Christ wanted to be a friend not a master

[quantumfaith]

Who has a problem with Jesus being Lord?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

To me, Jesus Christ is my Master. He is the perfect Master, that understands every need in my life and fiber of my being. Comparing this relationship with any earthly relationship, except maybe for the core family, is totally inadequate. My boss or any other person that has ever had authority over me does not understand or care for me the way the Lord Jesus Christ does. His love for me goes way beyond any relationship I have ever had or will have.

A verse that I think addresses this very well from the OT is Proverbs 1:7.

Proverbs 1:7

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Fear of the Lord describes an awe and respect for our Creator. For the Christian, there is no element of being scared or worried. It is a total reliance on Christ for everything that makes up our lives. Because what Christ did for us, we owe Him total obedience and devotion. That is in sharp contrast to growing up in fear of our parents, because we knew what would happen if we got caught doing this or that. If I got caught doing certain things, I knew I would feel the end of a belt, swift and sure.

Yes, Christ is our Master and Friend. Neither conflicts and the two work in perfect harmony making us more like Him each day.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

GLAD YOU ARE HERE.... THUMBS UP, THUMBS UP!!!

You are hilarious.

Do you think maybe you've secured SN's support?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

You just need to kiss some babies.

You all accuse me of claiming that "personal attack" when someone disagrees with my views...Here is a prime example of personal attack. I agree with someone and you attack me as playing politics and attempting to gain supporters. Has it occurred to you that I actually AGREE with what he said? Isn't it okay to say you agree when you agree?

Maybe I should start accusing you of trying to offend everyone and become the most despised person on this board...as that COULD be what some interpret by your manner, right? Why not just be KIND to each other as Christ tells us to do? Why does being KIND automatically get the accusation of "being fake" and "politicking" by you? Have you just never been genuinely nice to others simply because you are a nice person?

 

[Skandelon]

Jesus was about to be crucified. From the time that he said that until the time of his death he would not call them slaves.

Wow....just wow.

 

[Skandelon]

I did none of that.

Actually you are right about this. You have only addressed my views, not me personally. I wrongly mixed your comments in with those who are in agreement with you.

Sorry for your confusion. But there is no context in which the statement you made can be made right.

You are incorrect about this. You have not addressed my actual view. You have set up a strawman and attacked it while virtually ignoring my clarifying comments throughout this thread. You plucked statement from its context and misrepresented my actual views on this subject. That leads me to believe you aren't willingly to have an objective and profitable discussion about this topic. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

 

[Luke2427]

You all accuse me of claiming that "personal attack" when someone disagrees with my views...Here is a prime example of personal attack. I agree with someone and you attack me as playing politics and attempting to gain supporters. Has it occurred to you that I actually AGREE with what he said? Isn't it okay to say you agree when you agree?

Maybe I should start accusing you of trying to offend everyone and become the most despised person on this board...as that COULD be what some interpret by your manner, right? Why not just be KIND to each other as Christ tells us to do? Why does being KIND automatically get the accusation of "being fake" and "politicking" by you? Have you just never been genuinely nice to others simply because you are a nice person?

Because it is obvious you are clamoring for affirmation.

But if you want to try the nice thing again, I'll go along, again. But you swill likely slip back into to snottiness again and I will get tired of it again and put you in your place again.

But if you want to continue the cycle... I'm game.

 

[Luke2427]

Wow....just wow.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Extraordinary argument!!

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually you are right about this. You have only addressed my views, not me personally. I wrongly mixed your comments in with those who are in agreement with you.

Thank you

You are incorrect about this. You have not addressed my actual view. You have set up a strawman and attacked it while virtually ignoring my clarifying comments throughout this thread. You plucked statement from its context and misrepresented my actual views on this subject. That leads me to believe you aren't willingly to have an objective and profitable discussion about this topic. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

I have not set up a strawman. The problem is that your original statement cannot find a context to justify it. Jesus, does in fact, want to be master. Now if your original statement could have been better said then I understand. But I have not seen any clarifying statements just statements give to justify. Those are two different things.

But the original statement is very problematic.

 

[Skandelon]

Thank you




I have not set up a strawman. The problem is that your original statement cannot find a context to justify it. Jesus, does in fact, want to be master. Now if your original statement could have been better said then I understand. But I have not seen any clarifying statements just statements give to justify. Those are two different things.

But the original statement is very problematic.

Understood...maybe a better statement would be that Jesus wants to be MORE than a master...because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, he wants to be our friends, because he has made known to us his business and has included us in on it. Friendship, like fatherhood, is a higher, or better, or more mature relationship than a master/servant relationship. One is based in law and the other in unconditional love (grace). That is the distinction I was attempting to draw all along.

I think if you read back through this thread you will find that I have clarified this point of view consistently.

Can we now agree on this point?

 

[Revmitchell]

Understood...maybe a better statement would be that Jesus wants to be MORE than a master...because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, he wants to be our friends, because he has made known to us his business and has included us in on it. Friendship, like fatherhood, is a higher, or better, or more mature relationship than a master/servant relationship. One is based in law and the other in unconditional love (grace). That is the distinction I was attempting to draw all along.

I think if you read back through this thread you will find that I have clarified this point of view consistently.

Can we now agree on this point?

No I don't agree but neither do I find that statement all that problematic. I believe you are taking that analogy to far.

 

[Skandelon]

Because it is obvious you are clamoring for affirmation.

So, then may we all conclude you are clamoring for refutation? If what I wrote seemed 'agreeable' then what you wrote must seem to be equally un-agreeable. Are you canidating to be the most despised on this board? You must be? Maybe it makes you feel like the martyr? Is that it?

 

[Skandelon]

No I don't agree but neither do I find that statement all that problematic. I believe you are taking that analogy to far.

What specifically do you not agree with about my statement?

What specifically did I take 'too far?'

 

[Skandelon]

No I don't agree but neither do I find that statement all that problematic.

I just read this again...I'm confused.

How do you conclude that my statement isn't problematic, and yet not agree with it? Either it is agreeable or it isn't, right? If it isn't agreeable then can you specifically point out why?

 

[agedman]

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.

I have made bold the error.

A real life example of the early 1800's - Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

She was a lot closer than a friend and he was her "master."

 

[agedman]

There is no reason for the believer not to be the friend, the servant, and the slave.

Each title is not exclusive in relation to the others.

Some would hold the view that slave means some mindless drone of deficit relationship, and friend has the opposite meaning of one with an intimate fulfilling relationship.

But such thinking is neither biblical nor practically historical of humankind.

If one is to consider each title as more than a mere relationship but of also follow-ship, then there is no specific conflict of the believer stating they are the servant, friend and slave of the Lord Jesus Christ all at the same time.

 

[Skandelon]

I just read this again...I'm confused.

How do you conclude that my statement isn't problematic, and yet not agree with it? Either it is agreeable or it isn't, right? If it isn't agreeable then can you specifically point out why?

Nothing? Okay...

 

[Revmitchell]

I just read this again...I'm confused.

How do you conclude that my statement isn't problematic, and yet not agree with it? Either it is agreeable or it isn't, right? If it isn't agreeable then can you specifically point out why?

People, like yourself, are always wanting to emphasize one aspect of God over another. As if any of his character and traits are more important than the rest. This is no where told to us in scripture. And I find it very bold of anyone to try to suggest that they know such a thing to be true.

God is love and God is just, as far as I know those characteristics of God are equal none being more important than the other.

In the same way it is not necessary to suggest that God desires to be a friend more than He does a master. Neither is more important than the other. Scripture does not tell us it is and there is no reason to impose that on God. Such eisegetical bias is only based on what some want to be true rather than from clear exegesis from scripture. And trying to take the analogy of the master to the point where you use every minute aspect of what a master is in order to create doctrine and support your rather bold and incorrect theology is absurd.

Honestly, I do not mean to be rude but the whole thing is just dumb.

 

[preacher4truth]

People, like yourself, ... And trying to take the analogy of the master to the point where you use every minute aspect of what a master is in order to create doctrine and support your rather bold and incorrect theology is absurd.

I wouldn't call it bold, it's more like incognizant...but I agree with the premise.

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

 

[Skandelon]

People, like yourself, are always wanting to emphasize one aspect of God over another.

Quote where I did so and let's discuss rationally like adults, okay?

If you recall, you plucked my 'friend of God' comment out of its context, which was about female submission and Christ's headship being more in line with one who treats those he leads as 'friends' rather than 'slaves.' I'm not sure how that conversation would fit this accusation, but maybe you can explain? Or, maybe you can quote other examples?

OR...maybe this was a blanket unfounded accusation? We will see based on your response...

God is love and God is just, as far as I know those characteristics of God are equal none being more important than the other.

I couldn't agree more.

In the same way it is not necessary to suggest that God desires to be a friend more than He does a master. Neither is more important than the other.

Jesus, NOT ME, said, "I no longer call you slaves, but friends..." What point would you suggest he is attempting to make if not the one I've expounded upon throughout this thread? Could it not be the shift from a law (master/servant) based relationship to a grace (father/son/friend) type relationship? After all, one of the major points of the New Testament is "you are no longer under law but under grace," right? I'm not sure why we are arguing this point? Maybe you can explain.

Honestly, I do not mean to be rude but the whole thing is just dumb.

Again, you never explained what specifically you disagreed with about my statement. And you never explained why you didn't find what I said problematic, but yet you still didn't agree?

Maybe you were just feeling disagreeable that day?