We don't WANT "Free-Will"

[Winman]

No, I believe God, in his mercy, can look over their sin (as he did for those in the OT who had yet to come to know of Christ, ref Rom 3; 2 Cor 5), and choose to apply Christ's atoning work as an act of Grace. In other words, there is only one way to heaven, through Christ and God's grace. Not through dying in your own "innocence."

This does not explain the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Remember, it was Jesus that said this.

So who could this be?

It also does not explain who the 99 righteous persons are that need no repentance. Again, it was Jesus who said this.

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.

Now, perhaps you never wondered who these 99 persons who need no repentance are, but I did.

I take Jesus as literal in these parables, he is truly saying there are 99 persons who need no repentance, and he was truly saying the elder son had never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

Who could possibly qualify to be these persons? The only answer I can come up with is Jesus is speaking of babies and little children who died before they knew between good and evil and were not imputed sin. There have probably been many billions of persons who were stillborn or died at a very early age. I believe this explains who these persons are.

That said, I agree with Webdog that these children were under the curse, thus, they physically died. These persons still require the grace of God and the atonement that Jesus paid. Without Jesus they could never resurrect from the dead.

I have read commentaries, I have never read any scholar who can explain who the 99 just persons who needed no repentance and the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time. But this is because all commentators I have ever read all ASSUME that original sin is true. I have come to believe it is not true.

There are many other scriptures that support my view.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

I have heard people say that Paul mistakenly "thought" he was alive. I reject this interpretation, I believe Paul was directly saying he was truly spiritually alive, but when he matured and understood the law he was convicted of sin and died spiritually.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Here, Peter, like Jesus in Luke 15 shows us as sheep that were not originally lost, but have gone astray in sin and become lost, and are now RETURNED to Jesus. If we are born in sin, separated from God, then it could never be said we are returned to God. You cannot return to some place you have never been.

Scriptures like these cause confusion and difficulty for those who hold to Original Sin. Once you realize that OS is false doctrine, all of these difficulties immediately disappear. I have no difficulty at all with Jesus saying the prodigal son was alive AGAIN, I have no difficulty with Paul saying he was ALIVE without the law once, and I have no difficulty with Peter saying we are RETURNED to God. These scriptures make perfect sense and are completely consistent if Original Sin is not true.

It also explains who the 99 are that need no repentance, and the elder son who never sinned. No difficulty for me at all.

 

[webdog]

No, I believe God, in his mercy, can look over their sin (as he did for those in the OT who had yet to come to know of Christ, ref Rom 3; 2 Cor 5), and choose to apply Christ's atoning work as an act of Grace. In other words, there is only one way to heaven, through Christ and God's grace. Not through dying in your own "innocence."

The thing is...God never overlooks sin. God judges sin. If He gives them a pass then salvation cannot be by grace alone through faith alone. We now have another avenue of salvation.

 

[Amy.G]

Who could possibly qualify to be these persons? The only answer I can come up with is Jesus is speaking of babies and little children who died before they knew between good and evil and were not imputed sin. There have probably been many billions of persons who were stillborn or died at a very early age. I believe this explains who these persons are.

The brother of the prodigal was a baby that died?

The older brother was a sinner as well. He represents the self righteous Pharisees who had an outward obedience, but whose hearts were wicked.

 

[Winman]

The brother of the prodigal was a baby that died?

The older brother was a sinner as well. He represents the self righteous Pharisees who had an outward obedience, but whose hearts were wicked.

Sorry Amy, that explanation doesn't cut it. Jesus himself said this elder son had never transgressed his father's commandments at any time, and the father confirmed this claim was true.

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.

Did the father correct the elder son when he claimed never to have transgressed his father's commandments at any time? No, he confirmed it was true, he called him "Son", he said "thou art EVER with me" and "all that I have is thine".

If the elder son represents the Pharisees, then Jesus has just told them they are indeed sinless, they are sons of God, they are ever with God, and all that God has is theirs.

So, your explanation completely fails. If the elder son represented the Pharisees, then the father would have told them they were hypocrites, sinners, and none of his. Your interpretation is easily shown to be error.

You need to read all three parables in Luke 15 which are one parable. The shepherd had 100 sheep originally. One sheep become lost, the shepherd searched and recovered it. This sheep was not lost originally, but part of the shepherd's flock. If we are born dead in sin, separated from God, then this sheep would never have belonged to the flock.

Then Jesus said a woman had 10 pieces of silver. One became lost, she searched for it and recovered it. This recovered coin represents a sinner who repents. If we are born separated from God, then the woman would have only had 9 pieces of silver originally.

You don't get it, Jesus was actually telling these Pharisees that these horrible sinners originally belonged to God.

You just keep on believing that Calvinism, and you will never understand scripture like this.

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry Amy, that explanation doesn't cut it. Jesus himself said this elder son had never transgressed his father's commandments at any time, and the father confirmed this claim was true.

Jesus didn't say the older son was sinless. The older son claimed he was, just as the Pharisees did. He was also angry that his brother had come home and was jealous of the attention the father gave him. That is not sinlessness.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus didn't say the older son was sinless. The older son claimed he was, just as the Pharisees did. He was also angry that his brother had come home and was jealous of the attention the father gave him. That is not sinlessness.

I do not think Winman said he was sinless.

 

[Amy.G]

I do not think Winman said he was sinless.

Yes he did.

It also explains who the 99 are that need no repentance, and the elder son who never sinned. No difficulty for me at all.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes he did.

Shame on you Amy.G!:laugh::laugh::thumbs::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

I do not think Winman said he was sinless.

Amy is correct, I am saying that the father confirmed that the elder son was sinless. How do I know this? By the word "ever".

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.

The scriptures teach that it is our sin that separates us from God. This elder son was NEVER separated from his father, his father said he was EVER with him.

The father indeed confirmed that the elder son had never sinned.

This is also what Jesus said about the 99 sheep who did not go astray and become lost.

Luk 15:4 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.
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.

Only one sheep became lost, but originally it belonged to the shepherd and was in the flock. If we are born dead in sin, separated from God, this could never be said of any person.

But also, 99 of the sheep NEVER became lost. They needed no repentance. Who could these 99 persons be?

Note also, that just like the elder son, there was no great celebration for the 99 sheep who were never lost and needed no repentance, just as there was no celebration for the eldest son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

I propose that these 99 sheep that were never lost and the elder son are babies and children who died before they could ever commit sin and be separated from God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes he did.

And what was the context? Did he mean never sinned at all in his life ever? Or did he mean in the passage given?

 

[Revmitchell]

Amy is correct, I am saying that the father confirmed that the elder son was sinless. How do I know this? By the word "ever".

Wow! What has this board come to in the time I was gone? I was wanting to believe the best about your post and not assume the worst. My delusion is now over.

 

[Amy.G]

The whole purpose of this parable and the ones listed before it (the lost sheep and the lost coin) was to show that God forgives sinners. It was in response to the anger of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus was hanging around with sinners. They believed they were so righteous that to be with sinners would defile them.
This parable was not used to show that there are men with no need of repentance.

Luke 15:1 Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

 

[Amy.G]

Wow! What has this board come to in the time I was gone? I was wanting to believe the best about your post and not assume the worst. My delusion is now over.

Oh you have no idea! :laugh:

Glad you're back btw. :wavey:

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh you have no idea! :laugh:

Glad you're back btw. :wavey:

Thanks! :thumbs: I started to rebutt his claim but I realize that only God can fix.....uh...ignorance, yea that's it, ignorance and I ain't God.

 

[webdog]

Thanks! :thumbs: I started to rebutt his claim but I realize that only God can fix.....uh...ignorance, yea that's it, ignorance and I ain't God.

There is a difference between being sinful and being a sinner (spiritually dead). We are the former and not the latter.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is a difference between bing sinful and being a sinner (spiritually dead). We are the former and not the latter.

Ok?

 

[webdog]

Ok?

I know...its mind blowing

 

[Amy.G]

There is a difference between bing sinful and being a sinner (spiritually dead). We are the former and not the latter.

What??? If you're sinful, you must be a sinner.

If you're hateful, you hate, ect.....

 

[Revmitchell]

I know...its mind blowing

Um no, what is mind blowing the lack of relevance, your post was, to my posts. I am not used to that from you.

 

[webdog]

Um no, what is mind blowing the lack of relevance, your post was, to my posts. I am not used to that from you.

No, since I was putting sinful into context. You seem to equate someone being sinful with being a sinner...which it is not. Winman may have also picked up on that, hence the disagreement.