Questions Protestants Can't Answer #13 - Was the prodigal son saved before he left?

[MRGV7373]

A parable should not be used to try to prove this point. The message is about God's love and it is a far stretch to put meaning about lost or saved in this teaching. I don't think that Jesus ever meant this to be taught out of this parable. Not a good interpretation of the prodigal son. This is way beyond what Jesus wanted on this teaching.  One story does not the teaching mean. God gives us salvation, so does God take it back. So God is not faithful. Works is what taught in RCC. Works???

[chueey14]

Was the prodigal son considered "saved" before he left his father?

[AmericanBerean]

@chueey14 Yes. He was a member of the family, son of the father, and would receive an inheritance. This corresponds to God the Father and us, his children. As long as we are in His family we are "saved", heirs to the Kingdom. When we "make grave mistakes" without repentance, we lose that inheritance. The prodigal son was saved, then left the family, then repented and returned, was forgiven, and saved again. That's the God's Mercy and Justice for ya! He always takes us back.

[MRGV7373]

The Prodigal Son was not saved until he turned to His Father and asked for forgiveness. This story was not meant ever to be used as a teaching on salvation. It is about the Love that God has for use. Even saved people can make grave mistakes. Saved by misguide. If you are not saved by faith, then God's power is not enough and your self works save you??? Come on, is God a false giver?? This is not a proof story on salvation. Tooooo far here.

[CrimsonCatholic]

@MRGV7373 Apparently, according to you, not much of what Jesus said was meant to be used as teachings on salvation, was it? So, when the Prodigal Son was in his father's household, before he had turned to sin and squandered his inheritance, he wasn't saved? Really?! How can one be in the Father's household and not be saved? One is saved by faith, I have never implied otherwise. But, nowhere does the Bible say one is saved by faith alone!!!

[MRGV7373]

@CrimsonCatholic Many Christians that have true faith have lost there way but they are still the father saved child, they have "back sliders". A person is saved by faith alone. See Roman 3:22. Ephesian 2:8 - It starts with Belief that Jesus is God and died for our sins, then Faith that died for my sins and Jesus in my lord that is saved you become a God's child and God owns you. Then comes works. You act and behave as God wants us to. Saved by faith results are works.

[CrimsonCatholic]

@MRGV7373 So, you are like so many other Protestants who post here, you cannot answer a direct question, can you? Let's try again, and this will be your last chance: How can one be a member of the Father's household, yet not be saved as you claim re: the Prodigal Son? Also, where is the Bible is the word "alone" used with the word "faith," pertaining to salvation? If we act and behave as God wants us to, then please explain Luke 7:30 - they rejected what God wanted for them.

[xukeith33]

@MRGV7373 no where in the Bible is it said that one is saved by faith alone.

Faith and works as stated in James are needed.

No works alone, not faith alone. Grace of Jesus inspires good works and faith.

[MRGV7373]

@xukeith33 right from the first Pope, Peter the rock. See Act15:7,9,11 Act 2:38-39. the teaching is 1) first believe in Jesus as God's Son, and He died on the cross for your sins and make him the lord of your life. belief first. How? by Faith. 2) the baptism. the outward sign of belief. So believe in your heart and then get baptized. Romans10:9-10. Teaching. Now James2:18-26. Knowledge of God is not saving, Faith without works show no faith.  Faith is show in right action/works.

[MRGV7373]

@xukeith33 Belief and faith are the starting point and when a person has these , Grace from God is flowing to the believer in Jesus. Now once the person has a new heart, new thinking patterns and understanding of God, behavior will change and works will follow. the person will love neighbor, family, will follow the commandments out of love God and neighbor. These acts don't make him/her saved, faith did. But if you say you have faith and your behavior does not change - no faith.

[AmericanBerean]

@MRGV7373 "Belief and faith are the starting point and when a person has these , Grace from God is flowing to the believer"

You've got it backward... grace comes first. Without grace we cannot have faith, we are utterly incapable of it on our own (a secondary effect of Original Sin). When we accept that grace we then have the capacity to make the choice to believe in Jesus in order to receive the sanctifying grace, the indwelling of the Spirit, to become a son of God.

[MRGV7373]

@AmericanBerean Grace as in God coming to earth and communicating to use via Jesus and the HS working in our hearts. But if you read what Paul writes in Romans 10 - vs.14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? It all starts from got gift - Grace if you like - of believing that Jesus is God's son. Once you know who Jesus is and what he did, then you can make the choice to follow or reject. God gave the message and grace, and humans get to choose.

[MRGV7373]

@AmericanBerean Just because humans have original sin does not mean that humans can not understand God's saving plans in Jesus. God help us to understand- Grace- unmerited favor from God at Christ's expense. That works for me. The human must understand what the message is by belief and hearing the message. That is why I am all for children and adult baptism and no more baby baptism since a baby can not understand the message of Jesus yet.

[MRGV7373]

@xukeith33 It is belief and faith that cause salvation. Sanctification comes from new habits, new mind set, gong to church, loving others, loving God..... If a person says they have faith and no works/behaviors are forth coming, the person better start to look at their beliefs and ask if they have faith in Jesus as Lord. That is what James is getting at. James is not saying that works leads to salvation. James is saying that if you don't have works your faith is dead, no belief

[2015HuntMJ]

@MRGV7373 I am just wondering what the protestant view on this is. What happens to say someone who lives in a communist country and can't worship God or say 300 years ago when the Indian tribes had never even met Christians who preach the gospel? How can they believe in God if they never were taught? Say they live a good life and do whats right. Do they, according to protestants make it to heaven? Would it not make more since if God judged them on their works?

[MRGV7373]

@2015HuntMJ Paul makes it clear that we need to preach the gospel in Romans 10. Now in Romans 1, Paul states that nature and seeing the beauty of nature will lead a person to know that "God"'s presence. So we are to know that some higher force controls this world we live in. Since the person never heard and believed, God will some how preach the gospel to that person after death and that person will make a choice. If God can build a universe, God will right judge them.

[2015HuntMJ]

@MRGV7373 Alright I am trying to get this faith alone idea figured out. Say you go to church, read the bible, and listen to Christian music and do all the things a faithful christian does. But you also have committed a murder, committed adultery, stole, and broken every commandment without truly feeling sorry for your sins before you die. Will God still only judge you on your faith? What if Hitler was a "faithful" christian who went to church, read the bible, etc. Would he be saved?

[MRGV7373]

@2015HuntMJ If faith is followed by Murder, adultery, stole, I would say that the person never had saving Faith. Now even Satan know that Jesus is God. So knowledge is not saving. Belief is understanding who Jesus is,God's Son, and making Jesus the Lord of your life. Meaning that Jesus is first and not your self. So would a believer who makes Jesus the love of their life, Kill, lie, commit adultery? If they did, I would say they never believed and therefore they are not saved.

[2015HuntMJ]

@MRGV7373 This is what I got from what you just said. Correct me if I read wrong. In order to be saved you have to have good faith. In order to have good faith you have to make Jesus the love of your life. You can not commit sins (such as killing, lieing, and committing adultery) and make Jesus the love of your life. You must have good works to have good faith?

[2015HuntMJ]

@MRGV7373 Also doesn't faith alone mean just that? Does faith alone include works at all? If it dose not include works at all and sins are considered a "work", sins according to faith alone are not part of our judgment. Can I also have the definition of faith according to the protestant church?

[MRGV7373]

@2015HuntMJ Con't if they had an all these real terrible sins, I would think that they never fully committed themselves to Jesus as their Lord and Savior and since they were just assenting to Jesus as God only, they are not saved yet. Even King David, killed and took another man married wife, but David did repent since he was fully committed to God. It always starts with faith or believing/faith then baptism.

[MRGV7373]

@2015HuntMJ con't How God will preach to them and judge the person has not been revealed to humanity ye,t if ever. Since God is all powerful, all understanding, I think that we humans will just have to trust God will do the righteous action for this person. For the rest of the ones that have heard the salvation message, God will judge us based on what he has revealed to us and how we believed and lived that belief.

[MRGV7373]

@2015HuntMJ By the way, the protestant and catholic belief should be just the same for one who has heard and not heard the gospel when it comes to salvation. Jesus, Peter and Paul preached. Belief in Jesus and understanding who Jesus is and did for us, leading to faith or trust in Jesus saving work, leading to baptism for public confession in Jesus, leading to works of righteous behaviors. Physical baptism does not save, it is the faith which leads to public confession that saves

[thinkerj]

Is there any reason to take this parable literally? Just like the following parable about the rich man and Lazarus I think it tells the story of Judaism and the Gentiles. The Gentiles are here represented by the prodigal son who was lost, but "came to his senses", repented and was reincluded in God's household.

[cllewis1]

@thinkerj Some serious mental gymnastics there. Even if we assume you're right about the Gentiles representing the prodigal son, can you document historically when the Gentiles were previously a part of God's household and then left? I always thought that they were never part of God's household before the New Covenant opened membership in God's household to all people.

[thinkerj]

@cllewis1 It is in fact an old interpretation that goes back at least as far as to Augustine. There are several good arguments for this view. In the days of Noah there were no "Gentiles", but he had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Since they are enumerated like that it is reasonable to assume that Japheth was younger than Shem. Shem was the ancestor of the Jewish people, whereas Japheth was the forefather of the Gentiles.

[CrimsonCatholic]

@thinkerj Sorry, but when were the Gentiles ever part of the father's household? How is it that they are alive "again" if they were never alive in the first place? Come on, thinkerj...think!

[strugglinalong]

This video is about OSAS, not the Eucharist. I have still not scene eny legitimate challenge to John's video by any OSAS believer.

[strugglinalong]

especially when you consider that OSAS cannot be defended by anything other than implication.

[strugglinalong]

Paul, although it may appear a stretch, the whole point is actually quite simple. John does not have to be infallible or exact in his position. All he has to do it show that OSAS is contrary to the established order. Jesus was fond of familial analogies as well as analogy from surrounding nature. The pericope surrounding the passages suggests an existing favor, abandoned by the recipient and then regained by an analogous form of repentance. It does not have to be an exact match, especially when

[1962mrpaul]

Usually your videos are good but this one's bit of a stretch. I don't think the parable of the prodigal makes the point you're trying to force it to make. Tho I agree once saved always saved is a false doctrine, this parable has nothing to do with that issue. Nice try, John, but this one doesn't fly.

[strugglinalong]

Once again we see the denial of free will. Did Jesus choose his sacrifice or was it an automated response? By the way, the whole distraction over infallibility was exactly that, a distraction. John never proclaimed his interpretation infallible. His video stands currently without serious challenge.

[voicefromwild2]

than just the bible...but the traditions given orally which Paul told us to do...written, and orally. I would quote the passage, but even though protestants can quote the bible, they are really great at not READING it. Please forgive me for that was uncalled for. I have discovered that if a protestant doesn't like what is written in front of their faces, they will add an opinion to it, ignore it,change the subject, or throw other scriptures out there to contradict it...NEVER do they address it.

[voicefromwild2]

@ everyoneananswer...I have no clue what "Spirit" is supposedly guiding you in your interpretations, but since all I see is you contradicting yourself time and again throughout all these videos, I struggle to believe that the spirit Is of God. I have read the majority of Catholic responses...rarely are they NOT inline with the teachings handed down by Christ and the Apostles. In John it is written that there are many more things that Jesus said and did..how lucky are we, who has more

[voicefromwild2]

Also we have the Church to compare our "fallible" interpretaions to..the bible does NOT contradict itself, but by our interpretaions, it can seem so..which is why it is so awesome to be able to rely on the Church to help us understand what we are reading, and to be able to compare what we THINK we understood to what the TRUTH is. If I read something that seems contrary to other parts of the bible, then I know that I misunderstood something, for the HOLY SPIRIT isn't deceptive.

[miketom777]

@toeveryoneananswer, To continue my last message, here is more. In Matthew 16:16-18, Jesus establishes his church on Peter and then gives him the authority to "bind and loose" on earth. In Ephesians 1:22, Paul tells us that all authority on earth has been give to... the bible?, No, all authority on earth is given to the Church. This is why we have so many documents from the 1st and 2nd century demonstrating that the Church in Rome gave direction and correction to the other Churches.

[miketom777]

@toeveryoneananswer, Thanks for your reply. To answer your question, "What are the infallible teachings of the Church and does anyone know them," they are contained in the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. They can easily be found on the Vatican website. With regard to your comment about Jesus and the Apostles never teaching this, you're wrong. In John 20:21-23, Jesus communicates his authority to the Apostles. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises to be with them until the end of world...

[strugglinalong]

The issue is not so very difficult. His address is like the olive tree analogy from Paul an Jesus. The Jews were in, then through unbelief out, then through repentance in again. Infallible interpretation regards certain (approximately 8) verses. I answered your question and showed clearly that this can relate to OSAS

[Eterniti777]

Could this Parable be speaking in a larger sense as well? What about Adam, he was in the Father's dwelling, then chose his own path through sin (the fall) and through repentance he was saved and became alive again. "For my son was dead, and is alive again." The Parables just before this one in ch. 15 of Luke all speak of salvation from being lost, we were lost at the fall and through Christ we have become alive again. What are your thoughts on this, John? Thank you, and may God bless you!!

[Eterniti777]

@Eterniti777 For nowhere in the parable does it suggest that the son was saved again, it states he was, "alive again," "lost and is found." These parables in ch. 15 were directed to both the Pharisees and scribes, as well as the tax collectors, and sinners that Jesus received, and ate with. These people were not previously saved.

[Eterniti777]

@Eterniti777 My belief or observation on the prodical son is that God, the loving Father is always open to receive his children who desire to return to Him, whether they have been saved already, and need to be forgiven, or are in need of salvation for the first time, for in Adam we all were alive, (speaking in the sense of humanity).

[Eterniti777]

@Eterniti777 Compare: Romans ch. 5:14-21 Adam was a type of Him (Jesus) who was to come.

For as by one man's (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's (Jesus) obedience many will be made righteous. ~Rom. 5:19

[miketom777]

@toeveryoneananswer, you make the assumption that, because the Catholic Church has been given the charism of infallibility, She must interpret every line of scripture infallibly. This assumption isn't correct. The charsim of infallibility protects the Church from teaching error. As Catholics, we're free to interpret scripture on all its levels as long as that interpretation doesn't contradict any existing infallible teaching of the church; which John's does not in this video.

[toeveryoneananswer]

@miketom777 What exactly are the infallible teachings of the church? Do you know all of them? Does anyone? Who promised that the church could not teach error? Jesus nor His apostles never taught such thing since they warn that false teachers will come into the church and teach false doctrines that will lead some astray. See 2 Peter 2:1. Jesus Himself rebukes a couple of churches for holding to error. Paul rebukes Peter for not being straightforward for the gospel in Gal 2:11-14.

[rhetcrit8]

@toeveryoneananswer: Re: "if you don't have an infallible. . . ." The Catholic Church has had appox. 20000 years of infallible interpertation of the Bible and many thousands upon thousands of commentary in one form or another. I don't think this is a real issue.

[toeveryoneananswer]

What happened to all the Catholics who are going to defend Catholicism? I'm beginning to think John should change the name of his series to-Questions Catholics are unable and unwilling to answer.

[toeveryoneananswer]

Since Catholics claim to have an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures, what is the official Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage? Where can it be found?

[CrimsonCatholic]

@toeveryoneananswer Your understanding of Catholicism appears to be a bit limited. The Pope has not interpreted each and every verse of the Bible for us in an infallible manner. So, there is no "official Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage."  But, by Protestant theology, we don't need one. My private fallible interpretation is all that is necessary, isn't it? Doesn't every one get to interpret the Bible as they see fit answering to no other authority? So, what about "alive again?"

[toeveryoneananswer]

@CrimsonCatholic If you don't have an infallible interpreter of the Bible then how can you know if you have the correct interpretation of this passage if the pope or the magesterium has not interpreted this passage? You to are limited to your private fallible interpretation just as the Protestant is. Correct?

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer Brother, one difference is that unlike the 30,000+ different interpretations of Christianity in Protestantism, Catholics have a consistent body of infallible teaching dating back to Apostolic times to read Scripture in view of, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church among many examples. To that end, referring to Mt 10:22 and Heb 11:6 et al, CCC 161 states to obtain eternal life, one must "endure to the end." If once saved always saved, why must one "endure to the end"?

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77

Since Catholics claim to have an infallible interpreter of the Scripture what is the infallible interpretation of this passage that John brings up? Once you have answered this then lets move on to the issue of OSAS.

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(1/3)

Perhaps you missed the meaning in my short response. The economy of salvation has been infallibly taught the Catholic Church, and as a Catholic Christian, I read Scripture in view of those decisive teachings. A verse-by-verse interpretation does not exist, nor is one necessary. Furthermore, it is a bad practice (that Catholics are taught not to do) to view any one verse in isolation from the rest of Scripture and Church teaching, as Protestants typically do.

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77 What must a catholic do to be saved and can he know he is saved?

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer (1/2)

Jesus has the exclusive authority to perform “ALL JUDGMENT” (Jn 5:22). Neither you nor I have the authority to proclaim who is supposedly “saved” or not. But, Jesus tells us how to be saved: “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17). Where do we get this strength? At Capernaum people asked: “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” (Jn 6:28). Jesus replied: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” (Jn 6:29).

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77 Do you believe that by keeping the commandments you will gain eternal life? Do you keep them perfectly?

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

Was Jesus giving misinformation in Mt 19:17?

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77

What did Jesus mean by 19:17? Could that young or any man keep the commandments of God perfectly? After all, not to keep the commandments perfectly is to sin.

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer Absolutely true. We all fall. It is a terrible thing to fall and offend God.

But like the prodigal son, you have to come back to God and He forgives. If you do not come back, you will have a problem.

Sin and redemption is a constant cycle that we go through all our lives. It takes time to work out our sinful habits. But you have to do it. Praise God that He is so patient to let us continually pick ourselves up and (only by His grace) try to do better for Him!!

Peace.

[cllewis1]

@baguazhang77 That's a very Catholic understanding of our salvation as a lifelong process!

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer (2/2)

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life…my flesh is meat [true food] indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him…he that eats me, the same also shall live by me…He that eats this bread shall live for ever." (Jn 6 53-58).

Do you “eat the flesh of the Son of man”?

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77 If you take John 6 literally then you have cannibalism. The best way to understand this passage is metaphorically. Just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in His sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood metaphorically symbolize the need for accepting Jesus’ cross work. This is not a reference to the Lord's supper since that would not happen for quite some time.

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(1/4)

As another commenter pointed out, we are quite off topic (my fault), so we should probably wrap this up, or at least agree to disagree.

Sorry for the multiple post replies, but these are tough points to make in 500 characters.

To quickly address your comments, if Jesus were speaking symbolically about the Eucharist, why did he let the people walk away and not clarify that he did not actually (as you claim) literally mean that people were to eat His flesh?

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(3/4)

You are quite wrong about the Eucharist not occurring for a "long time." The Eucharist is not only discussed very directly in 1 Cor 11, et al, but the faithful are instructed to not receive the Eucharist unworthily, or they would be guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ. What would be the concern if the Eucharist were only bread and wine?

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(4/4)

In addition to the Bible, the Eucharist is described extensively in the writings of the early Catholic Church:

I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ (Saint Ignatius, Letter to Romans, Circa 80-110 AD)

The First Century Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) states “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord”

There are so many more, I could go on for hours…

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(2/4)

Eating Jesus’ flesh is entirely Scriptural, both implicitly and explicitly.

Jesus came to not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). Jesus is the perfect sacrifice – the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29), “paschal lamb who has been sacrificed” (I Cor 5:7). Under Jewish law, you are to eat the paschal lamb (Ex 12:8-9) to complete the sacrifice. Unless the flesh of the Lamb of God is consumed, the sacrifice of Jesus is not completed and the law is not fulfilled.

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(2/3)

The Bible was given to us by the Catholic Church. The Church does not teach any given article of faith “because” it is in the Bible, rather those things are in the bible because the Catholic Church teaches them. Those 2000 years of consistent teachings are available for anyone to see, which is a lot better foundation than any one person’s (or 30,000+ people’s) random, and since there can only be ONE TRUTH, undeniably erroneous interpretations.

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77

Get serious. There are many things the Catholic church teaches that are not in the Bible. Things like indulgences, purgatory and the Marian doctrines to name a few. Since the feast of Mary's assumption was recently celebrated where is this taught in Scripture?

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer The Bible was compiled to support Catholic teaching. The books of the Bible were decided by the Church by specifically determining which ones supported Catholic teaching and which did not. Those that supported it were included in the cannon; those that did not were rejected. This simply means that nothing in the Bible can contradict Catholic teaching, but not every single thing is necessarily spelled out verbatim (e.g., the Trinity). Yet it is all “supportable.”

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

(3/3)

There is an overwhelming amount of Scriptural and traditional evidence that the man made doctrine of OSAS is utterly erroneous. With all due respect, I think I have very directly answered your question on verse-by-verse interpretations of Scripture, and it looks to me like John has too. But, you have not commented on a single argument presented in challenge to it.

Are you going to?

You might begin by stating where in the Bible OSAS is mentioned or even implied.

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77

OSAS is based on the being of the elect and the power of God. Phil 2: 12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

How can something God has worked out be frustrated? This is one of many passages that support OSAS.

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer Of course it is God (Holy Spirit) Who gives us the capability to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” We do not have the capability to do it on our own (I think we agree there brother). But, we must cooperate in His grace, and not resist His Holy Spirit (see Acts 7:51 et al). Phil 2 teaches against OSAS. If OSAS, why is salvation a process to be continually worked out? You still did not answer if OSAS, why must we “endure to the end” (e.g., Mt 10:22, Heb 11:6)?

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77 -Enduring-preserving to the end is a sign of being saved. The reason salvation is said to being worked out is that salvation involves not just being saved from condemnation but also conforming us to the image of Christ.

[baguazhang77]

@toeveryoneananswer

But if a person already saved, why the need to endure? Wouldn’t it be illogical to need to endure if everything was taken care of?

Are Matthew and Paul just blowing smoke by saying this?

What other verses in the Bible should we disregard?

[toeveryoneananswer]

@baguazhang77

Endurance-perseverance are characteristics of a person who is genuinely saved.

[toeveryoneananswer]

Respond to this video... Notice in the parable that the son became alive again when he realized his condition i.e. repented and sought out his father in humility. At one point he thought he was alive in the world living it up in sin but eventually that came to an end and he saw his desperate need. Once he repented and came back to his father was he alive again.

[toeveryoneananswer]

I don't think the prodigal son was saved since the context is against this position. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees who were rejecting His message. We also see the son repenting and being given a position he never had before (v22). Though the Jews were the children of God because of the OT covenant they still needed to put their faith in Christ and accept the message of the gospel. Only then could they be in the Kingdom.

[CrimsonCatholic]

@toeveryoneananswer Sorry, but your "theory" about his "position" is invalid. That is an interpretation you have inserted into the text. Robes and shoes were standard dress items. Rings signified that he is a member of the family - all of which he would have worn before he left. So, you're saying one can be a member of the household of God, yet not be saved? What about the word "again?" How can he be alive again unless he was first alive, then dead? Saved, unsaved, saved again.

[toeveryoneananswer]

@CrimsonCatholic The parable is not about once saved always saved. The Pharisees were not of the household of God even though they claimed to be. That's why Jesus rebukes them for their hypocrisy and even warns them at times for keeping others out of the kingdom. They thought they were alive to God but in reality were dead to Him. We see a good example of this in Romans 7:7-13 where Paul thought he kept the law until he understood that he was actually a law breaker via coveting.

[DinaMcNulty]

@toeveryoneananswer Remember, there are TWO sons. The father does not tell the angry brother that he only THOUGHT he was a faithful son, but in reality was dead to him. To the contrary, he tells him that he has always been with him and that everything he owns is his. This puts your theory to the test.

[cllewis1]

@DinaMcNulty ToEveryone didn't actually answer the question though. He says the son thought he was alive in the world, living it up in sin, but didn't say anything about the son's status before he left his father's house.