers on behalf of the UN socialists..

The Prodigal Son
The prodigal son story is about the future reunification of all Israel. The elder brother is Judah and the prodigal son is the lost tribes of north, Israel. The oldest son (Judah)stayed with the Father while Israel left to live in the world. After living with the pigs he returns to the family. This is a prophecy of the future return of Israel to the promise land.

The point he's making...
Marvin Olasky is deeply theological, and he is not trying to rewrite the story of the Prodigal Son. He is making the point that we, as Christians, will win the most souls for Christ not through harsh judgement (the elder brother), but by our love. It's not just a song - the BIBLE says we will be known by our love for one another.
Too often we are not. We can condemn sin and love sinners specifically because we know already what sin God has saved us from.

Huh?
The point of the story is not the behavior of the brothers before the younger returned home. It is the role of the father, who welcomes back the repentent younger brother. The joyless self-righteous older brother misses the whole point of repentance. If you think having rules and standards is being the older brother, you're wrong. The Father sets the rules and standards, we have to live by them. Waving Bibles at people and damning them to hell is being the older brother. And where social welfare fits into this story, I have no idea, since even the prodigal took care of himself and din't ask for a handout.

Nailed it!!
Wow, great article, very insightful.

I have a youtube page where I debate liberals. I've made some good friends, they have a lot to contribute and are very American about their views.

We have gotten beyond the partisan ideologies realizing we all want the same thing for America, we just have very different ways of getting there.

As a result, I get a lot of respect from many of those who may disagree with me, and visa versa. So I guess that places me in the third brother category!

http://www.youtube.com/theobamafactor

Michael
The vast vast majority of Democrats are not evil. They are mostly non-political. Thinking about politics is distasteful. They find a discussion about political possibilities to be a nasty conflict, something to be avoided. These superficial people are grist for the platitudes of political correctness, the snake oil of earnest and attractive young fellows like Obama. The oncoming crunch may or may not educate these head in the sand folks that when politics damages your family and children, it is worth figuring out what works.

The trolls who come by here almost never fit this profile of a person who basically avoids politics. The trolls are the ideologues, riding one of the interest group agendas so carefully exploited by the Democrats. Most of them have no interest in any kind of common ground, or discussion of policy.

No use for Marvin
Sorry folks -but this is the father of compassionate conservatism - which has been one of the leading causes of the mess we find outselfs in right now. I have absolutely no use for anything Marvin says.

Don't miss Laura Hollis' column
Today.

What the Prodigal Son Parable Means
We forget the bigger point of the Prodigal son Parable. Who was Jesus speaking to when he gave us this story? The Pharisees. The Pharisees are like the older brother, unwilling to go into the feast (heaven) because they've judged the younger brother (ALL us sinners) to be unworthy of it. And who are the pharisees? Those who have followed all the rules and done the right things. Jesus is calling the rule followers to realize that if God can forgive the sinner, so they must too, or risk heaven.

Marvin's inventing the third brother is a problem. The parable is very clear as it is, and needs no further elaboration.

Marvin's idea that the world sees evangelicals as older brothers is correct. Actually, Jesus saw the visible religious of his day as older brothers. We are all older brothers to the degree that we refuse to forgive the same way God does.

Also, note that the younger brother REPENTED! Forgiveness did not come before that, it came AFTER. Repentance and a willingness to change is required for forgiveness lest those younger brothers now living with the pigs think they can have a free pass.

Marvin is right that there is much to learn from Jesus's prodigal son parable. Let's learn the right stuff.

Jody
You might cut the guy some slack.

The media and the democratic party are very successful in portraying all conservatives and republicans as uncaring self-righteous bigots due to the words of a few. Mr. Olasky attempted to eliminate this through so called compassionate conservatism.

We try to convince people of the virtue of freedom and the redemption of Christianity and the inherent danger of lost freedom from following the liberal dream. Liberals are successful by pointing to a zealous few and scaring people into the belief that we want to rule every aspect of their lives just as we fear the same from them.

They want freedom without the constraint of a moral compass. They fear we want to impose that moral compass by law and they are correct regarding many conservatives. The elder brothers written about by Marvin.

If Christians would be willing to forgo governmental laws prescribing correct behavior and instead attempt to convert people one at a time to the truth, politics would radically change for the better. The elder brother drives people into the false security of big government because they want their freedom from moral constraint. Both sides want freedom and fear the other side is trying to take it away. Being willing to accept the behavior of the prodigal son and await his return instead of condemning him would go a long way to eliminating the hold the liberals have over people.

As long as the media and democrats can successfully paint Christians as witch hunters, they will be successful to the detriment of all.

A God of Love
I won't argue with anyone, however the God I have served and worshipped loves us all, unless we don't care to be loved by Him. 83 years now, and He hasn't failed me yet!

Like Him, we really can love the sinner but hate the sin.

Prodigal vs Perfect Sons
Very good column.

It would be more helpful, though, for Olasky to have pointed to the Father instead of jumping directly to a third son. I think the "third" son would be the youngest son after repenting. And the elder son, if he ever comes around.

But the Father is actually in the parable as the source of this "third" option POV. And he should be emulated.

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Jesus says this to his disciples in his sermon on the mount. (Right after telling them to love their enemies-- which pretty much answers the question of whether or not God loves sinners.)

The perfection Jesus calls us to is not the mathematically and scientifically inhuman perfectionism which condemns us in our day. It is the kind of perfection an adult has over a child. Ten fingers, ten toes on each. But the adult is mature.

In other words: Jesus is telling humanity to grow up. And we can only do that if we first repent, then come home looking to God as our Father . . . through Jesus Christ his Son. Humm. Well, I guess there is a "third" Son after all. He's the one telling us the parable in the first place. Of course, he and the Father are one.

Excellent column, Mr. Olasky.

California's Proposition 8 (for example)
Reading this article, I assume that those who supported Proposition 8 would be considered "elder brothers" and those who opposed it "younger brothers". The only choice left for the "third brother" is not to vote.

Is that what you want Professor Olasky, for "third brother" Christians to disengage so as to have the "approval" of the secular world?

Actually, your "third brother" sounds a lot like a "compassionate conservative", which was an abject and resounding political failure.

Compassion (being a third brother) is for my personal life and the relationships I have with individuals. Common sense and what works drives my political ideology.

Being a Christian and following Christ should be a devisive endeavor. Jesus said it would be. Additionally, Jesus said we would be hated because He was hated first.

Professor Olasky, it sounds like your "third brother" character just wants to be loved. Remember, "woe to he when everyone speaks well of him."

The identity of the third brother...
Uh, the third brother was the one telling the parable...

By Grace Alone
The Prodigal Son parable is about a sovereign and loving God's saving grace. The prodigal son ultimately recognizes both God's sovereignty and his own fallen nature. He realizes that he is incapable of saving himself and that his salvation comes from God by God's grace alone - not by his own efforts. He desires a relationship with God and is joyously happy to be able to be in HIs presence serving in God's kingdom as he is called by God, not as he himself chooses. The elder son is self righteous and believes he has earned his salvation through his dutiful good works. He sees his brother's weakness but not his own. He doesn't desire a relationship with God but rather seeks to glorify himself. He doesn't know God and by his own self righteousness he diminishes and denies God.

When it comes to God's kingdom, our politics don't matter. Conservatives and Liberals alike are fallen creatures and we are each busily at work glorifying ourselves rather than God. Only when the Holy Spirit moves us to recognize that we are saved by a sovereign God through Grace alone, by Faith alone, because of Christ alone, can we begin to live a life of joyous servanthood. Arguments that Conservative ideals create a better civil society than Liberal ideals can be honestly debated but neither ideal earns us a place at God's table.

He might re-read the parable a little.
In the Bible, the Elder brother was gently rebuked. He wasn't chastised. He is pictured as having a few momments of pique in a generally faithful life, not as being self-righteous. The parable actually pictures the elder brother far more sympathetically then those who use it in a sermon illustration are wont to do.

And the Prodigal Son-need I remark-came back and repented. If he hadn't he would still be eating corn husks.

Dave

Dave, I think what Olasky is saying is the elder brother would still vote for prop 8, but should realize he won’t win the younger brother to his side if he stands at the gay parade shouting that homosexuals are going to hell.

I think the point of the article is to remind us our attitude and manner can make a difference. Helping the younger brothers “see the light” could depend on the way we approach them.

I think it is good to be reminded of this. It is difficult when you understand what is truth and wish others could see it too to check the arrogance at the door. I know I have been guilty of this (especially on TH, where anonymity can allow one to be less sensitive to where another person is coming from).

It is but by the grace of God that elder brothers keep God’s commandments. We need to remember to not take any credit for ourselves. We can all fall from grace at any time.

I personally would like to apologize to any one I have ever offended in a post. I apologize for my lack of charity. I hope all come to understand God’s unique plan for each and every one of us.

The prodigal son needs to know when he is ready there will always be a place at the table for him. Because who would want to go home if he does not feel welcomed there?


The Article was great!
Very thought provoking and true. And just as the one poster stated, most of these comments dramatize The Prodigal Son parable perfectly!


Excellent posts
I think we just had church.
I agree with Craigers point regarding the
Warren theology..it's a warmed over Norman Vincent Peale, Schuller theology.
What's happened is many churches have quench the Holy Spirit and have turned to men to define what makes a church work..Warren uses marketing techniques from Peter Drucker and they are just as divisive and failing as in business. When a churches teaching is called a franchise there's something very wrong with it.
The Saddleback forum was informative but Warren didn't follow up when he should have..i.e. above my paygrade remark..snarky and cute, and arrogant. I doubt Jerry Falwell for one would have just smiled and gone on to another question. nor would Franklin Graham. Warren's teaching is one reason evangelicals went over to the darkside and supported the false godking.
And it's not that Christians want a theocracy but we who know our history know The One Who
brought about the Constitution and our unique
form of governing. As Adams said, this Republic will only work for a moral and religious people.

So the premise is...
..all things are equal?

Don't take a position?

All 'truths' are true?

This sounds less like "Judge not..." and more like "Don't worry mon, be happy..."

The middle ground is perfectly acceptable for some things, like when the wife asks green or brown for the new sofa, but to advocate dismissing your beliefs in order to simply get along? No, not a good option, as once was said "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything".

It is pointless to expect
prodigals (unbelievers) to be or act godly. There is no reason for them to do so. BUT, this is not the problem. The problem is the Church. The Church should not allow prodigals in the Church whose only desire is to change God into their image.
The Church must remain pure. God does not change. Our leaders must be courageous and speak out on obedience to God's statutes. If His statutes are not written on our hearts are we saved?

On the other hand I do not want my children taught in public schools the Humanist Religion. I do not want to walk down the street with prodigals that feel any immoral behavior is publically acceptable. Walking the beach in Hawaii we came across old hippies in the nude having sex with one another. Is this extreme acceptable? I think we have a right to say what is acceptable behavior in public society.

a lot of things I don't understand
so I try to

Love my God, love my family, love my friends, love the lost and the hurting(that can be hard) and enjoy life.


Obama the self righteous
We do have an arrogant self righteous liberal residing in the White House, actually two. I will only speak of the one elected to a public office, President Obama promotion of deviancy, genocide, infantcide, and discrimination will cause the nation to continue to spiral in to the pit of fraud and deceit.

love thy neighbor
The mistake many 'christians' make is assuming their enemies view the world the same way they do. But then most 'christians' are not worldly, at least not politically, and thus are worldly ignorant.

When an ignorant indoctrinated preacher tells them to blindly obey the government he is helping to create slaves.

The question for the few christians and others concerned about preserving what little Liberty we have left and maybe with a miracle restoring the Liberty our DOMESTIC ENEMIES have stolen from us over time is how much love do we show to a brother, or a big brother, who is breaking down doors, stealing the minds of children, destroying our civilization in every way he can so he can erect his communist/authoritarian police state over us?

‘Michael’ above is probably one of our enemies. He forwards the lie that constructive dialogue can be carried on with creatures who are seeking to consume us all. The hard core membership of the Amerikan Communist Insurgency are well aware of what they do and what their goals are. They only lie, or tell the truth, to forward them. Three steps forward, two steps back is their mantra.

‘Michael’ thinks he can foster “…civil and respectful debate and discussion between liberals and conservatives.” Doing so is like dancing with the devil. You don’t change the devil he changes you.

The only answer is to get in their faces and declare our natural born Liberty, and dare them to try to take another inch and keep the force necessary to back that claim up handy. That is all they will ever understand. And yes, many of them are too stupid to grasp such a simple concept. Lot’s of ignorant 19-year-olds die in wars. Always have. Always will.

We will have to kill many of them to save what’s left of this country. It’s time to wake up and take on that responsibility.

Don’t understand? Start here:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

Then share and prepare.





on the subject of gay folks
Once again, a TH writer gives a generalized observation on the Christian role in other lives, but misses the point regarding gay men and women and their unique attribute.

Sin is not politicized in any other lives BUT gay lives. Rather than engage gay men and women into the structure of marriage and family, they are rejected from youth from EVER being what they biologically MUST be as heterosexuals are. Which is loving, committed human beings.
The aspect of elder brother, Olasky speaks of, unrealistically and unfairly expects and requires gay adults to have the STATUS of children, as well as be expected to act like children. That is, to never have romantic lives, sex or raise children, have the career of choice or challenge the dominant culture's lack of consistency and discrimination.

As those JOYFUL same sex couples were getting married in CA, Prop. 8 slammed the door on that joy. And it was joy at no one's expense or the expense of marriage.

In sharing the joy of Christianity, why not share the joy of civil rights as well, consistent with that of non believers and the protections of the Constitution that evangelicals demand too?



Fabius Cunctator
Please read I John, especially Chapter 1, verse 8 through Chapter 2, verse 2.
John is telling us that believers do sin--and when believers confess their sins God forgives their sins. Do you believe that John told lies when he wrote this?
If God does not love sinners, whom in the world did he love so that he gave his only begotten son (John 3:16)?

Wow
Wow, I actually agree with Olasky. This is a pretty good formulation of the situation.

Not that the right wingers here will understand that.

Allowing Christ to speak
The truth here is that Olasky wants to over-ride Christ. Who's parable is it anyway?

Jesus caught many a pharisee's attention in speaking. To them He was often insufferable, and the Prodigal's story as He told it was particularly offensive.

The father is none other than God our Almighty Father. The prodigal son represents sinners and mainly Gentiles.
Those were the ones pharisees called "dogs."

The elder brother stands for Israel, the chosen people. To the pharisee, having any outsider placed on a par with God's chosen people the Hebrews was plainly ridiculous. They hated Jesus for repeatedly showing mercy for the "other,"

And in the Prodigal's example, not only was God seemingly negligent of the elder's great prerogatives, but openly expressed greater esteem for the "bad" brother. Jesus had a stubborn way of getting under the Hebrews' skin. He even said (gasp!) "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." Statements that seem almost "American as apple pie" to you and me now.

They had a thunderous meaning amidst the people of Jerusalem then. Only today the evangelicals don't learn much from Christ's most earth-shaking pronouncements.

Introducing a "third brother" verges (IMHO) on the absurd. Olaskey ought to think that one over. It's not in the Gospel.

today and every day forever


Let me counsel (yet once again) our favorite homosexual apologist at Toon Hall, "du."

So much of what you say about so-called gays is tender and benevolent, du. Who can disagree we have to love our neighbor and consider him/her altogether WORTHY of our respect. (I do have a great admiration for many of their accomplishments.)

Unfortunately, du-- the marvelous personalities, together with such awesome gifts many of them have received (from God) can't obscure the FACT that in their pursuits of love, intimacy and pleasure; they live sinfully. All of it together amounts to wanton self-destruction. Nothing about their love is wholesome or correct. NOTHING, du!

WELL SAID!
Very thoughtful article!

Simply not true!
"Elder brothers, though, wax sarcastic about wastrels while they overlook the needy."

Keeping in mind that Evangelicals and conservatives are one in the same for the most part, note the following:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

* Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

* Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

* Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

* In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

* People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Like I said, little brothers live off of older brothers.

One of several lessons
The referred passage of Scripture has several lessons, not the least of which is that both brothers had a problem with sin. The younger brother's sin was obvious and self-destructive. In some ways it was easier to deal with because it led him to disaster and so the consequences were easy to identify. Thus, he repented and came home with a right attitude.

The older brother was perhaps a greater sinner. He was self-righteous, spoiled, whiny and lacked both mercy and forgiveness. The danger was that his sin didn't really show on the outside, so he didn't think he was a sinner. Those who don't think they're sinners are much more likely to perish in their sin. You know -- if you don't know it's broken, you won't, and probably can't, fix it.

Pure tripe
It all sounds good, younger brothers, older brothers, third brothers, but this is all tripe. There will always be people who want to push the envelope, poke the righteous in the eye, do whatever they please without consequence(so they think.) Natural law, however proves that those who do, eventually fall and get hurt in some way whether it is aides, an unplanned pregnancy, etc. We need elder brothers to tell the truth and try to keep us in line or else there will be anarchy. While it is wonderful to love your brother it is not alright to stand on the sidelines and not say when he is doing something that will harm him. It will make him angry, but it also may cause him to think about the errors of his ways. Love can do alot, but silence is not the answer.

re: Fabius Cunctator
Is anyone going to address the Fabius Cunctator's humorous assertion that apparently he (who is presumable a born again Christian) is without sin and will never sin again?? Especially since he seems to keep committing the sin of pride everytime he hits "submit" on this board? Not to mention his presumption to define sin ahead of God and Jesus?

Sorry couldn't resist..

On more worthy matters, excellent article Mr Olasky, if Christians are dissatisfied with their media image then they need to address who are their most public speakers that keep on feeding this image. It is absolutely true that preaching hate and brimstone will draw more derision and laughs to your cause then preaching charity, love, and faith and setting the example forthwith.

We miss the moral of this story also
The Biblical story of the prodigal son is not to show how bad either brother was, but to show the grace of forgiveness. This story reflects the grace God gives to each one of us when we repent and He forgives us totally. The father knew that the son was sorry and forgave him and killed the fatted calf(Peta people won't like this part.) Anyway, the columnist misses the point completely. And yes, Joey, younger brothers are living off elder brothers in this country right now with their irresponsible living.

Smarti you are not too smart
Professing Christians are not without sin, we are forgiven. Becoming a Christian does not mean you never sin again. We are not supernatural beings, just human like you and I, for one, probably sin every day. We all have a sinful nature, but Christ came to earth, died on the cross to save us, not because we are without sin but because He loves us so much. He can even forgive you of your sin of pride and anger if you just ask Him. Yes, there are some Christians who do not seem to show much love, but telling someone when they are doing something wrong that may harm them or someone else is not hate. You are just lost in your own sin right now and are darn mad when someone tells you what you are doing is wrong.

Sea Bass you are correct
Love God with all your soul, mind and body and the rest will fall into place. He loves us all, we just have to accept Him as our Lord and savior. He does not want one to perish. I just wish some of these people could see what the future holds for them if they reject Him.

Joey, you are right about the giving
My husband and I are Christians and we gave more than a quarter of our income to church and charities last year. We laugh that we give more now than we made when we were first married. It feels good to give and I wish others would do so. I just wish the government did not take so much of our money so that we could give more. It is true that liberals give very little of their own money to charity. They want to give someone else's money to charity by having it confiscated by the government.

Third Brothers
Much of what occurs in the culture wars is that "believers" and "non-believers" have bought into the dicotomy of sacred and secular. As long as one holds this view the will either be a older brother or a younger brother but unable to be a third brother. I do not practice a sacred/secular split I believe Jesus intended to be the Lord of my Life in all spheres. Additionally, I do not for an instance believe that non-believers are capable of living up to Christian morality. It is not my place to call for that but it is my place to offer an alternative by living a simple, peaceful and joyous life before them.

too worldly church
as our pastor has said many times, the world has become too preachy and the church too worldy. We are to be different from the world, the salt, the light, and the love. The world hates the one we serve. It is a dangerous world for Christians right now, and we must be strong and not falter. Don't let columnists like this make you doubt.

Older Brother 1
I am an older (oldest) brother. My brother is the younger brother. This passage of scripture is the hardest thing in the Bible for me to accept.

The ministers, priests, etc. make a big thing about the older brother's refusal to accept and love the younger brother. But does the older brother really not care? I love my younger brother. I like him to visit and feed him well when he comes. If he needs help, I will give it if at all possible. But that is NOT ALL the father did.

My mother tended to give my younger brother whatever he wanted - including my belongings. I don't know how many times I was told, "You should be happy to give your brother this (whatever). He wants it." Usually he wanted it only to take it away from me. I didn't mind the toys so much but I did care when he was given the love I didn't receive. In the Bible the father, when seeing his younger son, gave him fine raiment, the fatted calf, and his ring. But it was known then what those things mean. Now it is very seldom mentioned. Fine raiment was kept for the father's heir, to be worn when the heir took his father's place as head of the family, making decisions for all family members. The fatted calf was fatted for a reason; it was to be slaughtered and served at the heir's wedding feast. The ring was the main symbol of the father's absolute authority. By giving these things to the younger son, the father was giving the entire inheritance of the older son, including his bride, to the younger one. And, like my mother, was surprised the older son wasn't happy about it.


Older Brother 2
The father told his older son that "when I die all things belong to you." But then why was he giving EVERYTHING to the younger, even symbolically? As an older brother, I wouldn’t care if the younger brother was feasted and accepted back after all he had done. But that wasn’t exactly what happened. As the older said, the father hadn't even given him a kid to have a meal with his friends. He had gotten nothing throughout his life except work while his brother had been permitted whatever he wanted, including his inheritance to waste. Why should he get the oldest one's share as well? And why should the oldest one be happy to give up everything so he can labor the rest of his life to make his younger brother richer and accept only his younger brother's waste as pay? And, more important than anything, why should he be happy to have his brother take the bride and the love the father gave the younger son with no love given or shown for himself? Anyone want to explain that?

evangelical problem???
I kind of resent the columnist's saying we have an evangelical problem. To say that is to say there is something wrong with being evangelical, that is agreeing with the Christian gospel that emphasizes salvation through faith and the grace of Jesus Christ. I for one am not ashamed of Jesus and will proclaim him until the day I die. He has saved me from my sins. I know I will be with Him in heaven one day. If it offends someone, that is their problem, not mine. They will have to face God when they die, not me.

45caliber
You miss the whole point of the story. I, too, use to think it was unfair that the oldest son did what was right, but it was the younger son who was given the party. But what the older son did not understand was that he already had everything that belonged to his father and had not suffered by being without it as the younger son did. Just as we who are saved already have God's grace and we should all celebrate when one who was lost comes back into the fold. Sinners do not realize how happy Christians are when they repent and accept Christ and "come back into the fold." That is the theme of the story. God bless

katepatate
You are right about giving. One thing I've always believed however.

Conservatives give to help others without a thought or a need to be rewarded. In fact, many, including myself on occasion, give annonomously so no one will know who gave.

Liberals give others' money for the glory of it. "See what I'm doing to help you? You should be thankful!" But they are careful to insure they themselves are not the ones who might be short of money for living expenses or luxuries.

katepatate
No, I know exactly what you are saying. You could say that when my brother took off that I had all my mother's attention and love as well as my needs. Wrong. My mother was only concerned with finding my brother and getting him home again.

And as far as the sinner returning is concerned, I certainly rejoice. I was happy to see my brother come back as well. (Incidently, he was in the Army at the time.) But I still did not receive any signs of love or attention. The father in the story didn't show any of it to his oldest son either, as his oldest son pointed out. So why should the oldest son get excited about his younger brother returning EXCEPT that he returned and was safe? Why should he want to give his younger brother everything he owned, including his wife?

Question/Test
Is everyone having as much trouble as I am posting or getting the articles? I posted my first one five times before it took.

Smarti
I agree wholeheartedly on Fabius, but therein lies the problem of the second half of your post.

Christians can be "third brothers" as much as we want and can be in our personal lives, but I've discovered that non-Christians, especially those who are already predisposed to prejudice against us, will still insist upon the stereotype.

I work for a social service organization (so left loony central) and the stereotype gets trotted out all the time, followed by "oh, we don't mean you. You're different than most Christians." Uh, no, I'm not, they just know me. It reminds me a great deal of the way some people used to feel about people of other races. They had all these ideas (stereotypes) of what a black/asian/polish/irish person was and they insisted that was truth. Anyone deviating from their stereotype was an exception. In reality, they were ignorant, but good luck getting them to see that.

Fabius Cunctator @3:26 pm
I fear you have missed my point. John is writing to Christians, not to unbelievers. He is telling them that if they say that they are not sinners, they are lying--but if they confess the sins they have committed since coming to trust in Christ, God will forgive them their sins. I am not tempting you to reject Scripture, but to accept it, and not hold to the heresy that a believer cannot sin.
What is your source of saying, "God does not love sinners who know about Jesus and keep on sinning."? It is true that anyone who rejects Jesus has no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. Such a person wants nothing of God, and does not want to be a part of the Kingdom of Heaven.
You mention logic. Logic leads me to accept the fact that I am at the same time both saint and sinner, just as Paul was when he told the Romans (Romans 7:7-8:17) of the continual battle that he had with his sinful nature. As believers, we have victory over death in Christ.

What a great parable!!
This is one of my favorite parables because it conveys the great news of the Gospel so well. To see it merely as a morality tale is such a shame.

Behind each of our comments is a "prodigal son" or an "elder son". We are all sinners, even those who have received the good news of Jesus Christ. Though we are free from sin we are also still captive to sin so long as we breath on this earth. Only God's saving grace, not our own works, ultimately liberates us from our bondage to sin. To say otherwise is a denial of scripture and only diminishes God's sovereignty and Christ's death on the cross.

In the meantime let us all recall Jesus' words to the angry mob, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We must look at one another and remind ourselves that each of us is a precious part of God's creation, and that God saw worth in creating each individual just as He saw worth in creating you. So when you notice another's offense, it should be as familiar as seeing your own shortcomings. The other fellow human is in as great a need of forgiveness as are you.

We cannot fully know God or His will beyond that which He has revealed to us. Trying to do so was what got us into trouble in the first place.

45caliber - cultural context
In Hebrew society, the eldest son received a double share of the inheritance. So, if there were two brothers, the estate was divided into thirds and the eldest received 2/3s while the younger received 1/3. When the younger son asked for his inheritance, the father had to liquidate some of the estate to provide to to him.

The younger son, having received his inheritance, was entitled to NOTHING when he returned. He understood this, which is why he was asking his father to become his slave. Slavery was often used as a means to overcome poverty in Hebrew society. Seven years and you're done. Instead, Dad took the boy back, but not to inherit anything from the estate. The boy was still going to be beholden to his father or brother as a hired man if he stayed. But he was loved like a son.

The estate still belonged to the father. The eldest son had not inherited it yet. The father could do with it what he wanted, but he couldn't give any of it to the younger son as an inheritance. He could only celebrate his son's return with the proceeds of his own property.

The older brother was therefore whining that he'd been hard at work building his own inheritance, but that dad was spending some of it to celebrate the return of his wastral brother.

We do the same thing, Christians sometimes. We whine that God has blessed someone who spent most of their life out in the hog pen, so why doesn't He bless us? Well, first, it's His blessing to give or not. Second, we've been blessed by not being out in the hog pen. Third, we often look at that other person's past and complain that we deserve better than them. Why? Our attitude stinks. Why should God give us anything if we won't come to Him recognizing that it all belongs to Him anyway? The younger son understood that nothing at that banquet was his. The older brother, OTOH, thought it should all belong to him. It was all about the attitude.

And, yeah, I've been both
the younger "brother" and the older "brother". I know what it is like to crawl out of the hog pen and offer myself in repentence to God in hopes of regaining any scrap of dignity. I also know what it is like to look at my fellow sinner and think "Why is God blessing them after only a short time as a Christian when I've been here working for all this time? Where's my blessing?"

Fortunately, God doens't put up with that sort of self-righteous nonsense from me. I've been disciplined a few times for my betterment.

Third "brothers" are often those who understand that we're all sinners. If you're a Christian, you're a sinner saved from your sin, but you're still a sinner. If it weren't for what Jesus did for you, you'd be drowning in the muck like all the non-Christians. We all bring our past selves with us when we come to God and some of us bring a lot of baggage that's hard to set down. Our sin goes before us to the gates of the city and everybody knows we're not all that righteous. Those Christians have the best potential for being "third brothers" if they let God bring them to a place where they understand that the only reason they have laid aside their baggage is that Jesus Christ took it for them, not because they've done anything to deserve their freedom. I think the prodigal son might eventually have developed into a "third brother" because he "got it."

This is Baloney
I'm sorry. I cannot agree with the premise. In my opinion, we have allowed the younger brother to run wild. To mock the elder. To go astray and then patted the younger on the back with a wink and a nod for doing so. So, instead of expecting the younger brother to actually grow up and mature, now we expect the older brother to placate and placate the younger in the name of peace, tolerance, diversity, or whatever all the while we watch the younger brother get off the narrow path marching straight to eternal doom.

Real Christians are elder brothers
Real Christians are 'elder' brothers; they are, and should be, quick to condemn, to express hate, and to show their loathing for all persons they condemn. Olasky can try all he wishes to come up with a gospel of niceness, but it won't work. The Christian is to condemn all who are unrighteous. Christianity without self-righteousness is like Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' without the prince.

45caliber
A very interesting post. The only response I can think of is that the Father already knew that the elder brother did not need any help. He was self sufficient. He had wisdom. He knew the truth. He already had everything that was important. Material things being way unimportant religiously. Store your treasure in heaven where it cannot rust and all that.

In your case, it sounds as though your mother favored the younger one. A common problem and certainly unfair. Like the parable, it might be that she knew you could handle it, that you did not need her as much. She may have thought the younger one needed the extra attention and material things. The whole notion of rooting for the underdog. It might not be fair but, it also speaks to the character of the older one that the parent felt they could handle it and did not need all the extra attention or material things. A lesser man might attempt to emulate the younger brother to garner the attention.

Gestell
Why ya gotta be that way? Reminds me of that movie The Last Supper where the liberal dolts dream up a plan to kill everyone they disagree with because anyone that disagrees with them is spouting 'hate'.

Don't confuse me! Don't start acting like a reasonable person or talk about love cause then it might be a problem with my hate.

The younger brother wised up!
Yeah, some never do and I don't think we should be giving them a free ride. Why go home if someone will give you money for staying in the hog pen? It was there in the hog pen, though, that he realized that he and he alone was responsible for his behavior and situation. It was from that experience that he developed an attitude of humility and repentence. He wised up and went home, not to get anything from his dad as a beloved son, but to beg a "rich" man for rescue by offering himself in slavery (the safety net of ancient Israel).

The younger brother wised up to his sin; there is no evidence that the older brother ever recognized or repented of his.

Gestell
Really? Do you have a Bible verse that will show me that?

Christians are not supposed to condone sin, but we are supposed to recognize that "but for the grace of God" goes I. We are condemning our friends and family to Hell if we condone sin, but often we consign them to hell when we condemn sin in a self-righteous way. There's nothing righteous in me, though I've lived a pretty righteous life for 30-odd years now. Knowing that means I can care enough to pray for and witness to my non-Christian friends and family and not let people like you try to tell me it's not loving to point them in the right direction.

If I'm headed for a cliff, I'd appreciate being told. Hell is one cliff I dearly appreciate being told about and I think those I have witnessed to who have accepted the warning have appreciated in the long run too.

Smarti
"Is anyone going to address the Fabius Cunctator's humorous assertion that apparently he (who is presumable a born again Christian) is without sin and will never sin again??"

I have already addressed his heresy on two previous threads using nothing but Scripture and Roman Catholic websites, as FC is an RC. You can try, but you will not succeed in ridding him of it.

I will conceed that it is somewhat humorous, but also dangerous, as I have seen other Christians almost taken in by it.

Rich D @11:21 pm
I addressed his misunderstanding at 12:57 pm today; he responded at 3:22 pm, and I replied at 4:18 pm. So far, he has not responded to my last post.
We can thank God that he does not abandon belivers who yield to temptation but is faithful to them.

Younger
His logic fails. If you ask him whether he goes to confession and what he says, you will get the question thrown back in your face. If you ask him whether he omits the part of the Lord's Prayer that says, "...forgive us our debts...", he will not respond. Three Catholics even disagreed with him on this thread:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Column2.aspx?UrlTitle=the_re al_scandal_of_religion&ns=MichaelGerson&dt=02/06/2009&comme nts=true

Have fun.


Fabius Cunctator
Just when I teach you one thing, you regress in some other area. I see that you are now backing off of your original "can't sin" heresy to the position that I held and described in the beginning - being convicted by the Holy Spirit maens that you are no longer oriented to habitual sin(s). Thanks for that. Keep working on it and you'll eventually arrive at the truth.

Now you seem to be trying to score points by playing word games:

FC: "Rich D. says Trinity not Biblical."

You are an unrepentant liar as you continually misquote me. As you quote:

FC: "Sola Scriptura" is nowhere in the Bible.
RD: "Neither is the Trinity. Neither am I arguing it. Are you awake when you read?"

Saying that the word "trinity" is not in the Bible is not the same as saying that the doctrine can't be derived from the Bible. How many points to you get with your fan club of one for lying?

Note also that I said that wasn't arguing "sola scriptura", but you keep bringing it up to cloud the issue of your heretical doctrine of sin that all Christian churches (including yours) disagree with. How many points to you get with your fan club of one for obsfucation?

There's no point attempting to deal with your trash on Koine tenses and doctrines of works. You're totally lost here. I hope that readers don't judge all Catholics by you.

reply to aurorawatcher and hitchhiker
I evaluate Christians by their actions, not their words. I used to think I was a Christian, but reading TH for a couple of years has shown me the error of my ways. As far as I can see, the vast majority of Christians who post on TH on almost any issue are quick to express anger, loathing,and hatred toward their targets. Anybody who was looking for Christian love on TH would be looking for it in all the wrong places.

As for the history of Christianity, it includes everything from medical missionaries to the Inquisition. The Bible has been used to justify the murder of Jews and the enslavement of blacks.It certainly has been, and is, used to promote hatred of gays. Since I don't have a God's eye view, the only Christianity I know is the sum total of the words and actions of those who call themselves, and are called by others, "Christians." If Christianity is more than the sum total of its history, it is for God alone to make that judgment call.

we must recognize
There's no answer except to concede the impossibility of redeeming Gestell by persuasion. She's not capable of real debate.

Her mind is made up. This makes her the unwitting bigot for whom there's but one way: Gestell's Way or the Highway. Nothing is enough for her, we can merely ignore her postings. Bigotry is her 2nd nature; and she has no concern for others.

Gestell
"Since I don't have a God's eye view, the only Christianity I know is the sum total of the words and actions of those who call themselves, and are called by others, "Christians.""

Well, that's a shame, because what you need to know is the words and actions of Christ recorded in the Bible.

To Rich D
I sense by your words to Fabius you've never understood the term heresy. Fabius might not be correct, but his error isn't a heresy.

Your basic protestant doctrines are heretical, since they were TAUGHT you (wrongly, most of them) as real articles of faith. A heresy is something taught as apostolic truth, but which departs theologically from apostolic doctrine. (In other words, an invention of men.)

This is much like the error of Sola Scriptura; rightly seen as a false doctrine. It's not supported by biblical exegesis anywhere in the New Testament, much less taught by Christ or the apostles.

You came by that belief out of a heretical source, mainly Lutheranism. You continue teaching it, so the charge of heresy is a propos in your case but NOT for Fabius.

Fabius Cunctator isn't a Catholic theologian, he has NO teaching office in the Church. He promotes his views here without the support of the Catholic Church. All these have been are misapplied exegesis; private opinions.

Ironical to realize, Fabius has concluded one thing erroneously on the basis of biblical passages he construes without any recourse to genuine doctrine. He depends on --Sola Scriptura! Which is heretical doctrine.

But is he in heresy altogether? Not at all. Fabius remains faithful to apostolic truth as promulgated and interpreted by the Catholic Church. (Something you clearly reject.)

Fabius Cunctator at 12:29 am today
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts.
1) You had not made it clear that you acknowledge that a believer can, and will sin, despite his wish not to sin. Anyone who commits a sin is a sinner, even though he has acknowledged his trust in Christ. While in this life, all believers are both saints (by the grace of God) and sinners(because they still commit sins). We do differ on this statement.
2) Yes, those who have made a profession of faith in Christ and refuse to acknowledge that they sin when they live in open disobedience to God cannot, in any sense, be called “saints.”
3) I have addressed your statement that a believer in Christ cannot be a sinner, despite John’s statement that believers do sin. I have seen no reason to bring in the fact that those who refuse to acknowledge that they live in disobedience to God will not enter heaven.
I, along with Paul, do not willingly go on sinning, “so that grace may increase” (Ro. 6:1). It grieves me that I grieve God.
4) You quibble. What proof do you have that the Greek present tense is not used to express a present situation? How is a present situation expressed in Greek? Do you use the Aorist? the Past? the Perfect?
5) Did Paul ever declare that he was not a sinner?
We will be judged by our works, and if our names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, we will not be thrown into the lake of fire at the last judgement (Rev. 20:11-15).

Gestell
You claim you judge Christians by their actions, but then you paint all who use the title with the same broad brush. As CS Lewis observed: "Just because I go into my garage, doesn't make me a car." There are a lot of folks out there who use the title of Christian with even less understanding of what that means than you seem to possess. They are mistaken in their definition (and apply it mistakenly to themselves) because they don't read the Bible in its entirety in context. They pick and choose what they like and discard the rest. Only those who accept the definition of Christian where it was first applied in Antioch (primarily based on Paul's teachings) can truly call themselves Christians. And, regardless of your feelings on the subject, we do not deserve to be grouped with those others anymore than Paul deserved to be grouped with the Judaizers of his day.

Just something for you to think about!

dear aurorawatcher, sir
Sorry to interfere, but:

"Only those who accept the definition of Christian where it was first applied in Antioch (primarily based on Paul's teachings) can truly call themselves Christians."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. "First applied" is totally irrelevant; as is reading the Bible.

You are immediately a Christian in baptism, in the name of the Father, name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. This is where all souls enter the ONE Holy Catholic Church; the one founded by Jesus Christ. (There are no new ones.)

Many well-meaning protestant sects administer valid baptism; but by teaching their unapostolic versions of the Gospel decline into a faith of false doctrines and separation from the true faith. If the epistles of Paul are really part of your belief system, consider what he said to the Galatians in chapter 1: Different versions of the Christian faith, and rejection of the Catholic Church, are anathema. Even if you receive them from an "angel of light." The Catholic (universal) Church is called by Saint Paul, "Pillar and ground of the Truth." See 1 Tim 3 :15 /

Dreadnaught
What perversion are you reading?Baptism is the first step of obediance!The thief on the cross didn't jump down and get dunked;Jesus said(today thou shall be with me in paridise!He BELIEVED! Try Jn 3:16
Try acts 8:37 if yours has it!

Dreadnaught
Get a KJV;the rest are perversions!and read Galatians:6-9
Forget what you been taught!
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? 2tim2:15
2Tim3:16 Rev 22:19 Duet 4:2 Prov30:5-6

Carol
He's not a brother unless he is saved!
Goodnight! Read the 3rd chapter of John. Ye must be born again! Jesus explains it very good!

To Stan in Kansas


My copy of the Holy Bible is absolutely correct, and twice as worthy of my reverence as the KJII Bible is; an unauthorized invention of protestants. We all know protestants who first published their protestant Bibles were Catholics to begin with; all their own ancestors were faithful Catholics.

Is the King James deficient? Yes; but I still think it's written very beautifully. I don't blame sectarian Christians for being proud of it. (It's deficient for two good reasons:)

First, it was published by heretics without authorization of our holy mother Church; which the heretics Luther and King Henry VIII, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, et al had revolted against unjustly.

Secondly, the unauthorized rejection of seven whole inspired books by Martin Luther, the ordained Catholic priest who turned against the Church, made the protestant Bible INCOMPLETE; the authentic Bible numbers 72 inspired books. Luther did that and more; in his anger against one Pope. Mainly to reassure his followers of a false doctrine, "faith alone," and to discard the scriptural evidence for purgatory; a TRUTH he denied. Reading the KJV is reading a truncated Bible.

Pardon me, STAN
You're just like every other denominational Christian; always insisting:

"WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? 2tim2:15
2Tim3:16 Rev 22:19 Duet 4:2 Prov30:5-6"

The BIBLE can't speak, it's silent.

You can READ; but since the Church isn't your Teacher, you misconstrue or bowdlerize many truths written in the Bible. Then you claim, "The Bible says!" Which --not always, but very often, is ABSURD.

YOU say! Not necessarily the Bible. When you interpret grossly in error, who corrects you? The Bible remains SILENT.

Stan, at 10:55

"What perversion are you reading? Baptism is the first step of obedience!The thief on the cross didn't jump down and get dunked; Jesus said(today thou shall be with me in paridise! He BELIEVED! Try Jn 3:16
Try acts 8:37 if yours has it!"

I'm sorry t tell you, Stan; these are passages in which YOU mislead yourself; not having adequate doctrinal guidance. You have a very false idea of what they really say. (Then you declare, like a great scholar, that I read a perversion!) Get off your soap box, Pilgrim!

aurorawatcher 1
Thanks for the comments if you check this thread again. I do understand your points and I've heard others make the same points before. Because of my own experience, though, I sometimes wonder. I suspect that you are right, knowing what Jesus had to say on other matters. For instance it is likely that the older son was actually envious of his younger brother going out and partying.

But from my standpoint, I've still wondered a lot about it. From what is written there is no emphasis on the love of the father for the older son. I'm sure my mother had some love for me - but it was insignificant when compared to how she loved my brother. Even until her death she couldn't understand why I didn't want to help my brother. When I was working in the summers in school, she would collect my paycheck and buy all our clothes for school from it. It would have been nice to had a little to spend but I never worried about it since we both needed clothes. But he wasn't required to work in the summers when he was old enough. She expected me to provide from my paycheck, after I'd moved away and married, to help him. She took some money from my bank account, while I still had her as a co-signer, to buy him a car for his 16th birthday but refused to allow me to even learn how to drive when I was growing up. She didn't want me to know so I would always be hope to work there.


aurorawatcher 2
As a result, I tend to wonder if the father in the scripture was the same. It seems that it well could be. After all, he expected his older son to work hard with no reward beyond food and clothing. He gave the younger son what he wanted. True, when the younger son came back, everything was still the father's so he could do what he wished with it. But he STILL didn't do anything for his older brother. And the three things he gave his younger son for the feast actually, by law, did belong to his older brother. While they could be replaced and were probably used only for the feast, it still sets a bad taste to me because it reminds me too much of my mother taking things I had and giving them to my brother - permanently.

As I said, I have a lot of trouble with this scripture.

Stan; try common sense
The good thief was saved. BY WHOM? --Was it by reading scriptures?

He was saved by Jesus, summarily on the spot. Who institutes the sacrament of Baptism? The same Jesus. Why are you baptized?

To be born again of water and the Spirit, as WHO told us? The same Jesus. Are you born again because you were "dunked"--?

You were born again by the GRACE Jesus merited for us dying on the cross. How was the good thief saved, or born again?

By the same GRACE, which Jesus granted him THERE, by the words, "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

When a person's baptized, he is born again, Paul says so-- we RISE UP from baptism into Christ's death, to walk "in newness of life." (Rom 6,:4) That means REBIRTH. Born again, in baptism. By "water and the spirit, (John 3 :5)

We can't ALL have our rebirth hanging on a cross next to Him. We die in baptism and in baptism we're born again.

Stan; try common sense
The good thief was saved. BY WHOM? --Was it by reading scriptures?

He was saved by Jesus, summarily on the spot. Who institutes the sacrament of Baptism? The same Jesus. Why are you baptized?

To be born again of water and the Spirit, as WHO told us? The same Jesus. Are you born again because you were "dunked"--?

You were born again by the GRACE Jesus merited for us dying on the cross. How was the good thief saved, or born again?

By the same GRACE, which Jesus granted him THERE, by the words, "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

When a person's baptized, he is born again, Paul says so-- we RISE UP from baptism into Christ's death, to walk "in newness of life." (Rom 6,:4) That means REBIRTH. Born again, in baptism. By "water and the spirit, (John 3 :5)

We can't ALL have our rebirth hanging on a cross next to Him. We die in baptism and in baptism we're born again.

45caliber
Yeah, there's always a problem when we try to reflect our human parents back on God. My husband does that a lot. His dad's not God -- thank God!! -- but sometimes my husband ascribes attributes to God that I know are taken from his earthly father.

I think it's important to remember that EVERYTHING the father owned in this story would belong to the eldest son when the father died. If the younger son sold his labor into slavery to the father, the eldest son would own his labor for the remaining length of his contract. I don't know if the father loved his eldest son like he loved the younger one. What I do know is that he appreciated the younger son's repentence and acceptance of his position in life. The older son did not and therein rested his problem. The older son was acting like the father's estate already belonged to him, that he could dictate to the father how he showed love to his brother. It wasn't his place and that was part of the problem.

Dreadnaught
Sorry, but I'm with Stan on this one. When the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) sprinkles water on a baby's head they are participating in a religious ritual that means NADA to that child. It would be akin to giving that baby a bath.

Every instance of baptism in the New Testament involved preaching FIRST, salvation SECOND, baptism THIRD. There is a place in Acts where a group of people got it backwards and needed to be baptized a second time.

I don't have space to put all the evidence here. Check out my blog. I did an extensive study on baptism from the BIBLE a while back. You can argue all you want to about it, but it doesn't change what God's word says. That is a whole lot more reliable than the changing words of a string of priests, some of whom, we now know, were anything but spiritually guided.

Stan
It probably won't do any good to argue with him. My husband was raised Catholic, but found that salvation lay outside of the Church. He's been a born-again Christian evangelical for over 20 years now. He points out that it was drilled into his head in catechism class that Church tradition supercedes the Bible and that Protestants are heretics. Whenever he points that out, he notes that he had to leave the Catholic Church in order to find Christ.

Not that everybody has to. We've met a few Catholics over the years who were Christians. A few.

it's heartbreaking sometimes
--Having to say things to erstwhile comfortable sectarian Christians who live convinced they were "saved" because some self-ordained minister of theirs said so, according to a marvelous understanding of scripture.

I mean heartbreaking because they'll do and say ANYTHING, rather than come to the
Church of their blessed ancestors; they'll have a big litter of KITTENS, hoping to prove they know all about salvation, without the Catholic faith!

You have to hate offending them by giving a disillusioning lesson. A lesson they desperately need.

Believe me,

Stan and Aurorawatcher; if there were any way to comfort you, telling you: SURE! You were really SAVED "because the Bible says so" -- I'd try.
Two churches can't both be right and lead you on the path to the real Will of God; Christ only founded ONE. Is yours that one? NO-- you belong to some autonomous assembly of Bible students, one out of more than 30,000 other autonomous sects. NOT what Jesus left His flock.

He left His flock (the Catholic Church) in the temporal care of Peter, Christ's apostle upon which He founded the only Church (Matt 16:18.) Your own blessed ancestors were in that flock. Now you live scattered in thousands of denominations, calling yourselves "evangelicals". Did the original Church just pass away?

Not at all. The same Church with Peter for its shepherd lives in the grace of Our Savior Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church of the apostles. That may disappoint you, coming from ME. But I have to speak the gospel truth.

objection, aurorawatcher:
You insist,

" . . . baptism in the New Testament involved preaching FIRST, salvation SECOND, baptism THIRD. There is a place in Acts where a group of people got it backwards and needed to be baptized a second time."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There is no "baptism in the New Testament" you can take for your example, because baptism is always IN the Church Christ founded; not on a page of scripture. You may be confusing the Bible with the sacraments.

If you refer to EVENTS seen in the Bible, you're still off the mark. They are NOT our sole rule of faith. This is the common mistake of every free-lance preacher or "evangelical." What happened at the beginning is NOT a structure we need forever; because the Church is a LIVING organism, as it's revealed to Saul the pharisee, on the road to Damascus. (Who was Saint Paul.)

The Church is certainly not PICKED OUT of the pages of the Bible. Just because Bible Christians read some detail, chapter and verse-- doesn't make developments and the everlasting power of the Holy Spirit stop for all time, within the Church.

Dreadnaught - 1
DN: I sense by your words to Fabius you've never understood the term heresy. Fabius might not be correct, but his error isn't a heresy.

So you say. Let’s see.

You now say might be wrong? You seem to have lost your conviction after having posted several times that he IS wrong. It’s funny to see you wimp out.

“Heresy - An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.” (dictionary.com, 1st definition)

So, let’s use this definition. OK?

”Your basic protestant doctrines are heretical, since they were TAUGHT you (wrongly, most of them) as real articles of faith.”

Straw man again – I was discussion this issue using evidence from RC official sites. I’m not getting on your bigoted hobbyhorse.

Dreadnaught - 2
DN: A heresy is something taught as apostolic truth, but which departs theologically from apostolic doctrine. (In other words, an invention of men.)

And FC is inventing doctrine clearly opposed to RC teaching and he is a man. Bingo!

DN: Fabius Cunctator isn't a Catholic theologian, he has NO teaching office in the Church.

Baloney. We are all told to spread the good news.
1 Peter 2 says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings." "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."
DN: He promotes his views here without the support of the Catholic Church. All these have been are misapplied exegesis; private opinions.

Way back when, they burned at the stake as heretics those without official teaching office whose expressed opinions contradicted official doctrines. Should he now hide?

Either he is called to spread the good news or he isn’t and should therefore be silent. You, too.

you are far from a theologian
Rich D,You aren't a theologian any more than Fabius is.

I don't have to worry about him. Nor should you;

I know the Catholic faith, and it's the true faith of the apostles. If we see,

Baloney. We are all told to spread the good news.
1 Peter 2 says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings." "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom."

None of the words mean what you think.

"1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

Paul isn't talking about you, of all people. He speaks of the clergy as it then existed in the Church. They dispensed the "mysteries," as the SACRAMENTS were referred to; such as Baptism, the Eucharist, and all RITES still administered today. By priests, who were then called presbyters, and bishops; called "elders." Not by the laymen of the Church. Why do you invent a myth within the Word of God, Rich?

Is it from your envy of the real Church?

Dreadnought
When you refer to us as "nominal Christians" (i.e., in name only), you are placing yourself in danger of judgement. Perhaps you aren't the theologian that you think you are, or else you don't care.

Your arguments are weak and unconvincing, and your explanation of mysteries is wrong. And, speaking of myths, reference to any Greek dictionary would have informed you that the word "presbyter" means elder. Your opthalmologist knows what presbyopia is. Elders (presbyters) and bishops were the same office and were overseers of a single assembly. The apocryphal books weren't considered inspired by the Jews or early Christians and were not used for the teaching of doctrine. You don't even know your own denomination's teachings.

Don't you know that it it better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

You remain a bigoted Roman Catholic who would rather tear down than build up, as evidenced by your use of ad hominem attacks and your uncharitable attitude. You are the saddest self-appointed spokesman for the Roman Catholicism that I know.

Soapbox, indeed! What a joke...

When you were a simple pecksniffian

You were a somewhat mainstream evangelical Pecksniffian in the past. You now act like a loon.

The reason you're browbeating Fabius is there's no doctrinal basis with which to counter as a good Catholic. You're a cheap shot.

You try to MILK that subject, and it shows how mean-spirited you are.


in conclusion, Rich:


You sound off as follows:

"The apocryphal books weren't considered inspired by the Jews or early Christians and were not used for the teaching of doctrine. You don't even know your own denomination's teachings."

An example of over-reaching ignorance. The Catholic Church isn't a"denomination," first; and didn't admit apocryphal books into the Canon of the Holy Bible. The seven books cast away by heretics are deutero-canonical; not apocryphal. All are inspired. Apocryphal books are not.

Since the Catholic faith is from Jesus and His apostles, it makes NO difference what the Jews considered inspired; HE is God's Son.

The Catholic Church in council canonized all the inspired books of the Holy Bible, and Luther pulled out seven of them without any authority. The sole authority for them is the same authority upholding the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!

Those seven books you reject rest on the same Church's authority; therefore ARE inspired.

ANYWAY,

Don't you belong to yet another free-lance American autonomous Bible study sect, no different from 30,000 others similarly
founded by men? OR NOT?

Does your church have some apostolic origins you should try to trace? Truer than Rev Jim Jones of Jonestown, Guyana had? As true as Mary Baker Eddy's, or the Adventists or the Holy Rollers have?

HOW is it truer? They all read the Bible and reject the Catholic Church. What makes yours a church?

I only ask you to investigate for your own assurance what your sect (and 30,000 just like it) really is. It isn't Christ's Church.

It isn't apostolic and has no presence of the Holy Spirit. Find out.

One point I forgot:
When you refer to us as "nominal Christians" (i.e., in name only), you are placing yourself in danger of judgement."

I said all non-catholic Christians are sects outside of the true Church; since they reject many of her teachings and all her authority. Usually I refer to you as "free-lance Christians, sectarians, or just fallen-away Catholics."

I refer to some of you as Bible Christians, bibliolators, and your ministers as "self-ordained."
In every one of these terms I speak CORRECTLY. When you're correct it doesn't place you in ANY danger.




Dreadnought - nice snorts! Now
wipe your nose before you go out in public again.

DN, you've tied your brain in a knot!
"there's no doctrinal basis with which to counter"

You said that he was wrong.
Others (including RCs) said that he was wrong.
RC websites (magisterium) say that he is wrong.
Scripture says that he is wrong.

Therefore, forgetting that the truth is more important than your desire to support a member of your own denomination (sect - look it up) and question the faith of other Christians, you hide behind the cover of unwarranted personal attacks, not-so-subtle bigotted denominationalism and ignore the facts.

Congratulations! - you have successfully tied your brain in a knot.

thank you, Mr. D
Thanks!

The problem I've had debating with you is, God so far won't give you the grace. I haven't said you don't have faith in Him; yes you do. All we disagree on is the authority of His own Son, delegated to the holy apostles. From there it's come down to this day in the Catholic Church.

If my dispute seems too hurtful to the vanities you cling to, that can't change the faith of the apostles. You can tell me to jump in the lake; I'm dispensable. THEY aren't.
you'll always need the apostles, which means you need their Church, offering your faith real communion with Christ and His saints.

I know you have faith in Jesus; most Bible Christians have it. Your faith can even save you; God's All-Merciful.

You just don't have now, the good fortune to live in His truth; the certainty of the Gospel. This is my good counsel, not what you think; an ad hominem attack. See; I don't say, "Your brain is tied," or "Someday you'll be sorry."

I only relay the full truth to you. You're one of my brethren. If you were just a swine I'm casting pearls to, my relations with you would have ended by now. But I never give up hope for you. My best wish for you and brothers like Stan, et al-- is you might yet return, to a place the prophet spoke of: "I love the place where Thy glory dwells."

There is a home called the Holy Catholic Church where Jesus is in our midst. You can be with Him, whenever you decide to come back. Fabius Cunctator is sure to be there too.