C
CopticChristian
Guest
Slinger,Forgot to include this from the article:
What does it mean to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”?
©2000 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.
You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration.
You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article
provided that proper citation of authorship is included
It is late and this is lots of reading. I found difficulty understanding the thought process. I will analyze this and get back to you. It is not in my opinion an article that I would say is satisfactory.
In the meantime I found something that was interesting and makes sense. It confirms my suspicion about this Personal relationship paradigm…I am more in tune with a Corporate relationship that includes a personal relationship, a family relationship, kind of like Jesus is my older brother, God is father and we are all part of a family…this sounds more like what I read about Covenants and the plan of the Kingdom…did anyone in the OT have a personal relationship with David or Solomon…I believe that the people were part of the Kingdom and related to the King as subjects.
catholicapologetics.org/ap100000.htm
The term “personal relationship” is, first of all, not biblical. Neither word nor the compound phrase is found in the Bible. But then, neither are such terms as “Trinity”, “Incarnation”, “Eucharist”, “Lord’s Supper”, etc., found in the Bible.
The expression “personal relationship” comes neither from the language of the Bible nor from the history of Christian faith. **The expression comes from the humanist psychology of the last hundred years, principally that of Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Eric Fromm. It also has its roots in over emphasis on the attitude of rugged individualism of the early development of America. **
In using the expression “personal relationship” there is a danger in attempting to harmonize the formulas of the Bible with the formulas of psychology, psychiatry, and/or American nationalism. The language of the Bible and the languages of psychology, psychiatry, and nationalism reflect divergent perceptions and conceptualizations. Attempting to treat them as identical can only be artificial.