This is perhaps one of the most favorite proof texts for Conditionalists (those that believe you can lose your salvation). The words “was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (verses 24,32) seems to them to be convincing proof that one can become dead again spiritually as well as lost again spiritually.
Conditionalists that I’ve debated will ask me if I can see the phrase “was dead and is alive again” their way as very possibly meaning that a person can be saved and then lost. The answer is yes, if you ignore the context, read extra words into it and if you make the teachings of the nation of Israel as somehow pertaining to the body of Christ as well. The people of the nation of Israel were pictured as children of God since they were children of covenant that has no bearing on the body of Christ today! The nation of Israel was temporarily put aside because of her rejection of the Messiah.
The Conditionalists view of this passage has some serious flaws. 1st, the Scribes and Pharisees that this passage was rebuking were described as a son as well. The Pharisees and Scribes were complaining in verse 2 that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them.” The parables to follow were spoken to them (vs. 3). Jesus’ message to Israel was for that nation to repent for they were the chosen people of God that had strayed. The message to the body of Christ is found later after the death of Christ. Also, the strayed son knew that he still was a son because he wanted to personally tell His father, "I am no longer worthy to be called your son" (verse 19) and he didn't say, "I am no longer your son because of my sins."
Jesus came only to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) and His ministry was confined to them (Matthew 10:6). Sheep was a term only given to the Jews and NEVER Gentiles. People often quote John 10:16 and believe that the “other sheep” refers to Gentiles but that is a serious error. There is not one verse of Scripture anywhere where any Gentile is called a sheep in the body of Christ. My only point is that the Jews were pictured as “lost sheep” and were the chosen people of God, children by a covenant relationship. This parable that shows both the Pharisees and this prodigal son as being “sons.” Whether one agrees with that or not doesn’t matter since I will still show that loss of salvation is not what was being taught here.
In Luke 15, the Pharisees and Scribes were being rebuked because they did not see themselves as sinners and would have nothing to do with anyone that was a sinner. In verse 2, we have a clear example of their dislike for sinners but Jesus shows on the other hand the love of God for such people while at the same time exposing the heart of these Pharisees and Scribes.
Another problem with what Conditionalists teach this passage to mean is that the parable seems to teach that we get it better the second time around by being saved again. In verses 22-27, the Father made quite a celebration for a man who knew better and went out and squandered everything that he had thereby losing his salvation. His coming back the second time resulted in him getting the “best robe” and a “ring” (not a new ring) and “sandals on his feet.” Then the Father has a celebration by killing a fatted calf followed by music and dancing. If Conditionalists can twist this chapter into saved, lost and then saved again then I can preach a sermon called “The Benefits of Losing Your Salvation!”
Another problem for Conditionalists is the fact that this “son” that supposedly lost his salvation was ALWAYS called a “son.” I never heard a good explanation of that since they are the ones that condemn the phrase “once a son always a son.” This prodigal son has been as a dead man to the Father as Joseph was to his father in the Old Testament when his brothers had convinced his father that Joseph was torn to pieces by a wild beast. This wayward child came to his senses and returned to his Father and still viewed himself as a son (v.19). One must remember that this is a parable that deals with the Kingdom of heaven. The “new robe,” and the “ring” and the “new sandals” were picturing the banquet that symbolized the coming kingdom of heaven that will one day be established on earth that was just talked about in chapter 13:29; and 14:15-24.
Conditionalists amaze me in that they will usually use the prodigal son as an example of someone losing the sealing of the Holy Spirit. They will say that the prodigal son was sealed and then lost it. This proves to me that they cannot separate the promises to the nation of Israel from the body of Christ. Only the body of Christ is promised this sealing along with its guarantee since the Holy Spirit was not yet given when Christ walked the earth. There is no sealing of the Holy Spirit promised to anyone before the Holy Spirit was even given nor was it taught. This is an example of conditionalist such as Dan Corner wickedly inserting words into a passage not found.
Many spiritual applications can be drawn from this chapter but losing ones salvation is impossible since that is not what is being pictured here. If the one lost his salvation then the hard hearted, unloving and self-righteous Pharisee and Scribes are saved even though they clearly hate the grace of God as pictured in this parable. You can’t pay attention to only one son while ignoring the other clearly standing there complaining about God’s grace. It appears that nearly all of those that believe you can lose your salvation never focus on that other son. They simply see the words “dead” and “lost” and read salvation there. This is why I can never be a conditionalist simply because I can never handle God’s Word with such disrespect and carelessness. May God save these people from their sins of self-righteousness that they are blind from seeing.
I too can make up my own spiritual application from this passage in Luke. I can say that the two sons represent the two prominent thoughts in Scripture today. The one son represents OSAS and the other son represents those that believe you can lose your salvation. The OSAS runs away in sin but later remembers the kindness and love of His heavenly Father and comes back humbled by such love and ashamed as to how he could have ever sinned against such love. The other son (conditionalists) complains to God, “I have been so good and faithful to you all of these years. That moron over there has clearly presumed upon your grace and has squandered it. Please do not tell me that you simply have forgiven him of all of what he has done?? Only people like us conditionalists deserve your love because we continually obey you and not those osas people that think that grace alone gives them a place here in your kingdom apart from works.”
Get real conditionalists. This parable is teaching that God loves the sinner, that God seeks out sinner's and those that return to Him by the context will be restored to the full blessings of sons. The Pharisees were being exposed (other son) that believed that God hated sinners and it was the other son (Pharisees and Scribes) that was representing them that stood complaining about the God that "receives sinners." Notice, the banquet was for the sinner and the other son was outside the house as he heard the sounds of rejoicing. This other son became angry as he felt that he was faithful and the Father didn't do anything like that for him. The Father pleaded with the other son (v.28) that was to change his attitude about the returning son. The other son (Pharisee) felt cheated as he said,"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: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf." (V. 29,30).
The Father goes on to tell this other son that he is entitled to the same privileges as well but the other son (Pharisee) shows that he really doesn't care for it. These Pharisees considered themselves as the true servants of God and sons of God. This parable exposes their hearts that they were really not of God at all as their attitude was contrary to the God that they thought they knew. If these Pharisees would only come and acknowledge their own sinfulness then they too could be a part of God's true family by being forgiven also. This parable is Jesus answering the charge in verse two that says, "And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." The parable ends with the Father receiving the wayward son and eating with him.
When considering this parable, I do see the other son mirroring extremely close the today's conditionalists and Lordship believers out there that despise the teachings of grace that God receives sinners. They will claim that God receives sinners but only that they are now living like the other son (Pharisee) after they are saved and that is what we free grace believers reject. God receives sinners and eats with THEM and not the so-called cleaned up people that the other son represents. We serve because we love and not we serve because we fear (afraid of losing salvation). There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus!!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment