Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior

[RobGentner]

I know this is off the topic but I have to ask anyway. When the Church has the truth and makes laws to be followed by all its members but does not hold itself to the same standard, isn’t the Church erring when it does that?

Hi Ron,
That is OK, Tthe church is held to the same standardas thew members. The laws are made by GOD, not man.
** Oh, we have small “t” traditions that the church makes. Using candles, holy water etc. **
However, the Big “T” Tradations are made by GOD. Scripture, commandments, Eating Jesus’ Body and drinking His blood for sa;vation, attempting to save lost souls, etc.
*The Church having responsibility for all our souls is held to a much higher standard. *
** We only have to accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior **and follow His Church and the Laws that Jesus provided for us.

---

**When errors are made, t****he Holy Spirit corrects the Church! We don’t judge anyone not even the very Church that Jesus founded. We just obey Him! After all the church has remaind basically unchanged for over 2,000 years! **
To correct and change the church is Jesus’ job! So long as we follow the church as Jesus commanded us, how could we err? **
** Well there is one way actually ~
Now if we went off and made or even joined one of, lets say, 33,000 counterrfeit denomination or one of their, lets say, 28,000 imitation, sub denominations and twisted His doctrines into, lets, say, about 1,375 different doctrines or dogmas. That would be about 61,000 different “christian” (used lightly for argument sake only) churchs that can only agree on one thing.

---

They all agree: “The Catholic Church is Wrong”.

---

** Now how is that possible? All 61,000 churches started**

** in the last 500 years. Many growing from each other like a cancerious growth from the Body of Christ. **
**Lets think! **** Who could be leading this group against **

Jesus’ “real” church? **** It takes no Albert Einstein to realize SATAN! :doh2:

---

**And where is he leading people, to heaven? **

---

I THINK NOT

**well ron, like my answer? **

 

[graceandglory]

That is not technically correct. We as catholics recognize Christ as our Lord and Savior, but it borders on heretical to state that He is our PERSONAL Lord and Savior. Christ died to give the opportunity for salvific grace to all who join in the communion of His Body, the church… He did NOT die simply for targeted individuals while ignoring the plight of others.

Didn’t Christ pray the night before He died, “That they may all be as one?”

I tend to agree with promethius. I was of the “4 Spiritual Laws” variety of evangelical Christian for 20 yrs.

I don’t know anywhere in Scripture where it says “Accept Jesus as your Personal Savior and you will be saved.”

That is their tradition. There is truth in it. But there’s more to it than that. Summing salvation up in such a tiny nugget denies mystery. It denies saving and sanctifying grace.

Catholic Tradition and understanding is based on Sacramental and mysterious reality that is deeper than just the moment you “invite Jesus into your heart.”

I love my whole gospel faith as a Catholic.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Didn’t Christ pray the night before He died, “That they may all be as one?”

I tend to agree with promethius. I was of the “4 Spiritual Laws” variety of evangelical Christian for 20 yrs.

I don’t know anywhere in Scripture where it says “Accept Jesus as your Personal Savior and you will be saved.” **WE Don’t care what scripture say we follow more that a book! remember? **

That is their tradition. There is truth in it. But there’s more to it than that. Summing salvation up in such a tiny nugget denies mystery. It denies saving and sanctifying grace. **How did you get there from personal savor? To accept Him gives sanctifying grace doesn’t it? **

Catholic Tradition and understanding is based on Sacramental and mysterious reality that is deeper than just the moment you "invite Jesus into your heart."Yea, and also more than one inspired set of book!

I love my whole gospel faith as a Catholic.** GREAT but throw out the gospel it can corrupt the real beliefs look at all the protestants! **
[SIGN]**
“Eat me. I am the bread of the strong. But you will not transform me and make me part of you. Rather, I will transform you And make you part of ME”- St Augustine**[/SIGN]

As a Cradle Catholic for 64 years can I offer my opinion? I know that for many years I went through the motions of “being catholic” obtaining graces after graces. I do not say that lightly. Please bear with me. I went to all the sacraments. Then on 14 Oct 1972 at the age of 28. I went on a retreat and I “found” Jesus. He had been there in the Church and all my activities but we were never really introduced until that day! Since then He and I have grown close together. I actually have a “personal” relationship with Him. He is my “personal” savior. His sacrafice was for ALL MEN However, we have to “personally” accept it for each one of us to obtain salvation. Or so this old man believes!
** I tremble when I reeive the Eucharist, what an honor to have the real presence of my lord and savior in my body! All praise to Jesus! Hail Mary full of Grace, Thank you for your Son!
God bless all of you. Now on your knees! **

 

[Ruthie]

Great post, Realcatholicgk.

I’m a convert. I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior a while ago - and then He led me to His Church. I, too, have a personal relationship with Him.

I think the emphasis on “personal” among our non-Catholic siblings has to do with a rejection of an impersonal idea of the Crucifixion. In other words, the idea that Jesus died not for you and me personally, but merely for a generic human entity called “sinners.” It’s an unintentional reducing of the Christ to a mere human, by thinking that there are too many of us for Him to know personally. They quite rightly reject this idea.

I think it’s kind of funny that a few of them take Him as their personal Savior, but think they can be “generic” about their sins. (I mean the ones who believe that their sins after conversion don’t matter.) Aah, I love the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

God bless all of us,

Ruthie

 

[justasking4]

Great post, Realcatholicgk.

I’m a convert. I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior a while ago - and then He led me to His Church. I, too, have a personal relationship with Him.

I think the emphasis on “personal” among our non-Catholic siblings has to do with a rejection of an impersonal idea of the Crucifixion. In other words, the idea that Jesus died not for you and me personally, but merely for a generic human entity called “sinners.” It’s an unintentional reducing of the Christ to a mere human, by thinking that there are too many of us for Him to know personally. They quite rightly reject this idea.

I think it’s kind of funny that a few of them take Him as their personal Savior, but think they can be “generic” about their sins. (I mean the ones who believe that their sins after conversion don’t matter.) Aah, I love the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

God bless all of us,

Ruthie

If anyone person who claims to believe in Christ says that “sins after conversion don’t matter” either don’t understand the gospel and the implications of it or are not real believers. Paul addresses this very issue in Romans 6

 

[venite_adoremus]

Salvation is not an event. Salvation is a process. Even after baptism the soul can be lost to sin.

It is by Grace that we are saved. Grace comes through faith. Grace also comes through hope, and through charity. It is not the faith which saves, it is Grace.

The first generation of Christians had to invent some new words for the new doings which the incarnate Christ introduced to human history. Grace (gratia=favor) was one of them–the infusing of divine love into the human heart. How does one describe the change? The presence of divine Grace is unmistakable for those who have experienced it.

The usual means of instilling Grace is through the Sacraments of the Church. God is free to use unusual means to bestow His Grace wherever He chooses. But relying on a mere act of faith on one occasion in one’s life, using this as the most radical form of what the Church recognizes as the Baptism of Desire, seems a precarious ledge to be hanging on when more sure means are readily available.

 

[justasking4]

venite adoremus;4428624]Salvation is not an event. Salvation is a process.

Its actually both. Therefore, since we **have been justified **by faith, we have peace 2 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 5:1.
Santiciation is the process that makes us more and more like Christ.

Even after baptism the soul can be lost to sin.

It is by Grace that we are saved. Grace comes through faith. Grace also comes through hope, and through charity. It is not the faith which saves, it is Grace.

Actually we are saved in His life— Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life. Romans 5:10

The first generation of Christians had to invent some new words for the new doings which the incarnate Christ introduced to human history. Grace (gratia=favor) was one of them–the infusing of divine love into the human heart. How does one describe the change? The presence of divine Grace is unmistakable for those who have experienced it.

The usual means of instilling Grace is through the Sacraments of the Church. God is free to use unusual means to bestow His Grace wherever He chooses. But relying on a mere act of faith on one occasion in one’s life, using this as the most radical form of what the Church recognizes as the Baptism of Desire, seems a precarious ledge to be hanging on when more sure means are readily available.

Was it by the sacraments that the church was born or by the preaching of the gospel that people recieved grace? See Acts 2:14-41.

 

[mercygate]

If anyone person who claims to believe in Christ says that “sins after conversion don’t matter” either don’t understand the gospel and the implications of it or are not real believers. Paul addresses this very issue in Romans 6

I was just meditating on this very passage today and thinking that Paul struggled with self-disillusionment as he sought to understand how the overwhelming transformative power of Christ in his life nevertheless still left him in perplexity over his own flesh. The battle is not over until it’s over. That is why faith must never complacent. It is just that deadly complacency one finds in the more exaggerated forms of OSAS.

 

[ron77nyc]

Hi Ron,
That is OK, Tthe church is held to the same standardas thew members. The laws are made by GOD, not man.
** Oh, we have small “t” traditions that the church makes. Using candles, holy water etc. **
However, the Big “T” Tradations are made by GOD. Scripture, commandments, Eating Jesus’ Body and drinking His blood for sa;vation, attempting to save lost souls, etc.
*The Church having responsibility for all our souls is held to a much higher standard. *
** We only have to accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior **and follow His Church and the Laws that Jesus provided for us.

---

**When errors are made, t****he Holy Spirit corrects the Church! We don’t judge anyone not even the very Church that Jesus founded. We just obey Him! After all the church has remaind basically unchanged for over 2,000 years! **
To correct and change the church is Jesus’ job! So long as we follow the church as Jesus commanded us, how could we err? **
** Well there is one way actually ~
Now if we went off and made or even joined one of, lets say, 33,000 counterrfeit denomination or one of their, lets say, 28,000 imitation, sub denominations and twisted His doctrines into, lets, say, about 1,375 different doctrines or dogmas. That would be about 61,000 different “christian” (used lightly for argument sake only) churchs that can only agree on one thing.

---

They all agree: “The Catholic Church is Wrong”.

---

** Now how is that possible? All 61,000 churches started**

** in the last 500 years. Many growing from each other like a cancerious growth from the Body of Christ. **
**Lets think! **** Who could be leading this group against **

Jesus’ “real” church? **** It takes no Albert Einstein to realize SATAN! :doh2:

---

**And where is he leading people, to heaven? **

---

I THINK NOT

**well ron, like my answer? **

Most of what you said is true. The Catholic Church is the church that all others came from. On the other hand schisms have occurred but I can’t agree with you and say they are all being influenced by the devil. We can go into other threads on CAF and read about why people have left the RC Church and many of them have good reasons. If there were no Protestants where would they go to worship? Some denominations are just plain crazy but many of them have the Holy Spirit guiding them and since they don’t have Catholic tradition and the Eucharist they rely heavily on worship, the preaching of the Word and a personal relationship with Jesus. If God gives them the Holy Spirit He is saying you are still my sons and daughters. Jesus taught us about the 3 r’s: Rigid Religious Rules. I don’t think He is saying: “These people are not Catholic. Why should I help them if they go to the wrong church?”

 

[guanophore]

How about language as the obstacle to unity and the processing and interpretation of ideas? On one thread I said someday the Church will cease to exist when its job is complete and I was told the Church will never cease to exist because the Church is the people not the institution. Here you are telling me the opposite. You say the Church is the institution and not the people.

It is both. One day the Church militant and the Church suffering will be completed, but the Bride of Christ will remain forever.

 

[ron77nyc]

It is both. One day the Church militant and the Church suffering will be completed, but the Bride of Christ will remain forever.

[SIGN]I appreciate your unbiased attitude.[/SIGN]

 

[ron77nyc]

It is both. One day the Church militant and the Church suffering will be completed, but the Bride of Christ will remain forever.

I think misunderstandings are unintentionally created by non-verbal reference to the contrary definition. :sad_yes:

Did I say that?

 

[guanophore]

Santiciation is the process that makes us more and more like Christ.

Why would that be necessary, since we are already saved?

Was it by the sacraments that the church was born or by the preaching of the gospel that people recieved grace? See Acts 2:14-41.

The two were never separated from one another, until the Reformation, whose fruit is one of separation and division.

All who heard the gospel and believed were baptized, thus being born again in Christ.

 

[justasking4]

I was just meditating on this very passage today and thinking that Paul struggled with self-disillusionment as he sought to understand how the overwhelming transformative power of Christ in his life nevertheless still left him in perplexity over his own flesh. The battle is not over until it’s over. That is why faith must never complacent. It is just that deadly complacency one finds in the more exaggerated forms of OSAS.

Do you think Paul believed he was saved while in this life?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4430781

Originally Posted by justasking4
Santiciation is the process that makes us more and more like Christ.

guanophore
Why would that be necessary, since we are already saved?

Being saved is not the same thing as being conformed to the image of Christ. Being saved means you change your position before God from one who was dead in his trespasses and sins and enemy of God who was to be condemned to being a child of God with his sins forgiven and his ultimate destiny is heaven. God did not just save us but His goal for us is to become more and more conformed into the image of Christ. This is a life long process that starts when a person becomes saved.

Originally Posted by justasking4
Was it by the sacraments that the church was born or by the preaching of the gospel that people recieved grace? See Acts 2:14-41.
guanophore
The two were never separated from one another, until the Reformation, whose fruit is one of separation and division

.

We do agree that what Peter was doing in Acts 2:14-41 was not preaching about some sacrament but about believing in the gospel message itself. Correct?

All who heard the gospel and believed were baptized, thus being born again in Christ.

Agreed. No sacrament involved. Just belief

 

[justasking4]

[SIGN]
Originally Posted by guanophore View Post
It is both. One day the Church militant and the Church suffering will be completed, but the Bride of Christ will remain forever.

ron77nyc
I appreciate your unbiased attitude.[/SIGN]

There has to be more than one person using this username. No way one person could be unbiased and yet write some of the posts that are so slanted… There has to be more than 2 people using working under this username

 

[justasking4]

** Since you asked so Nicely! **
Anyway:

[SIGN] AS FOR ME I AM ACCEPTING JESUS AS MY PERSONAL: LORD AND SAVIOR.****[/SIGN]

** His Mother will insure that he accepts me.**
** She is so Full of Grace. **

---

God Bless Her and Her only begotten Son,
**(ο μονογενης υιος)
** My Lord and savior
JESUS CHRIST!

** **

I guess if you were to re-write John 3:16 you would write:
For Mary so loved the world that she gave her only son…

Correct?

 

[ron77nyc]

Do you think Paul believed he was saved while in this life?

He was very aware of his own sinfulness and the evil that he was capable of but he knew who his savior was and depended only on Jesus as his source of strength. He knew he would receive the reward if he persevered but he says, "It's not that I have already reached this goal or have already become perfect. But I keep pursuing it, hoping somehow to embrace it just as I have been embraced by the Messiah Jesus."
 By today's standards he would not be considered a very good Catholic. He disagreed with the Pope and he cut himself off from the Church and the sacraments for long periods of time so he could travel around on foot preaching the gospel. He missed Mass on Sunday, bypassed the Church and got the gospel directly from the Holy Spirit. He acted more like a Protestant than a Catholic!!!!!.:eek:

 

[mercygate]

Do you think Paul believed he was saved while in this life?

Paul had the reasonable assurance of salvation that every Christian has. Yet he clearly saw his salvation as a lively day-by-day, moment-by-moment affirmation of the grace he had received, was receivng, and hoped to receive. He certainly did not entertain the idea that his salvation entitled him to give up the interior struggle.

 

[RobGentner]

I guess if you were to re-write John 3:16 you would write:
For Mary so loved the world that she gave her only son…

Correct?

**
Well that would be accurate. But His father deserves the real credit. After all He created Mary!
How about this: “For God so loved the world, that he created the Blessed Mother Mary and they gave their only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

They are both allow to "beget/begot; Jesus :
God **fathered; sire **Jesus - Begot.
Mary gave birth: **To cause to exist or occur **- Begot

This sounds Great to me! But we have a problem. I guess you don’t know it but the Catholic Church isn’t like the Protestant church. We aren’t allow to add or take away from the real bible. Nor any Sacrad Oral or Written Tradition. It is kind of an honesy thing Jesus required of His real church. Now you phony churchs aren’t bound to “Truth” like we are, You can deny commandments, Mary, all kind of truths that Jesus requires from the real Church! If you could mention this change to some of your crackpot Protestant sects they might be willing to modify their bibles again. Then like other things that you guys faked in the bible we could “quote it”. I know the 1611 KJV was “revised” many times before the 1800s. But we both know the major revisions didn’t happen until around 1833? That is when they did that 36,000 word and verse revision. That was so cool. So many cphoney things added and changed. Many people didn’t even catch it, Well not until someone compairs it to the real Bible that we still use. Remember that old bible that you guys “borrowed” from the Catholic Church? Are you ever really going to make a completely new bible like the Mormans did? Boy if you were only around in 1833 we might have snuck this one in then. When is the next rewrite of your bible scheduled? Are they working on it now? Could a Catholic submit a request to changes some things also? Does all changes have to conflict with the truth? Do they accept bribes, Oh, I meant “faith donations” to make changes! Must Satan approve every change? How do you guys do that make an asbestos version of the bible?
Do we also have to make phony greek documents to back it up? like they did last time? Do your modern revisionists have a web site where we can see changes being recomended?
[SIGN]
PROPOSED CHANGE TO BIBLE " For God so loved the world, that he created the Blessed Mother Mary and they gave their only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16 (KJV, at least the 90th revision?)[/SIGN]

Wow, That sounds really good:thumbsup: But with it being TRUE do you think they would allow it? You know how you guys like to corrupt the truth. Could you check it out and let me or the Vacitan know.?There might be a couple of dollars in it for you. Then you could quit this job of posting questions over and over, again, again and again, over and over. The Vacitan may have more truths they would want added from Oral tradition. Like you, I know oral tradition is just as good as being written down in the bible. At least they can’t be changed!

Thank you for your help! **