Babababa Bad to the Bone, Naturally or Not?

[Winman]

How could the older son have died as a baby when he was there when the prodigal came home and was even angry at him. Are we reading the same story?

Amy, it is a parable, and so it is not perfectly accurate. The home is heaven, the father is God. The elder son was elder because he had died young and never sinned. He had been there many years.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

The elder son never left his father, he never went out in sin and joined himself to a citizen of the far country as his brother did (Satan). The elder brother never transgressed his father's commandment at any time.

The father confirmed the elder son had not sinned, he called him "Son" and said "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine".

But of the prodigal the father said he was dead, but is alive AGAIN. If we are born dead in sin, separated from God, then it can never be said that we are alive AGAIN. The father said the prodigal was lost, but now is found.

The father NEVER said the elder son was dead, and he never said he was lost.

Now whether this agrees with what you have always been taught, it was Jesus himself that told these three stories which are one parable, and in all three Jesus described some who were never lost. 99 sheep were never lost, 9 silver pieces were ever lost, and the elder son was never lost.

I am just telling you what it says, you must pray and ask God yourself to tell you what this means.

It was this chapter (but there were many scriptures besides) that caused me to question Original Sin. It does not fit or match up with Original Sin whatsoever. In OS there are no 99 that are never lost and need no repentance, there are no 9 that are never lost, there is no person who has never transgressed against God at any time.

Yet, that is what Jesus told us three times. I believe Jesus told these three stories for a purpose, and it is our duty to study and understand what they mean.

But they certainly do not match up with the Pharisee explanation at all.

I believe you are making these stories much more difficult to understand than they really are. They are really quite simple and very straightforward.

 

[OldRegular]

Luke 15:1-6
1. Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
4. What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5. And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

[Parable: A short allegorical story designed to convey some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.]

[Allegory: The representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms.]

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for keeping company and eating with sinners, Jesus told the parable of a shepherd who originally had 100 sheep. One went astray and became lost. He searched for it and recovered it, then rejoiced more over this one lost sheep than the 99 who never went out and became lost and required no repentance.

Who are these 99 persons who need no repentance? This cannot possibly be the Pharisees as many teach. Jesus could not be saying they were sinless and required no repentance.

Jesus Christ is telling this parable for the benefit of the Pharisees and scribes. These are self righteous people. The ninety and nine just persons represent the self righteous Pharisees and scribes. We know they are self righteous because Scripture tells us in Romans 3:10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Jesus Christ tells us in Luke 5:32: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Now is Jesus Christ telling us that there are righteous people who do not need salvation. If that were true then there would have been no need for the death of Jesus Christ. But there are none righteous, there are none deserving of salvation. Consider the parable you mentioned:

Luke 18:9-14
9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

We have pictured here the typical Pharisee of that day and of today. Until those who are self righteous, those who justify themselves, recognize they are sinners they have no need of Jesus Christ. That is the message of the both parables presented above.

 

[Winman]

Doesn't match up Old Regular, Jesus never implied the Pharisees were righteous, he always called them out.

Luk 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Now in this parable we are told the purpose was to rebuke those who trusted in themselves they were righteous. But we are also directly told that only the publican went down to his house justified. Jesus NEVER implied the Pharisees were righteous, he refuted it.

In Luke 15, the Pharisees had complained that Jesus kept company and ate with sinners. The three stories describe sinners.

The lost sheep was not originally lost as Original Sin teaches. No, he was a sheep in the flock who went astray in sin. God did not hate or despise this sinner as the Pharisees did, but went out and searched diligently until he recovered him.

What Jesus is showing these Pharisees is that these lost sinners are not hated and despised by God, but very valued.

The story of the woman with 10 pieces of silver is the same. The lost coin was not originally lost which contradicts Original Sin. When it was lost she swept her house and diligently searched until she recovered it. Again, Jesus is showing that a lost sinner is not despised or hated by God, but very valuable, and that he will work hard to recover this person.

The elder son was never lost, and he never transgressed his father's commandments at any time. This could never represent the Pharisees, they were sinners like any man.

But again, the father shows his great love for his son that became lost (although he was not originally lost). He threw a great celebration for his lost son that was recovered. Twice the father said the prodigal son was alive again which absolutely contradicts and refutes Original Sin.

I don't expect you to understand this interpretation.

 

[percho]

I just showed you. Paul himself said Esau and Jacob had committed no sin while they were in their mother's womb. If they had died in this state they would be without sin and need no repentance.

The elder son complained that he had served his father for "many years". He was eldest in that he was there first.

And no stillborn baby or little child who dies has "figured out" how to live sinless. The scriptures are clear that little children do not know between good and evil, I have already posted scripture that proves this. Ridiculous argument. A newborn baby can probably form very few thoughts about anything. That doesn't mean they will remain a newborn baby for eternity.

If they had died would they have to be born again? Remember John 3 doesn't say a thing about sin. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not word about sin. We have mentally added that in.

I say they would need to be born again to inherit/enter the kingdom of God, because they may not have inherited a sin nature but they did inherit the penalty of sin, death.

 

[Amy.G]

Doesn't match up Old Regular, Jesus never implied the Pharisees were righteous, he always called them out.

Yes it matches up if you read it in context.

The 1st 3 verses of Luke 15 set it up.

Luke 15:1-3 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,................

The reason the Scribes and Pharisees got so mad at Jesus for hanging around sinners was because they believed that they were too good to be around anyone not as "good" as themselves. The went out of their way to avoid "sinners" because they were afraid they would dirty themselves by even being around them and thus becoming unclean. Jesus makes this clear to them many times by telling them they were white washed selpulchers, that they kept the outside of the cup clean but left the inside dirty. It is for this reason that Jesus tells the parable of the sheep. The 99 are the self righteous that think they are perfect and don't need to repent. The one the shepherd goes after is the sinner that realizes his lost state.
This is not just my interpretation. It is the orthodox interpretation and the correct one.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman you have a hard time with parables that don't fit your beliefs!

 

[Winman]

If they had died would they have to be born again? Remember John 3 doesn't say a thing about sin. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not word about sin. We have mentally added that in.

I say they would need to be born again to inherit/enter the kingdom of God, because they may not have inherited a sin nature but they did inherit the penalty of sin, death.

Well, they certainly need Jesus to be resurrected from the dead.

It is a difficult question, because these persons never spiritually died. The 99 were just and needed no repentance. The 9 silver coins were never lost, and the elder son was never lost or separated from his father.

I simply cannot believe that Jesus would give the Pharisees the impression that they were righteous and needed no repentance. Jesus was very open in his criticism of the Pharisees. Yes, they were self-righteous, but Jesus never led them to believe they were correct, he rebuked and refuted them.

Again, you cannot ignore the fact that 99 sheep were never lost, 9 pieces of silver were never lost, and the elder son was never lost. This must represent some persons, but who? The only answer I can conceive of is young children or babies, because we are directly told in Romans 9:11 that Esau and Jacob had never sinned in their mother's womb. If they would have died in their mother's womb, they would need no repentance.

If you can think of a better answer, I am all ears.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman do you believe the following Scripture?

Jesus Christ tells us in Luke 5:32: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Is Jesus Christ implying that there are people who are righteous of their own merit? He says: I came not to call the righteous.

 

[Winman]

Winman do you believe the following Scripture?

Jesus Christ tells us in Luke 5:32: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Is Jesus Christ implying that there are people who are righteous of their own merit? He says: I came not to call the righteous.

Of course I believe this scripture. But I also believe what Jesus said in Luke 15 that 99 sheep were never lost and needed no repentance. I believe when Jesus said the elder son never transgressed his father's commandments at any time. It was Jesus himself who told these stories, and it is for our benefit.

Jesus NEVER spoke evil of children, in fact, he told his disciples and followers that they must be converted and become as little children.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do you think that Jesus is telling his disciples they need to be converted and become as little wicked sinners here? Absurd!

Jesus also said something very interesting about little children, he said they believed in him. Now, I do not quite understand this, yet this is what Jesus said.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Now, most folks think very little children cannot have faith in Jesus, because faith involves reasoning, but Jesus clearly said they believe in him. Jesus never describes little children as wicked little sinners, he said their angels do always behold his Father's face.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus NEVER spoke evil of little children, and he warned folks to be very careful that they never offend a little child.

Of course, you will reject this because you believe all children are evil to the core.

 

[humblethinker]

Well, they certainly need Jesus to be resurrected from the dead.

It is a difficult question, because these persons never spiritually died. The 99 were just and needed no repentance. The 9 silver coins were never lost, and the elder son was never lost or separated from his father.

I simply cannot believe that Jesus would give the Pharisees the impression that they were righteous and needed no repentance. Jesus was very open in his criticism of the Pharisees. Yes, they were self-righteous, but Jesus never led them to believe they were correct, he rebuked and refuted them.

Again, you cannot ignore the fact that 99 sheep were never lost, 9 pieces of silver were never lost, and the elder son was never lost. This must represent some persons, but who? The only answer I can conceive of is young children or babies, because we are directly told in Romans 9:11 that Esau and Jacob had never sinned in their mother's womb. If they would have died in their mother's womb, they would need no repentance.

If you can think of a better answer, I am all ears.

My concern is that the parables were meant to make a single point. If what you claim is there at all it would seem to not be the main point of the parables. Since I would be hesitant to form my doctrine based on a parable, perhaps we can divert our attention to other scripture. Can you offer other scripture that supports your truth claim? I believe you've offered Ecc 12:7? And a couple others are there more?

<edit: I now see the above scripture, thanks>

So, what is to be gained in rejecting sin nature is the resolution of dealing with the potentially difficult issue of innocent children having a sin nature. It seems the case though, that regardless there would not be a single person in the history of the world who, upon reaching a certain state of knowledge, would still remain sinless. It seems what is gained is hardly worth the insignificant differentiation between the ideas of 1)man having a sin nature at birth and 2)man acquiring a sin nature upon sinning willfully. Is there more to be gained in accepting your proposal? (Of course honoring the fact that scripture means what it means is a good enough reason, but that is the premise we all hold anyway.)

 

[OldRegular]

Well, they certainly need Jesus to be resurrected from the dead.

It is a difficult question, because these persons never spiritually died. The 99 were just and needed no repentance. The 9 silver coins were never lost, and the elder son was never lost or separated from his father.

I simply cannot believe that Jesus would give the Pharisees the impression that they were righteous and needed no repentance. Jesus was very open in his criticism of the Pharisees. Yes, they were self-righteous, but Jesus never led them to believe they were correct, he rebuked and refuted them.

Again, you cannot ignore the fact that 99 sheep were never lost, 9 pieces of silver were never lost, and the elder son was never lost. This must represent some persons, but who? The only answer I can conceive of is young children or babies, because we are directly told in Romans 9:11 that Esau and Jacob had never sinned in their mother's womb. If they would have died in their mother's womb, they would need no repentance.

If you can think of a better answer, I am all ears.

You are not all ears Winman. You want to apply a literal interpretation to parables that are not to be interpreted literally but then you make a wild leap saying the 99 sheep represent babies. That is utter nonsense.

In post 61 you say the elder son died as a child. That is unreal and certainly not what the parable teaches but again you are trying to make Scripture comport with your doctrine and you cannot do it. You deny that mankind has a predisposition to sin. Most call that predisposition the sin nature. You deny this on the basis of a passage from Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 7:29. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

God did not make you Winman, He did not make me! The only people God made were Adam and Eve and He made them upright. You and I and all people are the natural result of the union of a man and a woman! You and I were not born upright, we were born with a sin nature, the predisposition to sin. The Bible teaches that truth and simply observing mankind demonstrates that truth.

[Parable: A short allegorical story designed to convey some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.]

[Allegory: The representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms.]

 

[Winman]

You are in total error, there is much scripture that says God made you and me.

Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

We inherit our bodies from our parents, but our soul and spirit come directly from God.

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Adam was made from the dust of the earth, and we inherit our bodies from Adam, and the flesh does war against the spirit. But our spirit was given to us directly by God. God does not give us evil spirits.

Jer 38:16 So Zedekiah the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life.

Again, we inherit our bodies from Adam, but our soul and spirit was made by and given to us by God. God does not give any man an evil soul or spirit.

 

[convicted1]

Nope. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

God made Adam good, but not incorruptible, so the question is: What corrupted Adam?

When he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of course. Unless he sinned prior to eating of it. Which brings us back to the "merry-go-round" of if eating of that tree didn't corrupt him, then he must haved sinned prior to it. Now, if this is true, what sin did he commit before he had any knowledge of evil?

 

[quantumfaith]

For all you "thinkers", Is it possible for God to have created any creature without the possibility and potentiality of sin and corruption? Can God produce another "creature" with the same inherent properties of perfection that He has? If yes, other than the obvious, how would "they" be different than ourselves?

Looking at the created order as I often do through a somewhat objective lens of "mathematics", it is easy to see that all created things naturally possess entropy, as if it is a natural property of things created.

 

[Winman]

So, what is to be gained in rejecting sin nature is the resolution of dealing with the potentially difficult issue of innocent children having a sin nature. It seems the case though, that regardless there would not be a single person in the history of the world who, upon reaching a certain state of knowledge, would still remain sinless. It seems what is gained is hardly worth the insignificant differentiation between the ideas of 1)man having a sin nature at birth and 2)man acquiring a sin nature upon sinning willfully. Is there more to be gained in accepting your proposal? (Of course honoring the fact that scripture means what it means is a good enough reason, but that is the premise we all hold anyway.)

The issue is huge, do you realize how many thousands (perhaps millions) have died over the issue of infant baptism?

Do you know how many millions of parents have agonized throughout history when their little one died, being terrified their child would spend eternity in hell?

Not to mention views such as Calvinism which would absolutely collapse if OS were proved false. But to be fair, many others besides Calvinists believe in OS. The view of Total Depravity or Inability is destroyed.

It would change our views of scripture in many ways. For instance, I have always wondered who those persons are that are guests of the wedding in Revelation, not everyone is the bride. Who are these persons?

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

As you see, not all in heaven are the bride, some are guests. Who are these guests? I think you might know now.

So, it opens up the interpretation of scripture in many areas.

 

[humblethinker]

For all you "thinkers", Is it possible for God to have created any creature without the possibility and potentiality of sin and corruption? Can God produce another "creature" with the same inherent properties of perfection that He has? If yes, other than the obvious, how would "they" be different than ourselves?

Looking at the created order as I often do through a somewhat objective lens of "mathematics", it is easy to see that all created things naturally possess entropy, as if it is a natural property of things created.

What are the inherent properties of perfection that He has?

So, would this resonate with you: in the beginning there was all matter in a chaotic state of existence, perhaps of the highest form and from this God created all the systems. Since His creative act all systems are in a state of entropy (or they will all trend that way eventually), toward chaos or equilibrium.

In such a scenario sin is not the cause of entropy, but rather entropy is natural. Some say (or at least I think they say) that the universe experiences entropy due to the first sin (adam's or satan's?).

I am less impressed with that answer now but still of an unsettled opinion. (I try to question all of my assumptions now)

What do you think?

 

[Cypress]

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalms109:31
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?


I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been!

I say it means he disobeyed the only law we know existed for men. A direct command from God.[/QUOTE]

Convict, I took a bite at this in post 30 in case you missed it.:thumbs::love2:

 

[Winman]

Yes it matches up if you read it in context.

The 1st 3 verses of Luke 15 set it up.

Luke 15:1-3 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,................

The reason the Scribes and Pharisees got so mad at Jesus for hanging around sinners was because they believed that they were too good to be around anyone not as "good" as themselves. The went out of their way to avoid "sinners" because they were afraid they would dirty themselves by even being around them and thus becoming unclean. Jesus makes this clear to them many times by telling them they were white washed selpulchers, that they kept the outside of the cup clean but left the inside dirty. It is for this reason that Jesus tells the parable of the sheep. The 99 are the self righteous that think they are perfect and don't need to repent. The one the shepherd goes after is the sinner that realizes his lost state.
This is not just my interpretation. It is the orthodox interpretation and the correct one.

I don't believe this interpretation fits. It is very true that the Pharisees believed themselves righteous and despised sinners as in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee, but the numbers do not line up.

Jesus describes 99 just persons who need no repentance to one lost sinner. The Pharisees were a small number compared to the general population.

Besides, I do not believe Jesus would mislead the Pharisees to believe they were just and needed no repentance. Jesus was not easy on the Pharisees.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

The Pharisees may have believed themselves righteous, but Jesus sternly corrected them. He told them directly they would not enter the kingdom of heaven, they would receive the greater "damnation", and called them children of hell.

So, it does not fit in Luke 15 that Jesus is saying the Pharisees are the 99 just who need no repentance. I do not believe Jesus would say that about them, which would only encourage them in their self-righteousness. Doesn't fit.

What Jesus IS showing is that these dreadful sinners were not originally lost, but belonged to God, that he did not hate or despise them like the Pharisees, and that he diligently sought them out to save them.

 

[Winman]

What are the inherent properties of perfection that He has?

So, would this resonate with you: in the beginning there was all matter in a chaotic state of existence, perhaps of the highest form and from this God created all the systems. Since His creative act all systems are in a state of entropy (or they will all trend that way eventually), toward chaos or equilibrium.

In such a scenario sin is not the cause of entropy, but rather entropy is natural. Some say (or at least I think they say) that the universe experiences entropy due to the first sin (adam's or satan's?).

I am less impressed with that answer now but still of an unsettled opinion. (I try to question all of my assumptions now)

What do you think?

One verse that has always struck me as odd is Revelation 22:2;

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

We are told there will be no more curse in the very next verse, but it is interesting that the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations.

So, perhaps in heaven a person can be injured. Perhaps bacteria will still exist, but the leaves of this tree will heal all disease.

And the fact that we still eat in heaven seems to show entropy still exists, unless we eat for pleasure only.

I believe man will always be dependent on God for life, though we will never be cut off from the tree of life in heaven as man was in the garden.

 

[percho]

For all you "thinkers", Is it possible for God to have created any creature without the possibility and potentiality of sin and corruption? Can God produce another "creature" with the same inherent properties of perfection that He has? If yes, other than the obvious, how would "they" be different than ourselves?

Looking at the created order as I often do through a somewhat objective lens of "mathematics", it is easy to see that all created things naturally possess entropy, as if it is a natural property of things created.

I believe God could do that in bold above but I do not believe that was the intent of what God was doing in Gen. 1.

I believe sin and corruption unto death were present on the earth (And darkness was upon the face of the deep, Satan) and then the Spirit God entered the picture (Let there be Light)

Then what took place was the plan of God for the destruction of sin, corruption, death and him who has the power of death that is the devil, Satan.

Not in the first man Adam the type of him to come do we have perfection but in the last Adam the resurrected Son of Man, the Son of God.

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Speaking of, "inherent properties." Did the Father actually give the following inherent property to the Son from this statement by the prophet, the Christ?

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:26

If yes, When?