Surrendering to Jesus/God is Not Biblical

I can be dogmatic. But this particular forum has the subtitle "What the Bible Really Means". So I come here and participate.That people kill religiously to me is not a statement on the unreality of God. It is a statement on the depravity of man. I think we should be able to see that man is likely to take truth in a selfish and twisted way for an evil purpose.Since the Bible clearly outlines the crimes of man's religion I could not possibly accuse it of ignoring or being naive about this fact.So here on "What the Bible REALLY means" you might find debaters like me. But I do hear you on dogmatism. I try to pray before and after my posts so that some seeker of the truth might be fed and nourished spiritually and find truth.This activity is not the sum total of my life with the Lord Jesus. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

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?

---

I've received no warning lights concerning this topic or my beliefs concerning Jesus.As far as the rules of this board, this line of discussion is personal and off topic. Attempting to discredit another's beliefs instead of rebutting with additional evidence concerning the topic issue only serves to waste posts.So back to the topic: Message 269

quote:

---

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.

---

Biological growth and spiritual growth are considerably different, but I have already agreed that spirituality is a process of maturing (growth and development). But in Message 250 you stated: and by stating that God regulates our tastes, attitudes, and actions; you remove the notion of growth and development. If God truly has control of a Christian's mind and is tweaking things as he sees fit, then there is no excuse for Christians to do anything wrong. The fact that Christians are still capable of doing wrong, shows that God does not literally control their life.The scriptures you provide don't really support what you are saying.

---

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

It is more important what yoke meant literally and metaphorically 2000 years ago, not today. In a literal sense the yoke for humans makes carrying loads easier and allows more to be carried on one trip. So for personal usage it makes life easier, but metaphorically is signifies carrying a load.Now read all of the portion concerning the yoke. Heavy-laden is overloaded, while burden would signify a regular load.As I said in Message 13: Following Jesus and learning from him is an easier path to following God's commands than that of the Jewish teachers with their fence around the Torah. His way does not put unneccesary burdens on the followers. Message 25: The light burden comments dealt with what Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 11, which some feel deals with the oppressive observance of the Jewish precepts of the time. I wasn't commenting on whether it was a true statement. Jesus' expectations were easier than dealing with the fence that was put around the Torah.If you aren't familiar with the "fence around the Torah" or a gezeirah command, here is an example. Jesus didn't consider God's laws to be oppressive, it was the added manmade stuff that was a heavy burden.Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me...
So let's put this in a visual for today.Class A: Teacher requires 10 books to be purchased and carried to class. During the course of the class only one book will actually be used.Class B: Teacher requires 1 book to be purchased and carried to class. That one book is the same one book used by Class A.Which class will overload the backpack or yoke?Jesus is offering relief not asking for control of one's life.

---

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

I'm sorry but what the hell does any of that have to do with anything I posted?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, this is context and grammar, which are crucial for proper biblical interpretation (or interpretation of any other written text, for that matter). Ignoring the context and grammar allows you to come up with any screwy anachronistic interpretation that you wish (like your interpretation of "yoke" as a "tool"). I agree that this is not a position of "oppressive servitude", at least. But that's the whole point of the verse. It is almost paradoxical. Jesus offers a yoke, but it is easy. His yoke is nothing like the oppressive yoke of the Romans or other rulers. No, you are making up new definitions of words again, like you did for "yoke". From dictionary.reference.com:

quote:

---

sur·ren·der [suh-ren-der]
-verb (used with object)
1. to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.
2. to give (oneself) up, as to the police.
3. to give (oneself) up to some influence, course, emotion, etc.: He surrendered himself to a life of hardship.
4. to give up, abandon, or relinquish (comfort, hope, etc.).
5. to yield or resign (an office, privilege, etc.) in favor of another.
-verb (used without object)
6. to give oneself up, as into the power of another; submit or yield.

---

It involves "hardship" in some way and a loss of control over one's own life. But whether or not there is "oppression" depends entirely on the character of the one who you surrender to. Look at definition #2; whether or not there is oppression depends on the character of the police.(BTW, I think definition #6 above is the closest to biblical surrender, but #2 is pertinent as well.)

Once again your own definitions bear out what I've been saying:

quote:

---

... deliver up possession of on demand or under duress....

​

... to surrender the fort to the enemy....

​

... He surrendered himself to a life of hardship.

​

... relinquish (comfort, hope, etc.).

---

That's where you are redefining "surrender". The degree of oppression is irrelevant. Whether your oppressor beats you with a club or tickles you with a feather, you're still in handcuffs (and the function of handcuffs is nothing like the function of a yoke).You seem to think of "surrender" as some kind of adoption by a benevolent parent. Ironically, adoption is more like the relationship we are supposed to have with God.I wonder why you white-flag-wavers continue to ignore the prodigal son parable, which I have mentioned several times. The son was willing to surrender, but the father did not accept his surrender. Please deal with that issue.

---

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

Some of us who know the Bible have seen plenty of "warning lights" on you already. So I am not surprised that you won't answer my question.In case you didn't know the Bible is about experience.You totally undermine your case when you take comfort in argueing that your exprience of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the subject of Surrender and God's control.Your credibility with me on the subject matter started low and ended with zero.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So I am not surprised that you won't answer my question.

---

I did answer your question.

quote:

---

You totally undermine your case when you take comfort in argueing that your exprience of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the subject of Surrender and God's control.

---

I have not made that argument and this thread is not about me. I'm not sure why you persist in making it about me and ignoring the actual topic discussion which concerns what the Bible says, but that's your choice. It's against the forum rules, but it is your choice. Edited by purpledawn, : WarningEdited by purpledawn, : Added thought

---

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

I don't see "surrender" as the issue at this point in the parable. The son felt unworthy to come back as a son, and intended to come back as a servant. The issue here is "acceptance" by the Father.The place I see the concept of "surrender" is earlier, when the son finally realizes that his own way is not working. He humbles himself and penitently comes back into his father's household. Whether as servant or as son, he voluntarily relinquishes his own authority and puts himself under the authority of his father. This is the essence of biblical surrender.

There are 20 posts left until the end of this thread and I feel that some of the later participants are missing the point of this discussion.There are teachings and requirements that a Christian must give up control of their life to God/Jesus. I gave one example in Message 188 that was based on James 4:13-17.IMO, the Biblical references do not support the teaching. That is what we are discussing. Do the writings in the Bible support that God/Jesus requires us to give up control of our lives. Message 1Here is an example of a requirement of Baptist Temple: This one claims that just by confessing Jesus is Lord is giving up control of one's life, but the verses used don't support that requirement.This teaching "The Secret to Having a Great Marriage and Family" also speaks of giving up control of one's life, but makes it more of a choice than requirement. Again the scriptures referenced don't support the premise.The article describes repentance more than surrendering control of one's life. The author seems to equate deciding to do wrong behavior with taking back control from God, but deciding not to do wrong behavior doesn't seem to mean we are in control. This excerpt from "Give Up Control And Life Gets A Lot Easier", is not Christian related, but addresses giving up control of one's life. Their description of surrendering control of one's life goes along the lines of what I said in Message 13: IMO, the psychology behind the teaching of "giving control to God" is essentially saying to accept that there are things we cannot change. We can only change the things we have the power to change.

---

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

quote:

---

The place I see the concept of "surrender" is earlier, when the son finally realizes that his own way is not working. He humbles himself and penitently comes back into his father's household. Whether as servant or as son, he voluntarily relinquishes his own authority and puts himself under the authority of his father. This is the essence of biblical surrender.

---

But what you are missing is that while he was prepared to voluntarily relinquish his own authority and put himself under the authority of his father as an employee, he wasn't given the chance to actually do that. That is what Ringo is trying to tell you.As I said in Message 83 the prodigal son story deals with repentance and forgiveness.

---

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

No, I got that point. What I'm pointing out is that the father still allowed him to "relinquish his own authority and put himself under the authority of his father" but not as a SERVANT, rather as a SON. Formerly he was on his own, under his own authority, rejecting his father's authority. Now he surrenders his own authority and submits to his father's.

All I know is that I submitted to my father, but I never surrendered to him.

I think that a lot of the confusion regarding this topic has to do with being allowed to voluntarily submit our wills on a daily basis or whether we should all try and live like Paul: Ringo equates surrender with a prisoner who tries constantly to defy and escape from his captives. Willful subordination would be more of an appropriate description of a Christian, but we have to remember that Paul was a zealot who also formerly had an Ego..(some think he still did even after conversion) so Paul declares that He no longer runs the show...but at the same time and in the next sentence declares that he still lives for Christ...thus he willfully decides to relinquish control of his Ego on a daily basis.The anti-surrender camp appears to fear having humans relinquish control to a church. This is entirely understandable. I don't ever surrender to my Pastor or leadership. I, like Paul, submit to the Holy Spirit on a daily basis...and am aware when I have not done so in given areas.The idea of surrender means to ignore rational thought, according to some. Members of a cult could be said to have surrendered...ultimately to the enemy. Remember that the Lord loves a cheerful giver. A cheerful giver is a steward. They are responsible for giving up control of the resources that God gave them, but they still have the responsibility to make the decision.They are not brainwashed cult members who have been told that all of their time, talents and resources are under control of God.Do you see the difference?

quote:

---

What I'm pointing out is that the father still allowed him to "relinquish his own authority and put himself under the authority of his father" but not as a SERVANT, rather as a SON.

---

I don't see that the story supports that position. The son is an adult and was going to take on a hired position, which means payment for his work. He would still have control over his life. I don't see that he gave up any more control over his life than he had before he left his father's house.The son didn't lose his position as the man's son due to his mistakes.The story is still about repentance, not giving up control of one's life.

---

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