Can someone summerize "personal Lord and Savior"?

[Lillith]

JKirkLVNV:

I hope I didn’t sound like I was picking at you, Lillith.

Oh no sir…not at all!! I read my post and realized how I left out that important word…transformed…

I’m glad you pointed that out…someone else might have been confused, and I certainly don’t want that!!!

 

[mark_a]

JKirkLVNV:

It is a profound and, for most, a life-changing and deeply serious thing.

Must this happen spontaniously or instantaniously? Catholics tend to point this out about Protestants and the act of “being saved” and the possible cause of “backsliding”.

I don’t expect that this would ever happen to me, not hat I don’t have my own spiritual moments. I think of my own situation as more of a snowball effect with a long, long way to go. I don’t expect that I will ever arrive at that place.

 

[Elzee]

mark a:

. . . . and does anyone have any history on this expression?

I don’t have any history, but the term ‘Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior’ always makes me wonder how anyone could say this, and not believe that faith is comprised of belief plus obedience. If someone is my “Lord”, I don’t simply ‘believe’ in him. I must obey him - I am under his discipline - he is my master. Which to me, leads to the Catholic position of faith and works if Jesus is your Lord and Savior…just a thought I’ve always wondered about.

 

[Della]

Lillith:

Thank you Della…sometimes the thoughts in my head don’t come out perfectly on paper…and that is exactly what I meant

You’re quite welcome. I gathered that was what you meant.

Btw, your signature line. You know that it was said by Woody Allen? Yes?

 

[amanda_nicole82]

Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior. Believing in Christ is the beginning of accepting Him into your heart and accepting Him as your personal Lord and Savior. It’s not just a “feel good thing” as some have said, it is a commitment to living your life in obedience to the Lord. For me, accepting Christ into my heart and as my personal Lord and Savior was a deeply spiritual thing, and the most important thing I have and ever will do in my life. I accepted Christ into my heart when I first believed in Him, when I decided to leave my old sinful ways and give my life to Him. By recieving Him into my heart He became my Personal Lord and Savior. I took on many responsibilities, such as living my life for the Lord, serving Him in all I do, living my life in a way that can be a good example for others - both believers and non believers. Ever since I accepted Him into my life and into my heart my life has been the best it can possibly be on this earth! He healed me of a lifelong disease through surgery, and he brought me a wonderful Christian man to spend my life with !!!

BTW, I have heard some Catholics say they have a “deep communion” with the Lord, which is most likely the same “personal relationship” that I have with the Lord (different wording, but same meaning).
Blessings in Christ,
Amanda

 

[Zooey]

Della:

So, it seems the idea, if not the exact phrase, originated in the Methodist movement.

I, as your friendly neighborhood Methodist, think this is probably true…
Wesley struggled for years with an overactive conscience…(probably what Catholics call “scruples”). His mother, Susanna, seemed to have the same problem. Both were deeply devout Christians, who thought they had sinned every time they turned around. ( I have read that St Joan of Arc had the same problem).
Wesley attended a Moravian religious meeting one evening, when, he wrote in his journal, “my heart was strangely warmed; I knew that I did trust in Christ for my salvation”. (He later shared his experience with his mother).
This was the beginning of the Wesleyan movement in the Anglican church. (Wesley never left the C of E, & is in fact, today, on their calendar of saints…). He did not set out to start a new church (& there was none in his lifetime), but to increase religious fervor among the many nominal Christians in England. But his followers were rejected by many C of E clergy as “too religious”. (Yeah, I know…says at least as much about them as him, doesn’t it???).
God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Must this happen spontaniously or instantaniously? Catholics tend to point this out about Protestants and the act of “being saved” and the possible cause of “backsliding”.

I don’t expect that this would ever happen to me, not hat I don’t have my own spiritual moments. I think of my own situation as more of a snowball effect with a long, long way to go. I don’t expect that I will ever arrive at that place.

Most Fundmentalists say that there should be a moment when you can say,“This is when I was saved.” Not all Protestants have this mindset.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Zooey:

I, as your friendly neighborhood Methodist, think this is probably true…
Wesley struggled for years with an overactive conscience…(probably what Catholics call “scruples”). His mother, Susanna, seemed to have the same problem. Both were deeply devout Christians, who thought they had sinned every time they turned around. ( I have read that St Joan of Arc had the same problem).
Wesley attended a Moravian religious meeting one evening, when, he wrote in his journal, "my heart was strangely warmed; I knew that I did trust in Christ for my salvation". (He later shared his experience with his mother).
This was the beginning of the Wesleyan movement in the Anglican church. (Wesley never left the C of E, & is in fact, today, on their calendar of saints…). He did not set out to start a new church (& there was none in his lifetime), but to increase religious fervor among the many nominal Christians in England. But his followers were rejected by many C of E clergy as “too religious”. (Yeah, I know…says at least as much about them as him, doesn’t it???).
God bless.

Because I’m from a family of Prot., I’m always interested in bridging the gap when I can (above emphasis mine). This is no different than the Divine Mercy devotion (“My Jesus, I trust in You!”).

 

[mark_a]

Hello and thanks for the thoughtful response.

amanda_nicole82:

personal relationship. . . .accepting Him into your heart. . . . accepting Him as your personal Lord and Savior.

The above phrases seem to pretty much sum up your relationship/love/submission with God. They seem to be different ways of expressing the same thoughts. Is this correct?

 

[Zooey]

JKirkLVNV:

Because I’m from a family of Prot., I’m always interested in bridging the gap when I can (above emphasis mine). This is no different than the Divine Mercy devotion (“My Jesus, I trust in You!”).

This is probably why the Divine Mercy has struck a chord with me from the 1st time I heard of it…It has always seemed to me to be very familiar idea…

 

[amanda_nicole82]

mark a:

Hello and thanks for the thoughtful response.

The above phrases seem to pretty much sum up your relationship/love/submission with God. They seem to be different ways of expressing the same thoughts. Is this correct?

Hi, I accepted Christ into my heart when I first believed in Him - it was a conscious decision I made. When I accepted Him into my heart he became my Personal Lord and Savior. When I say “Personal Lord and Savior” I am describing the personal relationship I have with Him. So yes you are correct, those are terms I use to describe my love, submission and respect to the Lord! What terms do you use to describe your relationship with the Lord?
blessings,
Amanda

 

[mark_a]

amanda_nicole82:

What terms do you use to describe your relationship with the Lord?
blessings,
Amanda

After thinking about this, I realize I don’t have any terms that are similar.

When I think about a “relationship” with God, the things that pop into my head lately are usually things from Mass.

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”.

Or maybe the “Gloria”.

 

[Genesis315]

How did He go from being *the *Lord and Savior to someone’s “personal Lord and Savior?” I know this isn’t the intent, but it makes it seem like it’s ok for other people to have other lords and saviors, but Jesus just happens to be your personal one.

 

[Genesis315]

mark a:

After thinking about this, I realize I don’t have any terms that are similar.

When I think about a “relationship” with God, the things that pop into my head lately are usually things from Mass.

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”.

Or maybe the “Gloria”.

Holy Communion is a great way to describe our relationship with Him.

 

[Genesis315]

amanda_nicole82:

Hi, I accepted Christ into my heart when I first believed in Him - it was a conscious decision I made. When I accepted Him into my heart he became my Personal Lord and Savior.

You think you have it good now (and of course you have it better than most people in this world), well let me tell you, just wait until you’ve received Him in Holy Communion. Right now you accept Him spiritually. This is all well and good, but at every Catholic Mass we accept His entire being–Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity–into our entire being–body and soul. You can’t beat that:thumbsup:

 

[Curious]

I, too, am unfamiliar with the exact history of the phrase but I have some decent ideas (especially from living in the Bible belt) what it’s supposed to mean.

If I understand correctly, this phrase may have been tossed around as early as the 70’s and certainly the 80’s. It is sort of an attack on very structured, liturgical sort of churches like the Catholic church, but also several “high” prot churches. The phrase “personal Lord and Saviour” is meant to wake people up to having a real relationship with God for themselves, as opposed (and I can only guess) to having an impersonal Lord and Saviour. I say this half-jokingly, but it has some truth to it. The phrase is meant to cause people not to depend on religious organizations to communicate with God for you; you do it yourself. For example, many accuse Catholics of relying on the priest to get them to heaven, or Prots relying on membership to their denom to get them to heaven and so on. It’s an attack on what seems to be impersonal, rigid, cold organized religion. Instead of all that, they say, have a personal relationship. YOU do the talking, YOU do the praying, YOU do the reading of the Bible and so forth.

There has also been preaching that people sit in church Sunday after Sunday for years and years, and never “accept Jesus in their hearts” hence they don’t have a personal relationship with Him and end up going to hell.

These things, I think, are at least partly behind that phrase.

 

[mark_a]

Curious:

I, too, am unfamiliar with the exact history of the phrase but I have some decent ideas (especially from living in the Bible belt) what it’s supposed to mean.

If I understand correctly, this phrase may have been tossed around as early as the 70’s and certainly the 80’s. It is sort of an attack on very structured, liturgical sort of churches like the Catholic church, but also several “high” prot churches. The phrase “personal Lord and Saviour” is meant to wake people up to having a real relationship with God for themselves, as opposed (and I can only guess) to having an impersonal Lord and Saviour. I say this half-jokingly, but it has some truth to it. The phrase is meant to cause people not to depend on religious organizations to communicate with God for you; you do it yourself. For example, many accuse Catholics of relying on the priest to get them to heaven, or Prots relying on membership to their denom to get them to heaven and so on. It’s an attack on what seems to be impersonal, rigid, cold organized religion. Instead of all that, they say, have a personal relationship. YOU do the talking, YOU do the praying, YOU do the reading of the Bible and so forth.

There has also been preaching that people sit in church Sunday after Sunday for years and years, and never “accept Jesus in their hearts” hence they don’t have a personal relationship with Him and end up going to hell.

These things, I think, are at least partly behind that phrase.

Good stuff, thanks.

After giving this some more thought, I find it difficult to express myself this way i.e. personal Lord and Savior.

It’s kind of like saying my dad is my peronal father and earthly provider. He is that, but he is also my siblings’ father and earthly provider, which kinda zaps the “personal” part.

Jesus is my Lord for sure, he is my savior absolutely, but “personal” seems awfully easy to confuse with “exclusive”.

I know it’s not meant that way by those who use the expression.

I must admit that I feel a little envious of those (even Catholics) who have that exciteability and enthusiasm for God.

 

[MVH]

I found a very interesting writing concerning the errors of “The Sinner’s Prayer”, and within this writing it sums up a lot of the origin of the sinner’s prayer as well as accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour. A snippet of the whole write up is below. I won’t put the link below because it is a very radical fundamentalist site. It’s easy enough to find the article by googling for “the sinner’s prayer”

The Great Awakening
The Great Awakening was the result of fantastic preaching occurring in Europe and the eastern colonies during the early to mid 1700s. Though ambivalent on the practice of baptism, Great Awakening preachers created an environment that made man aware of his need for an adult confession experience. The experiences that people sought were varied. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield and John Wesley furthered ideas of radical repentance and revival. Although there is much to be learned from their messages, they did not solve the problems of the practices associated with baptism and conversion.

Eventually, the following biblical passage written to and inspired for lukewarm Christians became a popular tool for the conversion of non-Christians:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. …Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:14-20)

This passage was written explicitly for lukewarm Christians. Now consider how a lecturer named John Webb misused this passage in the mid 1700s as a basis of evangelizing non-Christians:

“Here is a promise of Union to Christ; in these words, I will come in to him. i.e. If any Sinner will but hear my Voice and open the Door, and receive me by Faith, I will come into his Soul, and unite him to me, and make him a living member of that my mystical body of which I am the Head.” (Christ’s Suit to the Sinner, 14)

Preachers heavily relied on Revelation 3:20. By using the first-person tense while looking into the sinner’s eyes, preachers began to speak for Jesus as they exhorted, “If you would just let me come in and dine with you, I would accept you.” Even heathens who had never been baptized responded with the same or even greater sorrow than churchgoers. As a result, more and more preachers of Christendom concluded that baptism was merely an external matter–only an outward sign of an inward grace. In fact, Huldreich Zwingli put this idea forth for the very first time. Nowhere in church history was such a belief recorded. It only appears in Scripture when one begins with a great cataract of nonsense. In other words, it only appears in the New Testament through the imagination of readers influenced by this phenomenon.

 

[amanda_nicole82]

Jesus wants to be our friend, He wants to have a personal relationship with us. This is not something that is exclusive to a select few, it is available to everyone. This does not mean that we do not respect Him as our Lord as well. Here are some Bible verses about Jesus speaking to the disciples as friends:

John 15:13 - Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:14 - You are my friends if you do what I command you.

John 15:15 - No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

BTW, it doesn’t matter how you put it, if you don’t use the term “personal Lord and Savior” but use a different term to describe your relationship to the Lord that is fine. It’s all about a relationship with Christ.

 

[amanda_nicole82]

Jesus wants to be our friend, He wants to have a personal relationship with us. This is not something that is exclusive to a select few, it is available to everyone. This does not mean that we do not respect Him as our Lord as well. Here are some Bible verses about Jesus speaking to the disciples as friends:

John 15:13 - Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:14 - You are my friends if you do what I command you.

John 15:15 - No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

BTW, it doesn’t matter how you put it, if you don’t use the term “personal Lord and Savior” but use a different term to describe your relationship to the Lord that is fine. It’s all about a relationship with Christ.