Surrendering to Jesus/God is Not Biblical

The one who is just going through the motions is the one who has surrendered. The one who truly understands why he does what he does has not surrendered.I think the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus wanted us to understand why we should return to the fold. If all He wanted was surrender, why would He waste His time with parables?

---

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

Agreed. But following a guide is not surrender. Do you mean "listen" or "obey"?I agree that God wants us to listen to His guidance. I don't agree that He always gives us explicit instructions to obey. Oh no. I believe that some people do surrender to God. I just don't believe that's what He wants. At least, not for everybody.

---

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

We're not talking about life with or without Him. We're talking about life as a son/daughter or life as a servant. It may be that God wants servants as well as sons, but it's pretty clear (from the parable) that He doesn't want His sons to go backward and become mere servants. You seem to be at the stage of the son leaving the pigsty and being willing to be a servant. When (if) you actually arrive home, you'll find that your Father welcomes you as a son.

---

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

See, this is one of those times when it would be appropriate to quote the bible instead of just claiming it says something. (FYI, the word "disown" doesn't occur in the KJV at all - so we might be dealing with another simple misunderstanding of word meanings.) Strictly speaking, I didn't say we "have" to surrender to an enemy. I said (or at least meant) that only an enemy will want us to surrender. So, if Satan is The Enemy™, he's the one who wants you to surrender.I'll point out again that the father didn't accept his son's surrender. Your sermons haven't dealt with that issue at all.

---

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

I asked you for the quote so I could find it - the version is irrelevant. You could have just said "Matthew 16:24" or linked to the post where you did quote it.You will note that neither "disown" nor "deny" means "surrender".I'm still waiting for you to address the fact that the prodigal son's father did not accept his surrender.The son planned to surrender - i.e. become a servant:

quote:

---

Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

---

but his father never gave him the chance:

quote:

---

Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

---

Please answer that point.

---

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

"Surrendering to the good" wouldn't even require God. It's hard to see how you can equate it to surrendering to God. I don't see anything in the Bible to suggest that.

---

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

That opinion really has no relevance in a Bible Study thread. And we're discussing what it does say. Being "subjected to his father's wishes" (or living by his father's rules, as somebody else put it) does not imply giving up control to his father. In the parable, the father is supposedly training his sons to take over from him one day. That would require training them to use their initiative, not blindly follow him. While that transfer of control doesn't translate directly to the God/human relationship, there is no reason (in the text) to think the use of one's initiative is discouraged.

Well, you quoted me:

quote:

---

It may be that God wants servants as well as sons....

---

and your Bible quotes all confirm what I said.But you completely ignored the rest of what I said:

quote:

---

... it's pretty clear (from the parable) that He doesn't want His sons to go backward and become mere servants.

---

Address that point, please.Show us where a son gets demoted to servant.Edited by Ringo, : Rewordes for clarification.

---

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

I think I was pretty clear: I was talking about a transition from son to servant. I don't see how anybody could see that as anything but a demotion.If your son let you down, would you take him back as your son or would you only deign to hire him back as an employee?I'll ask again: if you have any scripture to show that God wants us to be His servants instead of His children, please show it.

---

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

There's a big difference between serving as a servant/slave and serving as a son/heir. You're not paying attention. I've been saying throughout the entire thread that God does not want us to change from His children to His slaves. I'm the one who's saying there is no transition.

---

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

You haven't shown that.I'm only asking you to step away from the dogma for a moment and think. Kindly show us where the Bible says that being God's servant is "better" than being His son. Until you can do so, you haven't come to grips with the father/son relationship.Have you asked yourself yet what you would do in the same situation? If your son let you down, would you disown him? Would you say, "I have no son"? Would you make him beg you for a job? Not at all. I haven't said a word about what happened after. I've shown that the son planned to ask for a job only - not to ask to be taken in as a son. I have also shown that before he could do that, his father came to him and welcomed him as a son.Your talk about the "rightful heir" is indeed speculation. The story is very plain about the father's attitude toward the son. I don't know where you get that. I haven't said anything about pride.The prodigal son was willing to humble himself, to beg for a job - but his father didn't want that. He only wanted his son. I'm not trying to convince the dogmatists who are too blind to see what the Bible says. I hope that people will read for themselves and see that there is more to our relationship with God than just surrender.

---

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

Well, the parable shows that the father wanted a son, not a servant. Why do I feel like I've mentioned that before? And I think it was purpledawn who pointed out that the Biblical "servant" was more of a slave than a unionized employee with benefits. Y'know, I only brought up the prodigal son because I thought it was a blindingly obvious example of a non-surrender situation. If there is another option, by all means feel free to mention it. I don't feel obligated to argue your case for you. I have never said otherwise. My answer has always been that we don't have to surrender anything.
We can choose to subordinate.

---

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

One too few smilies, I guess. (Though having to repeat an obvious point forty times in the same thread does get a liitle tiresome.) No, that would be a figure of speech. That's really what the problem comes down to, though, and the reason (I think) that this thread was started: You're talking about a figurative "surrender", which just confuses the issue of what our relationship to God should be.Nobody has shown that our relationship to God should involve surrender of control. You seem to agree that self-control is still essential - probably more essential than if we are not following God. You are describing a relationship that is clearly not surrender in the proper, non-figurative, use of the word - and yet you insist on using the word "surrender".All that does is confuse the less mature Christians. We have seen a couple of examples in this thread. Using the wrong word suggests the wrong relationship.All drama aside, since you can't seem to come up with any Biblical justification for it, why not just drop the word "surrender" and use the words that the Bible uses?Oh, yeah....

---

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

We've been through that already. A son doesn't surrender to his father. In fact, as a son matures, his subordination becomes less, not more.And following a leader is not surrender. Giving up the "desire to follow only himself" is not surrender - it's subordination. No it isn't. The opposite of "to oppose" is "to fight alongside". A soldier doesn't surrender to his own side, he subordinates himself. He can only surrender to the enemy. The story of Demas parallels the parable of the prodigal son. The lesson of the parable is that the Father doesn't want His sons to be servants. No more "damaged" than the prodigal son's "service" to his father. Again, the point of the story is the father's acceptance of the son, not the son's "service" to the father. You're just misusing the word "surrender" (where it doesn't even appear in the Bible). Overcoming one's desire for fleshly lust is a struggle - more like the opposite of surrender. No. The soldier is called to subordinate himself for the good of his own side. Part of that "good" is that if he follows faithfully, he is less likely to have to surrender to the opposite side. Surrender is an all-round negative thing. I don't think that Paul sought to bring down all reasoning, only wrong reasoning. After all, why would somebody try to reason on an Internet forum that God wants them to abandon reason?

---

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

Thanks. I thought so too. And of course, in warfare, surrender is a bad thing.How about responding to the content of my post: that nothing in the Bible advocates "surrender" - rather "subordination".Edited by Ringo, : Changed tense: "advocated" --> "advocates".

---

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