Surrendering to Jesus/God is Not Biblical

Purpledawn writes: I think the essence of Purpledawn's theology is that to "follow the rules of Jesus," a Jesus which is absent as a living Person, is submission.This kind of belief does not call for a resurrected Christ who is with our spirit in regeneration. We just grit our teeth and think "What would Jesus do?". This is ethical behavior. It is actually law keeping.So for this kind of "Christless" ethical law keeping of an essentially dead Christ, we know who is in control. It is us the ethical law keepers.Now is this what the New Testament teaches? No. Christ teaches the beleivers to abide in Him as a living true vine. And without this abiding, all that we do, whether good or bad, amounts to nothing for God's will: The life of the true vine must flow into the abiding branches for the bearing of fruit to God. This means that the disciples must remain, linger, abide in the realm of the living Person of Jesus.No matter how much one ethically tries to follow the teachings of Jesus, he cannot bear fruit unto God unless he abides in this living Person and allows this Person's life and nature to infuse his soul.That's just the way it is. Paul, a tremendous model and example of this abiding said that he wanted to be found in Christ not in his own law keeping: The Apostle wanted to gain a living Person, Christ. He wanted to be found in Christ this living Person. He did not want to be any longer found performing his own righteousness which is derived from his old Christless law keeping.He counted his previous ethical behavior as a model Jew as dung and refuse. He was happy to lose his own righteousness which was of the law and henceforth be found in the resurrected Christ, abiding in Him: In comparison to the experience of living in Christ Paul counted his experience in Judaism's law keeping as refuse, that is garbage. His own ethical good doing he counted as garbagge in comparison to "the excellncy of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord"Paul compared his past ethical living with abiding in the resurrected and living Spirit of Christ. He decided that there was no comparison. Christ was more excellent.In previous verses to this Paul enumerated the things of which he was foremely proud. These things formed Paul's "pedigree" as a good and ethical law keeping Jew: These were things of which Paul was very proud. His proud culture was his boast. He was from a lovable tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew born naturally of Hebrews and not a convert from another nation. He was so zealous that he persecuted this new "sect" of Jesus.Then he surrendered to Jesus. He tells us of his surrendering up his life to the control of Christ right here: The imagery that Christ gave Paul in a word picture was that Paul was a rebellious little donkey or horse kicking against wagon attached to him. I guess Jesus meant that God was already beginning to work in Paul's conscience and Paul was resisting. He kicked and bucked against the goads. He had to be subdued and surrender up to the direction of Jesus Christ the Lord.What an example we were furnished with as a model disciple. Thank God he wrote 13 some books of the New Testament leaving us a model of a surrendered life.He was really "found in Him", the resurrected, glorified, and ascended Christ Who became the life giving Spirit within Paul. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

A yoke is a tool used to make work easier - like a wheel. How on earth does that imply "surrender"?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, this is a poor definition of "yoke".Here are the first 6 definitions from dictionary.reference.com

quote:

---

yoke [yohk]
-noun
1. a device for joining together a pair of draft animals, esp. oxen, usually consisting of a crosspiece with two bow-shaped pieces, each enclosing the head of an animal. Compare harness (def. 1).
2. a pair of draft animals fastened together by a yoke: five yoke of oxen.
3. something resembling a yoke or a bow of a yoke in form or use.
4. a frame fitting the neck and shoulders of a person, for carrying a pair of buckets or the like, one at each end.
5. an agency of oppression, subjection, servitude, etc.
6. an emblem or symbol of subjection, servitude, slavery, etc., as an archway under which prisoners of war were compelled to pass by the ancient Romans and others.

---

The literary imagery of "take my yoke upon you" is to voluntarily take the place of an ox and willingly go under the yoke of Jesus, allowing Him to drive and direct one's life. But He assures us that His yoke is "easy" and "light". Perhaps the latter does not always come across in Christian teaching, and perhaps that is part of the resistance in this thread to the idea of "surrender"?

Why do you cherry-pick one of the minor definitions of "yoke" and claim that that is the literary imagery in the Bible? The fact that He assures us that "His yoke is easy and His burden is light" seems to suggest that a yoke is a tool - as I said - to make work easier. Making things easier is not "oppression, subjection, servitude".This thread demonstrates the danger of clinging to words that are not in the Bible.The pro-surrender people seem to have a knee-jerk attitude that "Godwantsustosurrender" and everything they see confirms that bias. You point to a yoke that is easy and you see oppression. And somehow, you convince yourself that oppression is a good thing.Surrender is always a bad thing. God is not the enemy. You can't surrender to Him, even if you want to. He won't accept your surrender. He expects more from you.Slavery is always a bad thing. God is not a slaver. Even if you want to be His slave, He wants you to be His son.Giving up is always a bad thing. God doesn't want you to give up your free will or your responsibility for your own actions.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

I think Purpledawn's problem is not being able to imagine that God's control of one's life is a matter of living in a harmonious coordination - a fellowship of cooperation and communion.

---

I'm not sure what in my posts gives you that impression, but I don't disagree that Paul teaches about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or that the indwelling can be described as a harmonious coordination.However, I do disagree that Paul teaches that the indwelling constitutes giving up control of one's life.Galatians 4:6 and Romans 8:15-16 both speak of being lead by the HS not being controlled by the HS. We all have good inclinations and bad inclinations within us. The HS leads, gives wisdom and counsels believers in ways of holiness.

quote:

---

This is the control of God over the believer in terms of a mingling and a harmonious blending.

---

I don't think Paul was speaking literally in 1 Corinthians 6:17, just as he wasn't speaking literally about the prostitute.I agree harmonious coordination, but not blending as you are using it.

quote:

---

Yielding to the filling of the Holy Spirit is surrendering to God's control. Yet this control moves man's heart to be single and simple in caring for the will of God. There is a communion of the Holy Spirit in which He regulates our tastes, attitudes, and actions.

---

I disagree. The Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom to see our errors and advises us on what we should do. We decide which inclination we are going to follow. If God truly regulated our tastes, attitudes, and actions; Christian should never do anything wrong.

quote:

---

And it is also a maturity into which one must grow by turning over more and more of one's inner being over to the controling yet gentle Spirit of Christ.

---

I agree that as we mature spiritually we learn to heed the warnings and advice of the Holy Spirit and that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit.Your Message 254

quote:

---

I really don't care how you choose to define surrender as "giving up control of one's life".

---

That's not my definition of surrender. Giving up control of one's life is the teaching we are discussing. Giving up is one of the definitions of surrender, per the dictionary.

quote:

---

My point here is that surrender to God is biblical.

---

I've already agreed numerous times that yielding to God is biblical, which is what you are saying in the way that you used the word surrender. As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing the use of literary devices with practical application.As I said in Message 246, Paul is essentially talking about giving up wrong behavior for right behavior. He's long winded about it, but that's what it boils down to no matter how creatively one says it.

quote:

---

Paul's question is clear. Either a man is an obedient slave surrendered to sin or and obedient slave obedient unto righteousness. That is the righteousness which comes by grace - the enjoyment and enabling of God who dwells in the believer.

---

Considering the fact that slavery in our time is long gone, the slavery analogy doesn't really convey anything to people today. We can't even fathom the realities of slavery in Paul's day. In Paul's day doing something that belonged to another religion was sinful. So what Paul is saying is that their actions show who they follow or obey and any teaching they yield to will leave an impression upon them.Each individual still needs to decide whether they will follow God's way or another.As I said in the OP Message 1: This is not a discussion about faith (any of the meanings), belief (any of the meanings), or salvation (Christian interpretation)..

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I think the essence of Purpledawn's theology is that to "follow the rules of Jesus," a Jesus which is absent as a living Person, is submission.

---

Again, I'm not sure what in my posts give you that impression. We are looking at a specific teaching of today and if it is supported by the Bible.

quote:

---

Christ teaches the beleivers to abide in Him as a living true vine.

---

I agree, but that is still not asking us to give up control of our lives.

quote:

---

Then he surrendered to Jesus. He tells us of his surrendering up his life to the control of Christ right here:

---

I agree that Paul dedicated his life to serving Christ, but again that is not the same as giving up control of one's life. Many people dedicate their lives to various professions, but that isn't giving up control of one's life.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

What in the world are you talking about? It should be clear that I am using the first (i.e. major) definition of yoke. This is hardly "cherry-picking one of the minor definitions"!

quote:

---

1. a device for joining together a pair of draft animals, esp. oxen, usually consisting of a crosspiece with two bow-shaped pieces, each enclosing the head of an animal. Compare harness (def. 1).

---

Note that the text directs us to "take my yoke UPON you". The preposition "upon" (epi) means just that. The grammar and imagery is NOT that we are using the yoke as a tool; rather, that we are UNDER the yoke, like an ox would be.I find one other place in the NT where "yoke" (zugos) is used with this preposition "upon" (epi):

quote:

---

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

---

and one place where yoke is used with the preposition "under" (hupo):

quote:

---

1 Tim. 6:1
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.

---

In fact, the imagery of "yoke" is fairly common in the Bible (especially the OT), and generally refers to slavery or subjection. "Yoke" in Mt 11 must be interpreted in light of this biblical usage and context, not pulled out of context and interpreted anachronistically as you seem to want to do. Where did I say that I "see oppression" in Mt 11? The text says otherwise.

I have been studying the bible on and off for decades and nothing much changes. The meanings attributed to the bible are so out of date and do not work in todays' society as a whole. Trying to follow someone's perception of the bible teachings does not make one happy. Never has, never will. It just makes for some great debates.
It is 2007 and times have changed. Change is the nature of life, but there are many who cling to outdated religious teachings that thwart (for want of a better word)this natural evolution.
Surely it is time to remove dogma and see the reality of the stories told in the bible. E.G look at Jesus' life, he turned the other cheek, he loved his enemies, he was cruxified. Who in their right mind would use him as a role model? Unless you are a martyr of course. Is this what we should be teaching our children?
We have many martyrs amongst us including the suicide bombers who are taught to give their lives for a 'cause' and the promise of a glorious afterlife. This stinks. They may not follow the same religious book but the doctrine is the same.
There are more ways to perceive the bible, if one must. E.G the references to 'sins' in the bible are given a lot of credence and judged as bad, needing forgiveness. An objective view of these 'sins' in the context of the story show they all are merely 'mistakes'. Big ones, little ones, same one repeated but still mistakes usually born from ignorance or fear. Is it possible Jesus made mistakes too? Is it possible that Jesus' life might be a testament to the frailties of being human? Is it possible when Jesus said, "I am the truth, I am the way" that he meant his whole life including the consequences? Is it possible that Jesus was showing us that we cannot change the world alone? Is it possible that Jesus' life story shows that he could have saved himself and that we can too? It is the whole life lived that bears the finest testimony. These questions do not alter the story but changes the meanings into modern day thinking. The bible has to be taken as a whole and not dissected to suit.
Personally I do not see good triumph over evil in the bible. I just see that good and evil existed then and they do now. The question is 'what are we going to do about it'? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Tell me then Purpledawn, without evasion.Does your Holy Spirit give you wisdom that Jesus Christ is every bit alive today and can be known?Or does your Holy Spirit give you a different wisdom which says that Jesus Christ is not resurrected today to be known and followed?Please don't make an excuse so as to evade this plain question.
Please don't avoid answering because it is off topic. It is related to the topic.What do you say?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ROTFLMAOExactly how do you know it is the Holy Spirit?Marshall Applewhite knew.Jim Jones knew.Charley Manson knew.All their followers knew.How would you know it was Jesus?Marshall Applewhite knew.Jim Jones knew.Charley Manson knew.All their followers knew.Were they right?Is there some reason you just quotemined part of what purpledawn posted and not the rest of the sentence or paragraph? or what jaywill quotemined

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom ...

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then you're using it wrong. The only definition of "yoke" (which you provided) that comes anywhere near "surrender" is the one I pointed to:

quote:

---

5. an agency of oppression, subjection, servitude, etc.

---

Under" or "over" or "sideways" or "tied in a bow" are irrelevant. "Take my yoke upon you" indicates a voluntary use of the yoke, not a subjection. An ox yoke is used to make the ox's job easier than a simple rope around the neck. "Generally" don't cut it. In the context of man's relationship to God, the imagery of servitude clearly doesn't fit. God desires sons, not servants (or beasts of burden). Surrender and oppression go hand in hand. If you see surrender, you see oppression.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It is duly noted that I selected only a portion of Purpldawn's paragraph. But my question to Purpledawn still stands.If you want a more fair phrasing of it I will put it this way:Purpledawn, in your Holy Spirit giving you wisdom concerning errors and what not how does your Holy Spirit lead you about Jesus Christ's availability today as a living Person?Does your Holy Spirit direct you that it is an ERROR for you to believe that Jesus Christ is today the resurrected Lord? Or does your Holy Spirit provide you wisdom that it is an ERROR to believe that Jesus is dead and no longer available to be contacted and followed today, as a living Person?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Assuming that Jesus told you to go out and change the world.That's not what I read. I read that He will build His church, His EKKLESIA which is "called out" of the world.I see Jesus teaching that the disciples are the salt of the earth. Salt keeps meat from corrupting. I take this to mean that the presence of the Christians is a force to hold in check the world from becomming totally corrupt.But "Go out now and change the world. Make the world a better place?"
Maybe that's your secular humanism that you're reading into the Bible.I see more like "Be the salt of the earth. Be the shining city on the hill as a testimony until I come. Build up the Called Out Assembly, the EKKLESIA, and overcome the world."That is more what I see in writing and in actual exprience too.Then again I look for the victorious church. I am not looking for Christians that discourage my faith. I am looking for Christians who encourage my faith. And I find them in the thousands on all five continents on the earth.It could be what you're looking around for. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

It is true that the Christians should have the highest ethical living on the earth. "You therefore shall be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect."We disciples are not off the hook to be those manifesting the highest level of morality in society. True.But divine life is a matter of growth and development and maturity. When you were born you did not instantaneously become an adult right out of your mother's womb. You grew and matured.In the new birth, why should we assume that we instantaneously mature into someone of, for example, Paul's stature or John's stature.It is more the case that for those who give themselves to grow and mature, area by area, their lives are transformed into this high standard of morality. Here a little. There a little. A little more today. And a little more tomorrow.Any argument that "Christians should make no more mistakes from the second they become disciples" is not born out by the New Testament ether in the Gospels or in Acts or in the Epistles.Even Jesus talked about the four kinds of soil which needed cultivation that the seed of the kingdom might grow and bear fruit.But to my questions again:Does your Holy Spirit give you wisdom that Jesus is resurrected and availablie to be your Lord to follow today as a living Person?Or does your Holy Spirit give you wisdom that Jesus is as dead and gone as Socrates, or Julius Ceasar, or Abe Lincoln or any other famous person who is no longer alive?Which does your Holy Spirit tell you is an error in concept?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not a christian. I have no religion. I was offering new ideas or concepts to encourage new ways of thinking, certainly not to adopt another bloody religion.
The ideas I put forward are absolutley from my secular humanism. Is there any other form of human? I am looking at reality and all the debates concerning bible study are divisive. I look for concepts that are possible for all to agree on, but some will carry on the timeless tradition of killing each other in god's name and the rest waiting to be saved by his son.
None of this rubbish fits in with the reality of the world we live in now. We need to rethink and think new things to change our world. Where are the open minds? Why does everyone try to convince the other to their way of thinking? Dogma dogma dogma. Think about it. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning