Are we Slaves to God?

[th1bill]

Bondservant
BOND'SERVANT, n. [bond and servant.] A slave; one who is subjected to the authority of another, or whose person and liberty are restrained. (Quoted from the Merriam Webster's Dictionary)


Where to begin this article? Recently, I was foolish enough to post a message in a political sub-forum at a Christian Forum web-site, rebuking an elderly gentleman for calling Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of England and former President George Bush stupid and stupider.


And you ask, “What in the world does that have to do with a bondservant? Everything for the person purchased by the blood shed by Jesus on the cross! Anyone that has skimmed through the Bible and has been to church a few times knows that Adam, in the book of Genesis, gave his dominion over the Earth to that Old Dragon, Satan. Therefore, realize it or not, you belong to Satan until you repent, take Jesus as your Savior and your Master and meet Him at the foot of the cross.


When we become the Servants of God it is our duty to glorify Him in everything we do, we die to self if we belong to Him. Couple this with the truth that there is no rule that rules anywhere that does so without God's approval. This is a difficult theology taught in Romans 13:1 and the study of this matter in the Nave's Topical is very extensive. The phrase that caused the rebuke from me is, “stupid and stupider,” in relation to the character of these men. (Matt. 5:21,22) In this society, today, the term, stupid, is synonymous with the term, stupid, and generally it is perceived that this is exactly what was meant... fool.


I could go on for pages on this matter of being a Bondservant but I'm looking for conversation, not monologue.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Yes, we are bondservants of Christ.

Yes, we seek to glorify God in all we do.

However,

a) our Master came to free us from fleshly and spiritual bondage, not enslave us to our governments and

b) As citizens of democracies it is our duty to call out our authorities when they are being stupid and when someone is stupid enough to follow the ideas of another without regard to those he is supposed to lead.

So, imo, you were out of line.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The phrase that caused the rebuke from me is, “stupid and stupider,” in relation to the character of these men. (Matt. 5:21,22) In this society, today, the term, stupid, is synonymous with the term, stupid, and generally it is perceived that this is exactly what was meant... fool.

I was with you up to this point.

Firstly, one cannot be rebuked for simply attacking the character of a person. After all, both Christ and Paul did so. The problem can only be with false attacks, attacks which have no evidence to support them. Thats a different issue though.

Secondly, it is not evident either from the word or what you said that Matt 5:21,22 applies. For one, Christ himself applied the word to others, and Paul as well:
Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind."
I Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

So, unless you would have Christ and Paul being in danger of hellfire because of these statement, it seems that Matt 5:21,22 has a narrower application than a surface reading would indicate.

 

[th1bill]

Yes, we are bondservants of Christ.

Yes, we seek to glorify God in all we do.

However,

a) our Master came to free us from fleshly and spiritual bondage, not enslave us to our governments and

b) As citizens of democracies it is our duty to call out our authorities when they are being stupid and when someone is stupid enough to follow the ideas of another without regard to those he is supposed to lead.

So, imo, you were out of line.

imo=in "my" opinion

As the servants of the Most High God we have been given the Bible, a.k.a. the Operator's Handbook! Now, I have based my article on scripture, the Word of God, and you give me and rebuke me with "your opinion?" Sir, you might find it distressing but your opinion is of no more value in Kingdom matters than mine is and you have already agreed that we are both God's servants.

If you would care to carry this further and back up and follow the Holy spirit's leading, come out of that private and personal corner over there and back your remarks with Spirit directed scriptures I'll be happy to engage you. On the personal opinion level... neither one of us is qualified.

 

[th1bill]

I was with you up to this point.

Firstly, one cannot be rebuked for simply attacking the character of a person. After all, both Christ and Paul did so. The problem can only be with false attacks, attacks which have no evidence to support them. Thats a different issue though.

Secondly, it is not evident either from the word or what you said that Matt 5:21,22 applies. For one, Christ himself applied the word to others, and Paul as well:
Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind."
I Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

So, unless you would have Christ and Paul being in danger of hellfire because of these statement, it seems that Matt 5:21,22 has a narrower application than a surface reading would indicate.

I'm sorry, but Matt. 23:17 is not a key verse and to understand it's meaning it is necessary to read the chapter, at least, and to put it into the intended context. Neither of these two renowned World Leaders was guilty of gaining their offices illegally or by wrongful dealings, this does not have any bearing on using the term raca or stupid.

1Cor. 15:36 To get any context for this passage you must read no less than v:35-50. Paul was calling people (some believers in Corinth) fools for choosing not to believe in the Resurrection even though over five hundred witnesses had seen Jesus after He was killed on the cross and buried. My friend, not only will I tell you that you are a fool if you were to tell me that you had believed but not the resurrection or the ascension. Here once more is a passage that has naught to do with not praying for our leaders and instead calling them stupid.

Finally, Hermeneutics! Scripture interprets itself, not us.

 

[dwmoeller1]

imo=in "my" opinion

As the servants of the Most High God we have been given the Bible, a.k.a. the Operator's Handbook! Now, I have based my article on scripture, the Word of God, and you give me and rebuke me with "your opinion?" Sir, you might find it distressing but your opinion is of no more value in Kingdom matters than mine is and you have already agreed that we are both God's servants.

If you would care to carry this further and back up and follow the Holy spirit's leading, come out of that private and personal corner over there and back your remarks with Spirit directed scriptures I'll be happy to engage you. On the personal opinion level... neither one of us is qualified.

FWIW, the qualifier of 'imo' does not necessarily mean its simply and only their opinion. In general its a way to try and soften a statement. So rather than taking the position of authority and judge over you and saying absolutely "You were out of line.", the writer tries to allow for the fact that he might be wrong in his estimation. Maybe he doesn't have all the facts, maybe his line of thinking isn't perfect, maybe he didn't really understand what you were saying, etc. "IMO" then becomes a way of indicating that the statement is not meant to be authoritative or absolute. It can be a way of avoiding sounding prideful or arrogant.

In short, to take the qualifier of 'imo' as being "simply your opinion and nothing more" misses the point of the qualifier. In reality, he gave you an argument which is based on what he believes Scripture to say. Rather than nitpicking on his polite qualifier, you would do better to deal with his premises and logic.

I would qualify that last statement with "imo" but you would probably misunderstand my intent.

 

[th1bill]

FWIW, the qualifier of 'imo' does not necessarily mean its simply and only their opinion. In general its a way to try and soften a statement. So rather than taking the position of authority and judge over you and saying absolutely "You were out of line.", the writer tries to allow for the fact that he might be wrong in his estimation. Maybe he doesn't have all the facts, maybe his line of thinking isn't perfect, maybe he didn't really understand what you were saying, etc. "IMO" then becomes a way of indicating that the statement is not meant to be authoritative or absolute. It can be a way of avoiding sounding prideful or arrogant.

In short, to take the qualifier of 'imo' as being "simply your opinion and nothing more" misses the point of the qualifier. In reality, he gave you an argument which is based on what he believes Scripture to say. Rather than nitpicking on his polite qualifier, you would do better to deal with his premises and logic.

I would qualify that last statement with "imo" but you would probably misunderstand my intent.

Well, you're not going to be pleased here either... this might be a fun exercise but it is a rabbit trail and I hate briar's.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I'm sorry, but Matt. 23:17 is not a key verse and to understand it's meaning it is necessary to read the chapter, at least, and to put it into the intended context. Neither of these two renowned World Leaders was guilty of gaining their offices illegally or by wrongful dealings, this does not have any bearing on using the term raca or stupid.

1Cor. 15:36 To get any context for this passage you must read no less than v:35-50. Paul was calling people (some believers in Corinth) fools for choosing not to believe in the Resurrection even though over five hundred witnesses had seen Jesus after He was killed on the cross and buried. My friend, not only will I tell you that you are a fool if you were to tell me that you had believed but not the resurrection or the ascension. Here once more is a passage that has naught to do with not praying for our leaders and instead calling them stupid.

You miss the point I am raising.
- Matt 5:22,23 says that calling someone a fool puts you in danger of hellfire (Agree or disagree?)
- In Matt 23:17 Jesus calls someone a fool. Same for Paul in 1 Cor 15:36. (Agree or disagree?)
- Therefore, a surface reading of Matt 5:22,23 is shown to contradict other Scripture. Thus, to reason from the surface reading of Matt 5:22,23 is fallacious. Thats not to say that you are wrong, just that your argument is insufficient and fallacious as it stands.

I don't disagree with your points, they simply don't apply to the point I am making. Logically, a surface reading of Matt 5:21,22 is unsound as a basis for criticizing someone else. Thus, your argument in the OP needs to discuss first was Matt 5:21,22 really means and when it applies or doesn't apply.

So, if you are going to argue that Matt 5:21,22 don't apply to the verses i mention but does to the case you mention in the OP, you need to explain Matt 5:21,22 in more detail. Otherwise, it appears you are cherry-picking meanings and applications.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Well, you're not going to be pleased here either... this might be a fun exercise but it is a rabbit trail and I hate briar's.

You are the one who started down that trail. I was just taking the time to point out to you that it was a rabbit trail. Now that we both are aware that your criticism was just a rabbit trail, we can stay off it altogether from this point on.

 

[th1bill]

You are the one who started down that trail. I was just taking the time to point out to you that it was a rabbit trail. Now that we both are aware that your criticism was just a rabbit trail, we can stay off it altogether from this point on.

You are showing signs of having a problem with contextual understanding and that is a sad place for a grown man to find himself. The passage I quoted is the key verse for the passage, Matt. 5:21-26 ad I would have thouht that a Christian with a computer and internet access would have at least one of the free Bible study software packages on his or her computer and would not have needed a mere teacher to cheat and do their homework for them.

Or is it possible that you do not study to show yourself approved?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Let me just go through your post point by point.

Bondservant
BOND'SERVANT, n. [bond and servant.] A slave; one who is subjected to the authority of another, or whose person and liberty are restrained. (Quoted from the Merriam Webster's Dictionary)

Ok. We will work from that definition.

Where to begin this article? Recently, I was foolish enough to post a message in a political sub-forum at a Christian Forum web-site, rebuking an elderly gentleman for calling Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of England and former President George Bush stupid and stupider.

Realize that we don't know the context of these statements, we are only going on what you share with us. Since you share only that this statement was made, I have to assume that it is the mere statement (regardless of context) that you have a problem with.

And you ask, “What in the world does that have to do with a bondservant? Everything for the person purchased by the blood shed by Jesus on the cross! Anyone that has skimmed through the Bible and has been to church a few times knows that Adam, in the book of Genesis, gave his dominion over the Earth to that Old Dragon, Satan. Therefore, realize it or not, you belong to Satan until you repent, take Jesus as your Savior and your Master and meet Him at the foot of the cross.

I might have some minor quibbles with some of the points, but for this discussion I agree so far.

When we become the Servants of God it is our duty to glorify Him in everything we do, we die to self if we belong to Him. Couple this with the truth that there is no rule that rules anywhere that does so without God's approval. This is a difficult theology taught in Romans 13:1 and the study of this matter in the Nave's Topical is very extensive.

Agreed.

The phrase that caused the rebuke from me is, “stupid and stupider,” in relation to the character of these men.

How do we know it was in reference to their character? Personally, without any wider context, i would see it as a reference to their thinking, leadership and/or decisions. IOW, they might be perfectly upright men who just make stupid decisions. That is, at least, how I would tend to take such a statement (again, I don't have the context of the statements to reference).

So, from the info you are sharing, you first unwarranted assumption seems to be that the statement was a reference to their character rather than something else.

(Matt. 5:21,22) In this society, today, the term, stupid, is synonymous with the term, stupid, and generally it is perceived that this is exactly what was meant... fool.

Ok, thats accurate enough. However, "stupid/fool" can have several senses. You seem to be making a unsupported assumption that the meaning in Matt 5:21,22 is the same as was used by the poster. This needs to be supported if you wish to have a sound argument.

There, maybe that helped to make my points more clear.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You are showing signs of having a problem with contextual understanding and that is a sad place for a grown man to find himself. The passage I quoted is the key verse for the passage, Matt. 5:21-26 ad I would have thouht that a Christian with a computer and internet access would have at least one of the free Bible study software packages on his or her computer and would not have needed a mere teacher to cheat and do their homework for them.

Or is it possible that you do not study to show yourself approved?

Fun! Ad hominems in place of an actual argument. I point out deficiencies in your reasoning, and you respond by attacking my intellectual ability and intellectual honesty. What a fun start to this "conversation". Is it reasonable to hope that you will avoid this sort of thing in the future?

 

[ituttut]

Are we slaves of God?

To your subject matter, and question "Are We Slaves to God". No, we are not slaves to God.