Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior

[SimonArizona]

Some people may believe it is hard to be a Christian.

But it is harder not to be, at least eventually

strongly agree

 

[Syele]

Some pedigree of Baptists apparently. I had heard it before and did a quick web search, and you will see folks defending the “it doesn’t matter how you live” angle. example

Ok I read all that page, its definitely not a denominational statement but some people explaining Baptist beliefs very badly. That belief DOES say that you cant lose salvation, but if you go out mass murdering people and not be repentant, then they will say you “weren’t really saved to begin with”. that isn’t the same as antinominism since you cant actually sin indiscriminately.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

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.

There’s an interesting passage that talks about Christ as the “Savior” of individuals in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras (4 Esdras in the Vulgate &c.) chapter 2:

33 **I Esdras received a charge of the Lord upon the mount Oreb, that I should go unto Israel; but when I came unto them, they set me at nought, and despised the commandment of the Lord. 34 And therefore I say unto you, O ye heathen, that hear and understand, look for your Shepherd, he shall give you everlasting rest; for he is nigh at hand, that shall come in the end of the world. 35 Be ready to the reward of the kingdom, for the everlasting light shall shine upon you for evermore. 36 Flee the shadow of this world, receive the joyfulness of your glory: I testify my Saviour openly. **37 O receive the gift that is given you, and be glad, giving thanks unto him that hath led you to the heavenly kingdom. 38 Arise up and stand, behold the number of those that be sealed in the feast of the Lord; 39 Which are departed from the shadow of the world, and have received glorious garments of the Lord. 40 Take thy number, O Sion, and shut up those of thine that are clothed in white, which have fulfilled the law of the Lord. 41 The number of thy children, whom thou longedst for, is fulfilled: beseech the power of the Lord, that thy people, which have been called from the beginning, may be hallowed. 42 I Esdras saw upon the mount Sion a great people, whom I could not number, and they all praised the Lord with songs. 43 And in the midst of them there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns, and was more exalted; which I marvelled at greatly. 44 So I asked the angel, and said, Sir, what are these? 45 He answered and said unto me, These be they that have put off the mortal clothing, and put on the immortal, and have confessed the name of God: now are they crowned, and receive palms. 46 Then said I unto the angel, What young person is it that crowneth them, and giveth them palms in their hands? 47 So he answered and said unto me, **It is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world. **

What do you think of that? Esdras does not say “our Saviour”, he says “my Saviour”. Now I realize that this isn’t canonical, but I think it’s an interesting part of tradition.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Jesus isn’t mine, personally, as if He could be owned like a car or a mobile phone - He’s not “my personal Saviour” in the sense of “my personal car” (as opposed to the family vehicle) - but I certainly have a strong relationship with Him in my prayer life, in my day to day work, and in the Sacraments of the Church.

Of course, and when Protestants (Evangelicals in particular) say that Jesus is their personal Savior, it’s not meant as a statement of exclusion (i.e. “He’s my Savior, not yours, and I’m not sharing”). Instead, it is to emphasize that He is not some distant abstract concept, but that He knows us deeply and intimately on a personal level, that He died and rose again specifically so that you, jmcrae, or me, a_mirror_dimly, or whomever, would be drawn to Him.

It’s a pretty astounding and amazing concept as we are all quite limited in our capacity for intimacy: to declare that we have dozens of close friends likely means that we really know none of them well. Yet God is able to say “I love you” to each of us with more love and intimacy than any husband or wife has ever known or expressed and mean it completely with regard to each of us. To the best of my understanding that is the truth expressed by the statement “my personal Savior”…it’s a testament to the greatness of God’s love.

Now of course there are right and wrong ways to think about the possessive. C.S. put it quite well in the Screwtape Letters (writing from the perspective of a devil):

The sense of ownership in general is always to be encouraged. The humans are always putting up claims to ownership which sound equally funny in Heaven and in Hell and we must keep them doing so. Much of the modem resistance to chastity comes from men’s belief that they ‘own’ their bodies—those vast and perilous estates, pulsating with the energy that made the worlds, in which they find themselves without their consent and from which they are ejected at the pleasure of Another! It is as if a royal child whom his father has placed, for love’s sake, in titular command of some great province, under the real rule of wise counsellors, should come to fancy he really owns the cities, the forests, and the corn, in the same way as he owns the bricks on the nursery floor.

We produce this sense of ownership not only by pride but by confusion. We teach them not to notice the different senses of the possessive pronoun—the finely graded differences that run from ‘my boots’ through ‘my dog’, ‘my servant’, ‘my wife’, ‘my father’, ‘my master’ and ‘my country’, to ‘my God’. They can be taught to reduce all these senses to that of ‘my boots’, the ‘my’ of ownership.

‘my boots’ is not the meaning intended by the statement ‘my personal Savior’ or ‘my God’, and as long as it is understood as intended it is a powerful statement of God’s love…He does not love humanity in the abstract, but loves each and every one of us, His creations.

 

[justasking4]

Catholics formally accept Him first at our Baptism and then at every Mass and in the other sacraments (and informally whenever we pray and do the will of the Lord). However, we would also say He is not just our personal Lord and Saviour, but the Lord of all of Creation and Savior of all mankind.

If a infant is baptised is this considered accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

 

[With_Questions]

What do the Baptists believe about accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and what is the Catholic view on this?

Hmm.

The only real problem I have with “accepting Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior” is that it is borderline Christianese.

If you think about it logically, for adults anyway Christianity has to have a starting point. This event is the point in time a believer is regenerated. Some Christians like to attach this phrase to this evemt. Although the use of this phrase is certainly not mandatory, the new birth is.

To answer some specific questions and objections.

Regeneration is not intellectual assent only. Regeneration involves repentance.

An omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God can certainly be personal and universal at the same time.

Regeneration does not mean that no matter what you do following this event you are cool. I too, would like to see a denomination that believes this. I do agree with Syele that some individual Christians might give this impression by explaining their beliefs on this matter poorly.

 

[jmcrae]

If a infant is baptised is this considered accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

He is entering into the Christian life by means of the promise of his parents to raise him up in the Catholic faith. The stain of Original Sin is washed away in the Sacrament, so as to make the living of the Christian life possible for him. Ideally, the parents follow through on their promises, and the child is immersed in his Catholic faith from the very beginning of his life, and when he reaches his teen years, has a solid foundation - a solid rock, if you will - upon which to build his life.

I have never heard of anyone who was baptized as an infant say, “I wish I could have been allowed to give myself over to Satan and debauch myself with sin at an early age, so as to ensure a place for myself in Hell.”

Some people, misunderstanding the nature of infant baptism, wish that they could have been old enough to remember the pomp and circumstance of the ceremony - perhaps this is why we delay the other Sacraments of Initiation - Confirmation and First Holy Communion - so that the kids can have happy memories of being brought into the Church, and have a sense that they participated in some way in the decision-making.

 

[reteeks21]

He is entering into the Christian life by means of the promise of his parents to raise him up in the Catholic faith. The stain of Original Sin is washed away in the Sacrament, so as to make the living of the Christian life possible for him. Ideally, the parents follow through on their promises, and the child is immersed in his Catholic faith from the very beginning of his life, and when he reaches his teen years, has a solid foundation - a solid rock, if you will - upon which to build his life.

I have never heard of anyone who was baptized as an infant say, “I wish I could have been allowed to give myself over to Satan and debauch myself with sin at an early age, so as to ensure a place for myself in Hell.”

Some people, misunderstanding the nature of infant baptism, wish that they could have been old enough to remember the pomp and circumstance of the ceremony - perhaps this is why we delay the other Sacraments of Initiation - Confirmation and First Holy Communion - so that the kids can have happy memories of being brought into the Church, and have a sense that they participated in some way in the decision-making.

How do Catholics feel about being baptised again later in life is someone so chooses? As if they wanted to remind themselves of the significance and experience the power of baptism.

 

[jmcrae]

How do Catholics feel about being baptised again later in life is someone so chooses?

To what purpose? Baptism can only happen once. We have the Sacrament of Reconciliation for the Absolution of post-baptismal sins.

As if they wanted to remind themselves of the significance and experience the power of baptism.

Of course, there are also ceremonies of Remembrance of Baptism, in which people recite the Apostles Creed together with a priest, and bless themselves with a bit of holy water, and I have heard of priests taking people out and immersing them in rivers, to do this kind of thing on special occasions - but it is always made very clear that this is not a re-Baptism; it’s just a remembrance.

 

[MelanieAnne]

How do Catholics feel about being baptised again later in life is someone so chooses? As if they wanted to remind themselves of the significance and experience the power of baptism.

A person is only baptized once. There are no “do-overs”. If a valid baptism has been performed at any time during your life, it is not repeated. The only individuals that might be “re-baptized” are those that were not validly baptized to begin with. For example, some converts to the church are baptized because their previous baptisms are not recognized. It is not a matter of how someone might feel about their own baptism or “if someone so chooses” to be rebaptized.

To be reminded of the significance of baptism, one thing to do is attend an Easter Vigil where others are baptized and receive their confirmation into the church. To see the joy of those receiving their sacraments often reminds us of our own baptism. Another thing to do, if sin is weighing on one’s conscience, is to participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. confession).

 

[Pokedaughter]

Okay: I think I can answer this question. I grew up in the Baptist Faith and went to a Baptist College. (I also went to Wed. night Mass at a local Catholic College with a friend, became friends with the Sisters, and even made a lasting friendship with one of the monks .) I want to clarify that I do not say I am “Baptist” I say I am a follower of Christ.

Baptists believe that at some time in a person’s life he or she will be introduced to Jesus Christ in some manner. This is usually through the preaching of the scripture and through the observation of another “believer’s” life. A Baptist then believes that God will speak to that person’s heart and mind through the work of the Holy Spirit. God may speak to this person over a course of several years or it may happen in a moment. Everyone is different. When it happens - you know it. Your heart pounds, you get a strong feeling in your “gut” and nothing else is important. All you know is that you desperately need Jesus. Sometimes you need Jesus because you have lived wrongly or sometimes you need Jesus because you just love him so much. Anyway, at that moment, you then usually get on your knees or “bow your heart” before God and Christ and pray something like " *I know I need you Jesus. I believe you came to take away my sin. Please forgive me and come into my heart and life. I love you and want to spend eternity with you. I want to live the rest of my life for you. I want to belong to You and give You control of my life and circumstances. I can’t do it on my own anymore. Thank you for loving me and giving your life for me." *(this is just an example. God knows and tells you what you need to say to Him)

Baptists believe that at the moment you say this prayer and truly mean it, that a miracle happens and that the presence of Christ, as well as the Holy Spirit, comes and takes up “residence” in your life and being. You are made new, the old life is gone, and you are a new creation (this is what I call Spiritual Baptism, we die to ourselves like Christ died and are made clean and new). You become a Child of God. God has now adopted you. That is why you can’t lose your salvation if you truly meant this prayer, because once you are a child of God you are always a Child of God. It’s like this: Just because my child messes up and does stupid things, he is still my child. That never changes. Baptists feel that a person will continue to mess up and sin but that the “pattern” of sin ceases because the Holy Spirit convicts us and we then repent and ask God to help us change. This is called the process of sanctification. Salvation is permanent redemption and sanctification is the process of becoming whole in Christ so that we are in a complete and pure relationship with God.

 

[mercygate]

Since these denominations you speak of are referred too so much here on CAF can you list just one or two of them so I can study their beliefs? You see its not only the Catholics I like to debate with, But try as I might I have not been able to turn up any denomination claiming that and I have been looking. I remember once running across a website about a group that believed that but it claimed they are now extinct.

There is a lot of hedging in the Protestant world when it comes to this. People who believe that you cannot lose your salvation are very hesitant to join Luther in saying you can commit adultery a hundred times a day and still be saved. They recognize that this would be highly inconsistent with a saved person’s life. Outright antinomianism is hard to find. But it is the logical conclusion of OSAS. It always leads to the disclaimer that a person who persists in grave sin was never saved in the first place.

 

[MelanieAnne]

There is a lot of hedging in the Protestant world when it comes to this. People who believe that you cannot lose your salvation are very hesitant to join Luther in saying you can commit adultery a hundred times a day and still be saved. They recognize that this would be highly inconsistent with a saved person’s life. Outright antinomianism is hard to find. But
it is the logical conclusion of OSAS. It always leads to the disclaimer that a person who persists in grave sin was never saved in the first place.

I’m not a proponent of OSAS (obviously) but I would submit that were someone to profess to having “accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior” then proceed to commit adultery 100 times a day, the sincerity of that original acceptance would be called into question. Having said that, this sort of thing tends to shine a bright light on the fallacy of OSAS.

 

[justasking4]

I’m not a proponent of OSAS (obviously) but I would submit that were someone to profess to having “accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior” then proceed to commit adultery 100 times a day, the sincerity of that original acceptance would be called into question. Having said that, this sort of thing tends to shine a bright light on the fallacy of OSAS.

I believe in OSAS under certain conditions that must be met. I would agree with you the a person who committed adultery as you suggest would be an indicator of an unsaved person no matter how they profess.

 

[jmcrae]

I believe in OSAS under certain conditions that must be met.

If there are conditions, then it’s not OSAS - unconditional salvation.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I believe in OSAS under certain conditions that must be met. I would agree with you the a person who committed adultery as you suggest would be an indicator of an unsaved person no matter how they profess.

I submit that OSAS under such “certain conditions”, in practice, could not be distinguished from the rest of us. The flaw of OSAS is the way it is extended to cover circumstances that make absolutely no sense.

 

[reteeks21]

A person is only baptized once. There are no “do-overs”. If a valid baptism has been performed at any time during your life, it is not repeated. The only individuals that might be “re-baptized” are those that were not validly baptized to begin with. For example, some converts to the church are baptized because their previous baptisms are not recognized. It is not a matter of how someone might feel about their own baptism or “if someone so chooses” to be rebaptized.

To be reminded of the significance of baptism, one thing to do is attend an Easter Vigil where others are baptized and receive their confirmation into the church. To see the joy of those receiving their sacraments often reminds us of our own baptism. Another thing to do, if sin is weighing on one’s conscience, is to participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. confession).

I guess I wasn’t too clear. I wasn’t referring to do-overs. I was speaking about someone who felt moved to be reminded of the joy of baptizing later in life and wants to experience it again. And I totally understand and believe exactly what you say about reconciliation. I am not trying to argue against that. I am just wondering if a priest would have a problem with someone wanting to go through it again.

 

[mercygate]

I guess I wasn’t too clear. I wasn’t referring to do-overs. I was speaking about someone who felt moved to be reminded of the joy of baptizing later in life and wants to experience it again. And I totally understand and believe exactly what you say about reconciliation. I am not trying to argue against that. I am just wondering if a priest would have a problem with someone wanting to go through it again.

Yes. A priest would have a problem with that. And it *would *be a do-over. We believe that baptism is effective and its mark is indelible. The desire to experience it is understandable but would actually amount to a lack of faith in Our Lord’s effective work the first time around.

I suppose there might be an allowance for people jumping into the Jordan on a pilgrimage to Israel – as long as there was no attempt to repeat the sacrament. Catholics get REEEEEEEALY touchy about messin’ with the sacraments.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4 View Post
I believe in OSAS under certain conditions that must be met. I would agree with you the a person who committed adultery as you suggest would be an indicator of an unsaved person no matter how they profess.

MelanieAnne
I submit that OSAS under such “certain conditions”, in practice, could not be distinguished from the rest of us. The flaw of OSAS is the way it is extended to cover circumstances that make absolutely no sense.

What do you mean when you say --“he flaw of OSAS is the way it is extended to cover circumstances that make absolutely no sense”?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4 View Post
I believe in OSAS under certain conditions that must be met.

jmcrae
If there are conditions, then it’s not OSAS - unconditional salvation.

Not sure what you mean by “unconditional salvation”?