Featured Are you a Slave of God?

Okay, I could argue against this in several ways. But instead I want to try something different.

What do YOU think it means to be a slave of Christ?

 

OK, Luke, now that is an excellent question.

You're absolutely correct in making the assumption underlying your position that there is nothing in the Bible declaring any of us, sinner or believer, free. We're not. Paul tells us we are either slaves -- or, as I've said before, "bond-servants" -- to sin, or to righteousness. Those in sin cannot free themselves. But once Christ "sets us free" we willingly entrust our life and our faith to Him.

This is why I prefer the term "bond-servant" to the word "slave." Slavery has come to be synonymous with bondage, degradation and gross inequality. That is how human slaves have lived their lives for the last 400 or more years. I am firmly in the belief that is the reason the NASB shows preference for the term "bond-servant," in order to show the different paradigms represented by those words. There are those who disparage the NASB for that translation, but the NASB makes a deliberate choice in both the Old and New Testaments to alternately translate the word doulos or its OT equivalent 'ebed as either "slave" or "bond-servant." It requires an understanding of the nuances of the passage in which the word is included to determine which is appropriate.

Why? Because the "slave" to sin has no choice. Into sin he/she is born, and in sin he/she will die unless hearing of the salvation of Christ and trusting in Him. Then, as we have, he/she will willingly and unhesitatingly put him/herself in servitude to Christ. He is the only source of pure joy, peace, and love we will ever know in this life. It is true that servants receive a wage, and based on that, there might be some minor objection to its use for doulos.

However, I don't believe that argument stands. In the first-century understanding of servitude, the bond-slave had nothing to offer but him/herself. Nothing could convince a householder to take a bond-servant under his roof. They were the poor of society, with no property, no dowry, nothing but their own bodies, and the inherent strength of weakness of those bodies to be put into service for the masters. That is all we have to offer Christ, and He doesn't need them. He takes us in out of His love, and because He loved us before we loved Him, He does so with great joy and affection. In Christ, there is no inequality, because we cannot even pretend to be equal with Him, and there is no degradation, because He doesn't degrade. He loves.

So, I am a bond-servant, not a slave. Partially because of the modern day understanding of that word do I reject it as indicative of the relationship between myself and Jesus, but also because I have willingly placed myself in His service, because of what He has done for me. No slave ever willingly gave up freedom. No sane person would. But a bond-servant, especially in the first century, took this servitude on willingly, as refuge against the world, and the storms of life. That is why I give me life to Christ daily, because I have no other refuge, no other recourse, and nowhere I could be shown the love that He shows me. Masters don't love slaves. Yet Christ loves those who belong to Him, and for that reason we give ourselves up to love and serve Him.

 

Slaves willingly give up the opportunity of freedom in the Bible.

The Bible even has a procedure for one who has served as a slave for the allotted time and is to be set free but does not WANT to be free from his master.

In that case he is to be bored through the ear, etc...

Slaves who know they've got it good under their masters do not care for freedom as much as they care for their masters.

It is a false premise to assert that no sane person would willingly remain in slavery.

Now, what you need to do, to make your point, is prove biblically that being a slave in the Bible was different from being an African slave 160 years ago.

We all know the difference about being set free after 7 years. What you need to prove is that WHILE THEY WERE SERVING THEIR TERM they were more free in some way than African slaves were under their masters 160 years ago.

If you cannot prove that, then there is no justification for your preference of the word "bondservant" over "slave."

 

So you are not free in Christ? Explain that, Luke.

 

What do you mean by "free in Christ"?

Free from the penalties of the law? Yes.

Free from trying to obtain righteousness by works? Yes.

Free to do whatever the heck I want whenever the heck I want to do it? No.

What do you mean by "free in Christ"?

 

I would think every Christian would know the meaning behind that phrase.

Through Jesus’ death on the Cross and resurrection ...

We are freed from the penalty of sin. Like the woman caught in adultery, we are no longer condemned for what we’ve done. Christ pays our sin-debt in full so that we can be reconciled to the Father.

Romans 5, NASB
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 6
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ​

We are released from the power of sin. Our sin nature no longer dominates us—leading us from one unsatisfying and destructive transgression to another. Rather, we are free to seek and know God through the power and presence of His Holy Spirit (Romans 8:2-17). Jesus told the woman, “Go. From now on sin no more” (John 8:11), not as a terrible requirement for earning His forgiveness, but as a declaration of what is possible when we follow Him (1 Cor. 6:11-20).

We are liberated from the purpose of sin. Jesus half-brother tells us ...

James 1
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.​

The goal of our iniquity is usually to exalt ourselves or meet our own needs, but the outcome is always ruination. Perhaps this woman was seeking love, acceptance, or security, yet she was obviously going about getting it in the wrong way—destroying herself and her dignity. However, Christ sets us free to become everything God created us to be to His honor and glory.

John 10
10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

Ephesians 2
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.​

We are unshackled from the personality of sin. To the scribes and the Pharisees, this woman would always be known by the name “sinner,” and perhaps that is how she thought of herself as well. However, when Jesus comes into our lives, we are no longer known for our iniquities. Rather, we are recognized as belonging to the One who has covered our iniquities with His blood. Our transgressions are no longer our identity because Christ makes us into a new creation.

Romans 8
1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

2 Corinthians 5
17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.​

That's freedom in Christ. Do you have it?

 

I know what it means. I showed you what it means in the very post that you are responding to.

What I think is that YOU do not know what it means.

That's why I am asking you to give us what YOU think it means.

Apparently you think it means "not being a slave of Christ" which it does NOT mean at all.

 

I would refer you here ...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89924&posted=1#post2043620

... and here ...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89924&posted=1#post2043658

... and defy you to defend those ridiculous statements. You are behaving like a petulant three-year-old who, upon not getting his way, throws a tantrum.

 

What???

First of all, those links do not work.

Secondly, I am not acting like a child in any way.

Thirdly, in what way am I not getting my way?

I am successfully showing you the error in your thinking. That's my way and I am getting it so I don't know what you are talking about.

 

The answer is right in the post!

 

So indebtedness and we thereby submit to the rule of Christ until our debt is paid which can never be paid.

Fine.

Now, how is that different from slavery in the 1850's?

A slave is a slave, has no freedom until his debt is repaid, right. So how is that different?

 

That as not the answer, and I think we both know that.

If you see no difference between biblical slavery instituted by God, and the sinful slavery of tue last few centuries instituted by man, there is nothing further to discuss.

 

:thumbsup: Yeah, everybody but him got that. So I spelled it out another way ...

Oy vey!

 

You are much too patient , but yeah, you did flesh out what I wanted to say in greater detail.

 

Show me the difference.

I think you retreat because you can't. Prove me wrong. I bet you can't.

 

The difference between forcing another man to do your bidding and someone voluntarily devoting his life to servitude? You see no difference there? Oh, I forgot, I'm talking to a hard determinist...

I am not retreating from anything, so you can unpuff your chest. I can't stand dealing with desired ignorance, and you are never up for debate to actually learn something, you are just looking to 'win', I think is how you phrased it in the past.

 

Here's the phrase you keep failing to take note of or failing to understand: "WHILE SLAVES"

Can you not get that?

While slaves.

While slaves what freedom and benefits did they have over the African slave 200 years ago?

While slaves.

While slaves.

Yes, yes... we know that many in the Bible volunteered to BECOME slaves. We got that. We had it a long time before you thought you informed us of it.

We got it. Okay? We got it. Thanks.

The question you keep dodging for all you're worth is: How were biblical slaves better off than African slaves... wait for it... WHILE SLAVES?

 

PHP:

i

You are all over the place...

It was not forced. It was not permanent. One was instituted by God. They were not to ne treated harshly. So now what is your point in all this?