Are you a Slave of God?

[Luke2427]

i

You are all over the place...

It was not forced. It was not permanent. One was instituted by God. They were not to ne treated harshly. So now what is your point in all this?

"It was not forced, It was not permanent" is you STILL not getting it.

WHILE THEY WERE SLAVES... Webdog.

Slaves were not free to come and go as they please WHILE THEY WERE SLAVES.

WHILE THEY WERE SLAVES.

Got it yet?

We are ALWAYS slaves to Christ. That is never going to end- not even in eternity.

So the only application that makes sense to us is not their voluntary ability to join up or the fact that it ends eventually. What matters is what it is like to BE a slave. To BE. To BE.. got that? Not how you BECOME one. Not how long it will last. But what it is like WHILE YOU ARE A SLAVE.

So how much FREER were bible slaves than African slaves?

What could they do that African slaves could not.

And as for this statement about "They were not to be treated harshly"- neither were Christian masters to treat THEIR slaves harshly. So that statement has no bearing on the conversation.

 

[Skandelon]

This shouldn't be an either/or debate. Being a slave of God, or fearing God is a immature or beginning stage of the relationship. Like when you fear your dad's punishment or desire his allowance in order to be motivated to obey. That is a type of relationship and it has its place....fear is the beginning of wisdom.

BUT our relationship shouldn't stay at this level. We should mature. I obey (or help) my dad at his request now because he is my friend. I do not fear his belt or look for payment. I do what I do out of love. True love drives out fear. Law is telling us how to treat people we don't yet love. Once you LOVE someone there is not a need for rules telling you how to treat them. You don't need fear to motivate you any more.

That is the point I was making in the beginning and yet that has yet to be addressed. As one who has been a slave and now is a friend...I'll never go back. Why would I? Why would anyone settle for slavery when they could grow into something so much more fulfilling?

 

[DocTrinsoGrace]

Why would anyone settle for slavery when they could grow into something so much more fulfilling?

"Let no one imagine that he will lose anything of human dignity by this voluntary sell-out of his all to his God. He does not by this degrade himself as a man; rather he finds his right place of high honor as one made in the image of his Creator. His deep disgrace lay in his moral derangement, his unnatural usurpation of the place of God. His honor will be proved by restoring again that stolen throne. In exalting God over all he finds his own highest honor upheld.

"Anyone who might feel reluctant to surrender his will to the will of another should remember Jesus’ words, 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.' We must of necessity be servant to someone, either to God or to sin. The sinner prides himself on his independence, completely overlooking the fact that he is the weak slave of the sins that rule his members. The man who surrenders to Christ exchanges a cruel slave driver for a kind and gentle master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light." --A. W. Tozer (1897-1963), from The Pursuit of God, chapter 8

 

[Luke2427]

This shouldn't be an either/or debate. Being a slave of God, or fearing God is a immature or beginning stage of the relationship. Like when you fear your dad's punishment or desire his allowance in order to be motivated to obey. That is a type of relationship and it has its place....fear is the beginning of wisdom.

BUT our relationship shouldn't stay at this level. We should mature. I obey (or help) my dad at his request now because he is my friend. I do not fear his belt or look for payment. I do what I do out of love. True love drives out fear. Law is telling us how to treat people we don't yet love. Once you LOVE someone there is not a need for rules telling you how to treat them. You don't need fear to motivate you any more.

That is the point I was making in the beginning and yet that has yet to be addressed. As one who has been a slave and now is a friend...I'll never go back. Why would I? Why would anyone settle for slavery when they could grow into something so much more fulfilling?

If you are not a slave then you are none of his, Skan.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we mature out of the slave/Master relationship. Nothing.

As Has been shown to you repeatedly, Jesus DID indeed call them slaves throughout the rest of the NT so he must have only been referring to the time before his crucifixion when he said "I will henceforth call you no more slaves."

Even in eternity we are called slaves as the closing chapters of Revelation make very clear.

And "Why would I want..." is an utterly irrelevant question. This is not about you. It does not matter WHAT you want.

 

[Skandelon]

If you are not a slave then you are none of his, Skan.

Sigh....remember the part where I said, "this is not an either/or debate"???

There is nothing in the Bible that says we mature out of the slave/Master relationship. Nothing.

"I no longer call you a slave." -Jesus

"True love drives out fear." -John

"You no longer receive a spirit of fear but of adoption..." -Paul

"You are no longer under law (slave) but under grace (love)." -Paul

etc
etc
etc

Even in eternity we are called slaves as the closing chapters of Revelation make very clear.

Again, not an either/or debate...its both/and...we grow into a more mature relationship with God.

 

[Skandelon]

"Let no one imagine that he will lose anything of human dignity by this voluntary sell-out of his all to his God. He does not by this degrade himself as a man; rather he finds his right place of high honor as one made in the image of his Creator. His deep disgrace lay in his moral derangement, his unnatural usurpation of the place of God. His honor will be proved by restoring again that stolen throne. In exalting God over all he finds his own highest honor upheld.

"Anyone who might feel reluctant to surrender his will to the will of another should remember Jesus’ words, 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.' We must of necessity be servant to someone, either to God or to sin. The sinner prides himself on his independence, completely overlooking the fact that he is the weak slave of the sins that rule his members. The man who surrenders to Christ exchanges a cruel slave driver for a kind and gentle master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light." --A. W. Tozer (1897-1963), from The Pursuit of God, chapter 8

Amen! Thanks for posting these quotes to support what I was saying. Hopefully that helps others to understand my point. :wavey:

 

[Luke2427]

Sigh....remember the part where I said, "this is not an either/or debate"???

"I no longer call you a slave." -Jesus

"True love drives out fear." -John

"You no longer receive a spirit of fear but of adoption..." -Paul

"You are no longer under law (slave) but under grace (love)." -Paul

etc
etc
etc

Sigh...


Yes and your understanding of all those verses has already been shown to be thoroughly wrong.

Again, not an either/or debate...its both/and...we grow into a more mature relationship with God.

Don't claim that it is "both/and" and in the same breath declare that the verses above mean that the slave/master relationship is not applicable for mature Christians.

Sigh...

 

[preacher4truth]

Sigh....remember the part where I said, "this is not an either/or debate"???

"I no longer call you a slave." -Jesus

"True love drives out fear." -John

"You no longer receive a spirit of fear but of adoption..." -Paul

"You are no longer under law (slave) but under grace (love)." -Paul

etc
etc
etc


Again, not an either/or debate...its both/and...we grow into a more mature relationship with God.

Not one of the verses you quote above have a thing to do with the Master slave relationship. It's simply you, yet again, pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to support your errors. There is nothing new under the Sun, typical scan. :wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

Sigh...


Yes and your understanding of all those verses has already been shown to be thoroughly wrong.

No doubt. He's yanking Scripture out of context. Status quo.

Don't claim that it is "both/and" and in the same breath declare that the verses above mean that the slave/master relationship is not applicable for mature Christians. Sigh...

Yep. Poor Paul, his relationship with Christ, so immature. If only scan was there to line him out with some out of context Scripture. :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Amen! Thanks for posting these quotes to support what I was saying. Hopefully that helps others to understand my point.

His quote didn't support you, it actually dismantled your error. Still candidating? :sleeping_2:

 

[DocTrinsoGrace]

His quote didn't support you, it actually dismantled your error. Still candidating? :sleeping_2:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Sigh....remember the part where I said, "this is not an either/or debate"???

"I no longer call you a slave." -Jesus

"True love drives out fear." -John

"You no longer receive a spirit of fear but of adoption..." -Paul

"You are no longer under law (slave) but under grace (love)." -Paul

etc
etc
etc


Again, not an either/or debate...its both/and...we grow into a more mature relationship with God.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Nothing was dismantled.

 

[preacher4truth]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I mean HOW could THAT have been missed? Unreal. :sleep:

 

[Skandelon]

No doubt. He's yanking Scripture out of context. Status quo.

Care to provide some kind of exegesis of the context which would deny the application that I have drawn?

Why are we debating this point guys? We should agree on this!!! This is silly. I'm arguing that true love drive out fear...that the relationship may begin as 'servant/master' but grows or matures into something even better. Why do you all insist on arguing that point? Is it just because I'm the one making it? If Dr. Bob or someone else said it would you really be taking issue with it?

I doubt it.

 

[Skandelon]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Nothing was dismantled.

I want to know why they feel the need to dismantle a view that affirms BOTH Lordship AND Friendship... I think they are just looking for something with which to disagree.

 

[Skandelon]

"Let no one imagine that he will lose anything of human dignity by this voluntary sell-out of his all to his God. He does not by this degrade himself as a man; rather he finds his right place of high honor as one made in the image of his Creator. His deep disgrace lay in his moral derangement, his unnatural usurpation of the place of God. His honor will be proved by restoring again that stolen throne. In exalting God over all he finds his own highest honor upheld.

"Anyone who might feel reluctant to surrender his will to the will of another should remember Jesus’ words, 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.' We must of necessity be servant to someone, either to God or to sin. The sinner prides himself on his independence, completely overlooking the fact that he is the weak slave of the sins that rule his members. The man who surrenders to Christ exchanges a cruel slave driver for a kind and gentle master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light." --A. W. Tozer (1897-1963), from The Pursuit of God, chapter 8

Can anyone here specifically point out what I've said that is in disagreement with Tozer's quotes above?

Only someone denying the servant/master relationship would be in disagreement, and from the beginning of this conversation I have argued for 'both/and' not 'either/or.' Now are you two going to debate me or your straw men?

 

[psalms109:31]

There was this women who married a rule by an iron fist man. He had her a to do list everyday that she could not possibly do everyday. So everyday he would come home disappointed in her.

He died and later she married another. The first time he left to work she expected a to do list. He didn't give her one and when she confronted him about it. He said that he died and she is no longer married to him, she was married to him now.

What you do now for me is because you want to, not because you have to. What is doing anything for me if it is not out of love?

We want a list, but the new list is written on our hearts not on stone tablets.

There is a big difference in a slave driver and a friend who leads us like a shepherds leads sheep.

We have the word that come down from heaven leading us now.

1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 

[webdog]

"It was not forced, It was not permanent" is you STILL not getting it.

WHILE THEY WERE SLAVES... Webdog.

Slaves were not free to come and go as they please WHILE THEY WERE SLAVES.

WHILE THEY WERE SLAVES.

Got it yet?

We are ALWAYS slaves to Christ. That is never going to end- not even in eternity.

So the only application that makes sense to us is not their voluntary ability to join up or the fact that it ends eventually. What matters is what it is like to BE a slave. To BE. To BE.. got that? Not how you BECOME one. Not how long it will last. But what it is like WHILE YOU ARE A SLAVE.

So how much FREER were bible slaves than African slaves?

What could they do that African slaves could not.

And as for this statement about "They were not to be treated harshly"- neither were Christian masters to treat THEIR slaves harshly. So that statement has no bearing on the conversation.

Get what? You haven't been either a 19th century nor 1st century slave, you cannot tell me what they could or couldn't do WHILE SLAVES. You are merely pontificating again so as to 'win'. Enjoy you quest.

 

[Skandelon]

Can anyone here specifically point out what I've said that is in disagreement with Tozer's quotes above?

Only someone denying the servant/master relationship would be in disagreement, and from the beginning of this conversation I have argued for 'both/and' not 'either/or.' Now are you two going to debate me or your straw men?

Nothing? Okay...

 

[Luke2427]

Can anyone here specifically point out what I've said that is in disagreement with Tozer's quotes above?

Only someone denying the servant/master relationship would be in disagreement, and from the beginning of this conversation I have argued for 'both/and' not 'either/or.' Now are you two going to debate me or your straw men?

No, you SAY you are for it while totally undermining it.

You said "Call you no more slaves but friends..." means that we are no more slaves.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too- which is the biggest problem with your theology and philosophy.

You can have something be A and NOT be A at the same time and in the same sense and then claim that God does not have to BE logical.

It's this kind of mind-numbing nonsense like "God is so sovereign in our system that he is NOT IN CONTROL of _____________"

It is utterly, utterly, indescribably, totally ridiculous nonsense.

You have God not able to see the future in the same way he enables us to and have him learning as he goes and then claim he has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

Well...

There's just no point in trying to have a logical discussion with someone who spits on the laws of logical and worships an illogical God.

You see a God who can know the future completely and learn as he goes is one who can tell the truth and be totally lying at the same time.

He is one who can make promises and keep them and break them at the same time.

It's NUTSO!

It's utter MADNESS!

And there is no point in talking to someone who thinks that way because the only kind of meaningful conversation one can have is a LOGICAL one and you don't bind yourself to logic.

Your world has dry liquid water and your world exists while not existing all at the same time.

It is LITERALLY worse than trying to converse with Alice's Mad Hatter.