Tell me, Did the Prodigal son believe he was no longer a son?
He lost his inheritance through his abandonment of the family.
Did it matter that he THOUGHT he was no longer a son?
What mattered was the fact that he had lost his father's inheritance by abandoning him.
EVEN after repenting, he STILL said this:
Luke 15:21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
The important point being here: He had to repent. He had to come back to his father.
His father had other thoughts didn't he? So it didn't matter that the son no longer thought he was his father's son.
What mattered is he lost his inheritance by leaving his father's estate.
The reality was that he was BORN his father's son.
And we see that did not keep him from losing the inheritance.
It's in his DNA. AND lest we forget, the 3 parables in Luke 15 were told one right after the other.
You're making a huge error by assuming all prodigals return home just because the one in the parable did. It was necessary that the son return home (repent). Not all do.
So why would God leave His faithful, obedient Children to retrieve the son that blew his inheritance, and cavorted with harlots? BECAUSE THE LOST PRODIGAL IS HIS KID!!!!!
But if the son doesn't come back he will have no part of his father's inheritance. The son becomes dead to the father.
It seems to me, that you do not believe you are currently a born again Child of God.
Born again, Spirit filled.
How do I know? I can see Jesus more and more in my behavior.
Popular 'once saved always saved' teaching tells us that we can't now if we are truly saved because that's measured by whether or not you ever leave. You won't know that until all opportunities for you to leave have been exhausted. In other words, you can't know you're truly saved until you die. And that's supposed to be the doctrine of security and assurance.
If I'm wrong, tell me how you can be a child of God, somehow, BECOME AN UNBORN CHILD OF GOD, because you would be admitting that at one point you WERE a Child of God.
How? By God taking his Spirit out of a person's body. Biblically, that's God cutting a person out of the vine and tossing them into the fire. Since you are the one stretching the parent/child analogy, why is impossible, according to your abuse of the analogy, for a parent to put their child in the fire, and that child no longer being around to be in line for the family inheritance/estate? The historical fact that they were born doesn't burn up with them, but they surely are no longer in line for the inheritance.