Christ wanted to be a friend not a master

[Revmitchell]

Christ wanted to be a friend not a master, according to his words in John 15:15.

This is a serious error and pervades our churches today and it needs to be dealt with because it makes our view of God inferior to what it should be. That is not the context of that passage. This is a dichotomy that gets abused by those who struggle with the Lordship of Christ.

Jesus can and is both a friend and Lord. The word Lord here can be reasonably replaced with master. And make no mistake about it Jesus is both Lord and Master.

 

[convicted1]

This is a serious error and pervades our churches today and it needs to be dealt with because it makes our view of God inferior to what it should be. That is not the context of that passage. This is a dichotomy that gets abused by those who struggle with the Lordship of Christ.

Jesus can and is both a friend and Lord. The word Lord here can be reasonably replaced with master. And make no mistake about it Jesus is both Lord and Master.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

This is a serious error and pervades our churches today and it needs to be dealt with because it makes our view of God inferior to what it should be. That is not the context of that passage. This is a dichotomy that gets abused by those who struggle with the Lordship of Christ.

Jesus can and is both a friend and Lord. The word Lord here can be reasonably replaced with master. And make no mistake about it Jesus is both Lord and Master.

Being Lord is not necessarily being a Master given the context of the phrases, and given the previous thread where this was discussed, no slave is a friend to a slave master. You would not enslave a friend....so Skandelon is not only NOT teaching error, he understands and made that distinction quite clear.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Was listening to a P. Washer sermon last night, he said "The freest man in the world is the one who is a slave to a perfect master" :jesus:

 

[webdog]

I'm the 'lord' over my children in our home, but I am not their master, nor are they my slaves, they are my children, friend, and brother and sister in Christ. I serve them, and they serve me.

 

[convicted1]

I posted this in another thread and should go along with this:

There's more to it than just Christ being our friend. There's allegories of Father/son, Groom/bride, Master/slave, Teacher/pupil, Brother/younger brother, used to describe our relationship with God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Being Lord is not necessarily being a Master given the context of the phrases, and given the previous thread where this was discussed, no slave is a friend to a slave master. You would not enslave a friend....so Skandelon is not only NOT teaching error, he understands and made that distinction quite clear.

No he didn't. Again this is always an issue with those who have a problem with Jesus being Lord.

In Luke Jesus is being addressed as master:

Luk 9:33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah"—not knowing what he said.

Here in this passage the word master is the Greek word:

ἐπιστάτης
epistatēs
ep-is-tat'-ace
From G1909 and a presumed derivative of G2476; an appointee over, that is, commander (teacher): - master.

In Romans Paul refered to Jesus as Lord:

Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.



κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.


We see here the Greek word Lord is synonymous with master.

Skan made his statement in reference to who was in charge in the household. So the context of what Skan said is clear form that thread. And the context of Lord and master can and often are synonymous.

 

[Revmitchell]

To say that Jesus is simply a friend and not a master regardless of what context one places it in is flat out wrong and belittles the sovereignty of God. The Jesus is only my friend stuff waters down the gospel and misrepresents God.

 

[webdog]

No he didn't. Again this is always an issue with those who have a problem with Jesus being Lord.

In Luke Jesus is being addressed as master:

Luk 9:33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah"—not knowing what he said.

Here in this passage the word master is the Greek word:

ἐπιστάτης
epistatēs
ep-is-tat'-ace
From G1909 and a presumed derivative of G2476; an appointee over, that is, commander (teacher): - master.

In Romans Paul refered to Jesus as Lord:

Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.



κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.


We see here the Greek word Lord is synonymous with master.

Skan made his statement in reference to who was in charge in the household. So the context of what Skan said is clear form that thread. And the context of Lord and master can and often are synonymous.

Who has a problem with Jesus being Lord?

 

[webdog]

To say that Jesus is simply a friend and not a master regardless of what context one places it in is flat out wrong and belittles the sovereignty of God. The Jesus is only my friend stuff waters down the gospel and misrepresents God.

Pure semantics. I've already shown how being a lord is not necessarily the same thing as being a master, and vice versa. Ironically you left off 'respected title' in your quest to prove they are one in the same. I would like to hear one story of how someone enslaved respects their captor.

You are also question begging by what amounts to 'if you don't agree with my brand of Lordship Salvation you deny God is sovereign'. Pish tosh.

 

[preacher4truth]

When I saw the OP on the main page, I thought oh no, now we have another one promoting that error. Not so. Thankfully.

The OP is correct, and that is only one of scandalons serious theological errors.

Those poor Thessalonians, who became slaves of Christ!

No, I take that back. Those BLESSED Thessalonians who were and are slaves of Christ, and to those who also know this truth, blessedness belongs to them as well.

Now, carry on, the rest of you in your false teachings against this revealed truth. Fight truth as you do, day in and day out.

:thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

Another thing, the word used for "Master" in the KJV, can also be "Teacher", maybe not in all cases, but quite a few....just trying to be fair to both sides of this debate.....

 

[preacher4truth]

Take note of the flimsy theology that comes to conclusions such as scandalons position for instance.

Jesus said 'You haven't chosen me, I have chosen you' -- Jn. 15:16 -- a truth which applies to all believers. Yet scandalon argues 'That was only for the disciples. He applies the same errors in John 17, John 6 &c -- in other words in any passage that denies his theological errors, those passages must NOT belong to us, they were only to them.

But his erroneous hermeneutic becomes erroneous because it is not consistent.

So we have this; Jesus says (to the disciples) 'I have called you friends'. scandalon says 'See, that is for all of us'. And 'We're not slaves, we're frineds!' But Scripture in many more places actually shows this to not be truth, and that we are in fact slaves of Christ.

It is simple. Anything that diminishes mans role in salvation, shows that Christ Sovereignly elects, shows exclusion of others that are not His -- said passage 'wasn't for us, it was for them'.

Then, anything that exalts man to a higher plane than truth, (in reality lowers the position of Christ and His rule over us) that passage IS for us and is misinterpreted to that extreme objective. That my friends is wresting Scripture.

:thumbs: :type:

 

[Skandelon]

Jesus said, "I'm no longer calling you servants because servants don't understand what their master is thinking and planning. No, I've named you friends because I've let you in on everything I've heard from the Father."

Paul likewise taught, "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ""Abba," Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

While fear, obligation, law and masters/servant type of relationships had their place (i.e. fear is the beginning of wisdom), I do not believe that is where God wants our relationship to remain (as I also explained on the other thread).

True love drives out fear and obligation in a relationship. Law is telling us how to treat people we don't yet love. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't settle for a master/servant type of relationship with God, because that is not what he ultimately wants with his children.

I used to obey my dad because I fear his belt and wanted the allowance, but now that I'm older I help my dad as a friend and don't fear his punishment or look for his payment. The relationship has matured. That is all I am saying and I pray we can put down our theological swords long enough to see this is truth that should be common with us all.

 

[preacher4truth]

Title of the OP reminds me of the dissident theology out of the infamous book 'The Shack'.

 

[webdog]

In true form Preacher4error doesn't engage actual points being made. Old Eli would be so shocked by this he is probably falling out of a chair again in Heaven.

 

[Skandelon]

It's unfortunate when relatively small differences among brothers lead to a blinding biases that impede good discussions on matters that should be common ground. Maybe I need to bow out of this forum...

I'm not seeing this as helping anyone...

 

[preacher4truth]

Nonsense.

These aren't relatively small differences. There is the need to diminish the importance of truth now? Whatever for? That your hermeneutics change in defense of your position as I've shown? That the OP was written to show your error?

No no, truth is paramount, let's not diminish that since your error is the subject.

Thick skin my friend, thick skin.

If you say it, back it up with a CONSISTENT HERMENEUTIC something you do NOT employ as I've stated and have shown. It is error to claim one statement of Christ to the disciples and reject others because they refute your theology. THAT is what is 'unfortunate'.

It is plain in Scripture that we are called slaves.

 

[preacher4truth]

Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Note the qualifying IF preceding the inferred Master/slave relationship.:wavey:

Note contextually the Sovereign choosing of Christ in verse 16.

Let's then allow our hermeneutic to follow consistently: He is LORD, we are slaves proven by obedience, and friends, and, He chooses Sovereignly today as He did then. He also chose each individually.

 

[Revmitchell]

Pure semantics. I've already shown how being a lord is not necessarily the same thing as being a master, and vice versa.

Which is irrelevant to the context in which Skan mentioned it.