Comments on: A Book Review: “The Prodigal God” http://idsblog.com/?p=190 Equipping the Believer with a Theological Foundation Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:37:36 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Gene Wengert http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2265 Gene Wengert Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:21:48 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2265 As I read the thoughtful comments presented herein, I do wonder if some of the comments reflect an weak or undeveloped understanding of the parables...format, style and so on... as well as a weak understanding of the Greek language, culture at the time they were given by Christ and even the culture and concerns of Luke at the time he wrote. There are at least 100 texts on the parables and their interpretation, with a tendency for these texts to build on the previous knowledge. In this respect, one recent text that may prove to help us understand and add color and excitement to our understanding could be THE PARABLES OF JESUS by Arland Hultgren. As I read the thoughtful comments presented herein, I do wonder if some of the comments reflect an weak or undeveloped understanding of the parables…format, style and so on… as well as a weak understanding of the Greek language, culture at the time they were given by Christ and even the culture and concerns of Luke at the time he wrote. There are at least 100 texts on the parables and their interpretation, with a tendency for these texts to build on the previous knowledge. In this respect, one recent text that may prove to help us understand and add color and excitement to our understanding could be THE PARABLES OF JESUS by Arland Hultgren.

]]> By: Ryan http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2260 Ryan Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:30:48 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2260 Geoff and other posters, Firstly, I appreciate so much the tone of discussion on this site. It is a blessing that we as brothers and sisters in Christ can discuss differences without falling in to the personal attacks that so characterize most modern debates. Secondly,I agree with Geoff that it is important for us to use scripture in the manner in which it was intended. "A book that means anything means nothing" was an oft used declaration of a former professor of mine. To allow a student of scripture to use it in a way that was not meant by the original author chips away at the validity and strength of the Bible. It was argued that since the Spirit guides us we can interpret scripture in the same way as the Apostles. We must be careful in this line of thinking because this means that anything written by a believer or any interpretation of scripture by a believer can now be put on the same level as scripture. This is not the intent, but it is the outcome. In Him, Ryan Geoff and other posters,
Firstly, I appreciate so much the tone of discussion on this site. It is a blessing that we as brothers and sisters in Christ can discuss differences without falling in to the personal attacks that so characterize most modern debates.

Secondly,I agree with Geoff that it is important for us to use scripture in the manner in which it was intended. “A book that means anything means nothing” was an oft used declaration of a former professor of mine. To allow a student of scripture to use it in a way that was not meant by the original author chips away at the validity and strength of the Bible.

It was argued that since the Spirit guides us we can interpret scripture in the same way as the Apostles. We must be careful in this line of thinking because this means that anything written by a believer or any interpretation of scripture by a believer can now be put on the same level as scripture. This is not the intent, but it is the outcome.

In Him,
Ryan

]]> By: Geoff Volker http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2250 Geoff Volker Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:36:49 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2250 Bob, I do not think that Keller is promoting a form of legalism. I believe that he is trying to present some concerns for us to consider. My problem is that I do not believe that he can get what he wants to get out of the parable of the lost son. There may be different kinds of unbelievers in the world but the parable of the lost son is not given to tell us about them. Thanks for taking the time to write. Bob, I do not think that Keller is promoting a form of legalism. I believe that he is trying to present some concerns for us to consider. My problem is that I do not believe that he can get what he wants to get out of the parable of the lost son. There may be different kinds of unbelievers in the world but the parable of the lost son is not given to tell us about them. Thanks for taking the time to write.

]]> By: Bob Peterson http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2249 Bob Peterson Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:32:07 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2249 Thanks for this discussion. I am glad that others have serious reservations about this book. This book has bothered me for several months, and I was appalled to learn that the author is well respected PCA minister. My conclusion after reading the book is that the author is saying that the major fault with the elder brother was that he did not go out, find his younger brother, and bring him home. That the elder brother's failing was that he did not do that one additional thing. When Keller makes this point, I firmly believe that he is adding to the parable that Jesus told in an attempt to establish a basis for tasks that Keller wishes to lay on his fellow believers. I don't think that Keller's idea was being taught by Jesus at all. When I checked John Calvin's commentary on this passage, I learned that Calvin thought that, for purposes of discussion, Jesus was willing to assume that the elder brother (i.e. the Pharisees) had been completely faithful in his relationship with the father. So, why then did the elder brother refuse to welcome his brother home? It would cost the elder brother nothing to do so. Thus, Calvin contradicts Keller. The error did not lie in failing to bring the younger brother home, but in failing to welcome him when he came back on his own. I concluded that Keller was trying to lay a task on his fellow believers. He is trying to say that we must perform a task, find and bring the younger brother home, to be right in God's eyes. It looks to me like a new form of legalism. According to Keller, the elder brother believed that his works would secure his salvation. This was clearly true of the Pharisees, and it meant that they were not believers. Keller then goes on to assert that many churches are elder brother churches although he does not say which churches he is talking about. My question in this area revolves around who Keller is talking about. I am not aware of any theologically conservative, evangelical churches who believe that anyone is saved by work. I don't think that even fundamentalist churches hold this view. So who is Keller talking about? I look forward to your comments. Thanks for this discussion. I am glad that others have serious reservations about this book. This book has bothered me for several months, and I was appalled to learn that the author is well respected PCA minister.

My conclusion after reading the book is that the author is saying that the major fault with the elder brother was that he did not go out, find his younger brother, and bring him home. That the elder brother’s failing was that he did not do that one additional thing. When Keller makes this point, I firmly believe that he is adding to the parable that Jesus told in an attempt to establish a basis for tasks that Keller wishes to lay on his fellow believers.

I don’t think that Keller’s idea was being taught by Jesus at all. When I checked John Calvin’s commentary on this passage, I learned that Calvin thought that, for purposes of discussion, Jesus was willing to assume that the elder brother (i.e. the Pharisees) had been completely faithful in his relationship with the father. So, why then did the elder brother refuse to welcome his brother home? It would cost the elder brother nothing to do so. Thus, Calvin contradicts Keller. The error did not lie in failing to bring the younger brother home, but in failing to welcome him when he came back on his own.

I concluded that Keller was trying to lay a task on his fellow believers. He is trying to say that we must perform a task, find and bring the younger brother home, to be right in God’s eyes. It looks to me like a new form of legalism.

According to Keller, the elder brother believed that his works would secure his salvation. This was clearly true of the Pharisees, and it meant that they were not believers. Keller then goes on to assert that many churches are elder brother churches although he does not say which churches he is talking about. My question in this area revolves around who Keller is talking about. I am not aware of any theologically conservative, evangelical churches who believe that anyone is saved by work. I don’t think that even fundamentalist churches hold this view. So who is Keller talking about?

I look forward to your comments.

]]> By: Aaron Benner http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2245 Aaron Benner Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:52:39 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2245 Geoff, I am encouraged by your scriptural stance in the many items brought up in this discussion. Just know you have a brother lifting you up in prayer. Keep serving Christ with the zeal He has given. God Bless. Geoff,

I am encouraged by your scriptural stance in the many items brought up in this discussion. Just know you have a brother lifting you up in prayer. Keep serving Christ with the zeal He has given. God Bless.

]]> By: Geoff Volker http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2238 Geoff Volker Sun, 09 May 2010 12:56:31 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2238 Jay, Paul's letters are described by Peter as being on par with the Old Testament writings (2 Peter 3:15-16). The Holy Spirit does not work independently of the Scripture (John 16:12-15). We can only observe how God interprets his own word. There is no place in Scripture where we are told that the Holy Spirit guides us through our feelings or impressions. You said that I should not be afraid to do what you do. I am concerned to do everything in a manner that honors my Lord (1 Cor 10:31). Interpreting Scripture by relying on his interpretation is interpreting to the glory of God. Ponder these thoughts. I would love to talk with you further, but I think that the blog would not be the place to do it. I would be happy to talk with you on the phone. If you would like to do this then give me your phone number and I will call you, or you can call me at 480-924-4290 (H), 480-313-8558 (C). Bye for now Jay,
Paul’s letters are described by Peter as being on par with the Old Testament writings (2 Peter 3:15-16). The Holy Spirit does not work independently of the Scripture (John 16:12-15). We can only observe how God interprets his own word. There is no place in Scripture where we are told that the Holy Spirit guides us through our feelings or impressions. You said that I should not be afraid to do what you do. I am concerned to do everything in a manner that honors my Lord (1 Cor 10:31). Interpreting Scripture by relying on his interpretation is interpreting to the glory of God. Ponder these thoughts. I would love to talk with you further, but I think that the blog would not be the place to do it. I would be happy to talk with you on the phone. If you would like to do this then give me your phone number and I will call you, or you can call me at 480-924-4290 (H), 480-313-8558 (C). Bye for now

]]> By: Jay http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2237 Jay Sun, 09 May 2010 02:27:59 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2237 Geoff, You keep saying or intimating, "We cannot say that Scripture is saying something unless we can prove it from other Scripture in context. Otherwise we would be just guessing as to what it means. God must interpret his own word." This is quite a strong belief you have. I don't remember any scripture verses teaching this or anything like it. I don't remember Paul writing that he was under the control of the Holy Spirit or had some divine authority unlike other believers had. Stephen, the first Martyr gives a sermon in Acts reinterpreting the scriptures but I don't think he was even given the "authority", he just helped the Orphans and widows in the distribution. My point is that this persepctive of scripture ONLY interpreting scripture is not Biblical. Clearly the Holy Spirit is more important than the Scriptures right? I mean, the scriptures are God's words, but the Spirit is God himself and there is a huge difference right? If I abide with the Spirit, I have God himself in me and the scriptures become the most effective tool. As I read the scriptures, it is the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures and not the scriptures interpreting themselves as much. It is God who gives authority and he gives it to whoever he desires. Can you prove anything about the scriptures without the Holy Spirit? Geoff, do you ever get the feeling you are placing rules on the Holy Spirit and limitations on God in an effort for control? I know I have done that and still do it too. Maybe it is just time to let that go. What are you afraid of if just anyone could have authority through the Holy Spirit? Love you brother, Jay Geoff,

You keep saying or intimating, “We cannot say that Scripture is saying something unless we can prove it from other Scripture in context. Otherwise we would be just guessing as to what it means. God must interpret his own word.” This is quite a strong belief you have. I don’t remember any scripture verses teaching this or anything like it. I don’t remember Paul writing that he was under the control of the Holy Spirit or had some divine authority unlike other believers had. Stephen, the first Martyr gives a sermon in Acts reinterpreting the scriptures but I don’t think he was even given the “authority”, he just helped the Orphans and widows in the distribution.

My point is that this persepctive of scripture ONLY interpreting scripture is not Biblical. Clearly the Holy Spirit is more important than the Scriptures right? I mean, the scriptures are God’s words, but the Spirit is God himself and there is a huge difference right? If I abide with the Spirit, I have God himself in me and the scriptures become the most effective tool. As I read the scriptures, it is the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures and not the scriptures interpreting themselves as much. It is God who gives authority and he gives it to whoever he desires. Can you prove anything about the scriptures without the Holy Spirit? Geoff, do you ever get the feeling you are placing rules on the Holy Spirit and limitations on God in an effort for control? I know I have done that and still do it too. Maybe it is just time to let that go. What are you afraid of if just anyone could have authority through the Holy Spirit?

Love you brother,
Jay

]]> By: Geoff Volker http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2236 Geoff Volker Fri, 07 May 2010 17:16:05 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2236 Jay, Your comments are always welcome. We cannot say that Scripture is saying something unless we can prove it from other Scripture in context. Otherwise we would be just guessing as to what it means. God must interpret his own word. In Romans 9 Paul, under the control of the Holy Spirit, interpreted the passages in Hosea with divine authority. I never have that authority and therefore I can only say what I can prove from Scripture. Bye for now Jay,
Your comments are always welcome. We cannot say that Scripture is saying something unless we can prove it from other Scripture in context. Otherwise we would be just guessing as to what it means. God must interpret his own word. In Romans 9 Paul, under the control of the Holy Spirit, interpreted the passages in Hosea with divine authority. I never have that authority and therefore I can only say what I can prove from Scripture. Bye for now

]]> By: Jay http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2235 Jay Fri, 07 May 2010 02:08:24 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2235 Sorry to be a Blog Hog, but I really love the book and this discussion of it. However, this discussion about being "right" in our Biblical interpretation seems older brother-ish to me. I mean, we can't just love, follow, and serve our Father for his sake, but we have to have the "right" way of our Father down too. Is having a strong view of Biblical inspiration about loving the Father or about justifying our own self righteous goodness? Can we trust a God that works through imperfect humans? Is most of our theology about loving the Father or controlling God with our goodness? I am really enjoying this, thanks for humoring me everyone. Sorry to be a Blog Hog, but I really love the book and this discussion of it. However, this discussion about being “right” in our Biblical interpretation seems older brother-ish to me. I mean, we can’t just love, follow, and serve our Father for his sake, but we have to have the “right” way of our Father down too. Is having a strong view of Biblical inspiration about loving the Father or about justifying our own self righteous goodness? Can we trust a God that works through imperfect humans? Is most of our theology about loving the Father or controlling God with our goodness?

I am really enjoying this, thanks for humoring me everyone.

]]> By: Paul Clark http://idsblog.com/?p=190&cpage=2#comment-2234 Paul Clark Thu, 06 May 2010 23:07:04 +0000 http://idsblog.com/?p=190#comment-2234 Well said Jay. I think you have made a very pertinent point. Well said Jay. I think you have made a very pertinent point.

]]>