Surrendering to Jesus/God is Not Biblical

Unconditional love is there for sure, but the slaying of the fatted calf was part of a celebration in honor of the return of the son. When Jesus continues to say 'there will be more rejoicing in heaven on account of the return of one lost sheep' (paraphrase) it is still the return that is significant. No of course not. The point of the parable is that there would be no reward for staying 'lost'.It is a clear case of the son surrendering to the father because he already experienced the futility of his rebellion. The love of the father was also clearly not beneficial while the son was still 'lost'. So for all of its unconditional aspect, the love is not useful unless we surrender to it.

To another? Which other? Have you been speaking this whole time of giving up power to one other than Jesus?

Then, yes, you are speaking about giving up control to someone other than God? Who would this be?

Hey! Didn't you bring this parable into play as an example of a surrender that wasn't accepted? Yes, yes you have mentioned the gift. Giving the gift back only means that we will use it for the good. I don't know what other connotations this could have in religion?

So how can your average everyday Christian be 'with God'? What would you say this young man had to do in the future? He obviously couldn't do his own thing and still be with the father! It was one or the other. Ringo, it is impossible to give away free will. Surrendering to God's will is about letting Him use you for His work. It's a willing surrender, but I do think it is required.

Again, show me an example of a person who has given up control of their lives to a God. This whole surrender thing may be metaphor, but it is a Biblical one!

God does not possess people, in the way we may think of in relation to demonic possession.When we surrender ourselves to be used by God to accomplish His purposes on earth, we have agreed to willingly let Him guide our actions. I believe it goes beyond what we consciously do, but actually becomes God living in us and working in us. This would be perfected in a complete case of mystical union. Even so, there is no clear line between what God is doing and what we are doing. Therefore the use of the word surrender is only in the sense of a spiritual surrender to an ideal, or to the Holy Spirit's inclinings. There never was any actual, physical possibility of being controlled by God.

Sorry, I am not aware that anyone thinks of these teachings in any 'more common usage'.There is only the simple idea of surrendering to the voice of God where or however one hears it. The degree of 'control' God has is only known to the individual, I would suppose. For some it is hard to yield, for others easier.

Does Jesus teach us detachment concerning material things? Does He teach us not to cling to family over Him?Does He teach us to seek His will?Does He teach us that he who loses his life will find it?The use of the word surrender, in even the most dogmatic Catholic tradition, is completely in line with the Bible IMO. Perhaps you find it a poor choice of words, but it seems to have developed a meaning within Christianity that is not misunderstood by those who hear it, even across denominations.It is a word which goes beyond following God, as the saint says, and denotes an amount of malleability under the hand of God.Is this where your discrepency is? That the shift goes from our following to God's leading? I know this is a silly distinction, but it means a world of difference. We can have one man reading a book and attempting to emulate the words, and another living them out in his actions just by doing what he feels is right.How does a person view their Christianity. Is it a discipleship? Or is it the Spirit of God in union with them?The first disciples followed Jesus. Later, at Pentecost, the Spirit actully came into them and guided them. It took possession of them, so that they began to speak in tongues and to understand more of divine truth.When we use the word surrender, we have taken the emphasis from discipleship, and have placed it on becoming another Christ. It is not us, but God within us. Is this not Biblical?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

What about John 13?You know, deny does not mean surrender. Yet, if we are denying ourselves on behalf of something better, we have surrendered to the good. The son still surrendered to the better life. He didn't have to be a servant...but I still think this parable is about the kingdom of God in heaven, and not about how we should conduct ourselves while on earth.I am not feeling that surrender is rape. It is more than following however. It is not just doing as our spouse says, but yielding to his caress. It is letting him have his way with us. This is an act of trust and love, and does not question whether we 'understand' what the lover is about or don't.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

You do realize that some of us don't make a distinction between what is 'good' and what is of God? This parable deals with repentence. It does not say one thing about how the son should live after his repentence. He may not be a servant, but he would likely have to go work as his brother did. He would still be subjected to his father's wishes.

Taking control of our lives is a seperate issue IMO.What may or may not be predictable in the future is a seperate issue.We are all going to be accountable for our actions, according to this same Bible. Therefore the idea of 'control' by GOd is obviously not the same as reckless abandon or carelessness. It may be well and good not to give people the impression that all things are provided for just by pledging some oath of surrender. We still have responsibility.Surrender is an on going thing. It is a moment by moment thing, a way of life, and not a pledge or a cure-all.When Jesus said, 'Father, not My will be done, but Yours', He does not say 'I will try to follow You'. He submits to whatever is desired by God.The beauty of the Bible is that all of these ideas can be 'true' and worthy, to the detriment of none.At this point I feel I must say that for most Christians, there is no difference in authority amoung the different books. For myself, at least, this 'Jesus/God' said so, is no more compelling than what Paul or Peter said. If you want to talk about the Bible, why are you limiting it to the parts YOU feel are 'important'? Maybe you don't want to talk about what Paul says, but as per your topic title, Paul is relevent.

Cop out, sorry. The average Christian is required to do what Christ did. Everything that we feel like doing compared to what we should be doing. Paul is spaeking from no less a position regarding plain text than you are!

Sorry if I was being rude PD. Whenever I try to bring in a little 'angst' I feel guilty. I know this is not a discussion that involves 'copping out' and that you are not a person who would do that anyway.So...well. First, if I were to take your point here, I would have to argue whether or not Jesus was predisposed to doing God's will, and what this means. I would also question whether we as humans have a direct connection to God via the Spirit.When Jesus prayed that 'this cup be taken from Me' was He showing a predisposition to God's will? Would you say that doing good was easier for Him, or that He was merely predisposed to try harder?If that doesn't make sense, I am thinking about two things. One is the complete humanity of Jesus, and the other, the doctrine of His being born without original sin. Probably any discussions like this will go too broad.I could also argue this from the opposite side. It is becuase men are not so inclined to follow God that they must 'surrender', whereas Jesus could trust in Himself more. This however I don't believe in light of His humanity. PD, this is the heart of the problem. On one hand there is spiritual terminology, on the other more psychological phrases. What the world calls 'self-control' is more or less the same virtue that surrenderists are claiming as the work of God in their lives. I would say 'we' believe that God is the origin of self-control. A paradox, he who loses himself will find himself type thing. I can't really get past this point because getting over the desire to do what I want is what surrendering control means to me! I am not sure what other things could be considered to be given over to God.If you want to get sticky about the 'requirement' part of it, I would say it's not a direct command but that it follows nicely? Yes, it could be interesting, if laid out well...start with some of what Paul said regarding this and work backwards. I am willing to bet Paul does some combining, but then this is what we are sorting out as far as what combining Christians have done.

Ringo, just from curiousity, where and why is the slave/son thing coming from?I know it has been the train of the thread! but aren't there other options?Employee?In religion there are terms. Slaves of Mary, Workers of this or that. There are Sons, there are daughters. Sisters and Brothers. There are also Other Christs.I would make a distinction; there are terms which describe our relationship, and terms which describe our duties.A slave has a 'poor' relationship with the Master. A son would likely have a better one. Their duties could be similar. There is also the possibility that God 'hires' us to do His work, and the relationship is another entire factor.I just don't know about the either/ors here.If you were to think of the Spirit of God working in us and through us, would you consider this an effect of sonship or of servitude, and couldn't both require an element of surrender? In other words, nevermind what we call ourselves as Christians. The original question was 'how much' or 'what' do we surrender in order to follow the Bible's requirements.