Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

[Bill Taylor]

John wrote  > when, exactly, was the prodigal saved?   When he came to himself?   When he turned and started the trek home?   When he saw his father?   When he came to the door of the house?   When he entered therein or when or accepted and participated in the meal?   I say  --   in the pit, with the swine, covered with mud,  coming to himself.  Bill responded   >   I say he was the father's son throughout. The fact that the father was always looking for his son's return ought to tell us that the son was accepted and loved and considered a son throughout. Repentance brought the son to his senses; it did not make him a son. Repentance brings us to our senses; it does not make us sons or daughters of God. Adopted in Christ, we are already His children. Then John responds  >   Yes, a son always.   But in need of a turning around, correct?   If he had not turned, what would have been the implications?   It seems to me that the prodigal son was separated from his father because of his decision to reject the father's partnership and live for himself.   Destruction was his only destiny.  Agree?     John, sorry if I caused you a heart attack. My point was not so much to question the need for repentance on the part of the son, as it was to point out that it was not his repentance which made him a son. Evangelicals are wont to use this parable to argue that it takes repentance (faith, belief, obedience, on and on and on) before a person can become a son or daughter of God. Well, that may be the case -- I happen to think it is not -- but if it is, this is not the place to prove it. The young man in the parable was a son throughout. He did nothing in the narrative to change that status. Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven throughout. Had the young man refused to repent he would have missed out on the relationship, the banquet, the celebration, but he would still have been his father's son. This I believe is analogous to our status with the Father. We are all included in Christ. We are adopted children. However, we may for any number of reasons choose to go to the pigpen, but this does not mean we are not children of God. We are his children throughout. And so if we do come to our senses and repent, that does not affect our status already established in Christ; it just changes the way we participate in that status -- the relationship, the banquet, the celebration.   You asked, "If he had not turned, what would have been the implications?" I don't know. It seems to me that your question calls for a speculation which goes beyond the scope of the parable. We can go elsewhere and project our answers, but when we do that, we need to be very careful that we are not introducing elements into the story that the parable itself will not support, or subtracting factors from it which change the dynamics of the relationships contained within the parable. I guess what I'm saying is that answers are a dime a dozrn, I'll leave the speculation for those with all the answers.   Bill   Bill      ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me In a message dated 1/9/2005 7:53:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:   Bill   John Boy