Christians, what do you mean by a "personal" God?

[brb3]

I believe this approach of conversion was invented by a man name Charles Finney in the 2nd great awakening in the United States… in which we have today’s altar calls and sinner’s prayers.

.

I think he got it from St. Peter, the 1st Pope. Read Peter’s first Sermon, @ Pentecost … to which 3000 souls responded and were Baptized in Water & the Holy Spirit.

 

[brb3]

I would like to say that this idea of “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and savior” is not a good thing.

This errant idea of yours reduces the Trinity to only the Father.

Christ taught “no one come to Father except thru me” /// John 14:6-7

 

[Anna_Scott]

The 39 Articles are not really Anglicanism’s essential doctrines. The do show what Anglican thinking was on a number of important issues at a particular time, but there has been development of doctrine since then. And they were also written very much in response to the particular historical situation at the time, so they also need to be read with that clearly in mind.

In order to understand Anglican doctrine, you need to look at the liturgy, which is historically where Anglicans deposit their theology for safe-keeping. They are rather like the Orthodox in this sense.

Anglicans often debate whether they are Protestant or not. On the Protestant side, we take a “faith alone” approach, though I tend to think the difference in doctrine here is one of emphasis . As well, Anglicans assert that the Bible contains all that is required for salvation; so all required doctrines must be able to be supported by Scripture. Other ideas, such as the Assumption of the BVM, are allowed and even encouraged but not required. And Bishops are allowed to marry.

Other than this, most Anglican approaches are similar either to Catholic or Orthodox doctrines.

Well, not really. THis is an example of reading what the articles say in context.

THe article says

“The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

But this was specifically in response to the Catholic practice of Adoration, and especially some superstitions practices that had come about regarding it. (Not that they were doctrine, but they were practiced by individuals and in some cases were fairly widespread.)

This was the kind of thing that was disallowed. The view of the Anglicans was that the purpose of the Sacrament was to be eaten, and that was why God gave it to us. While it was to be given all due honour and respect, it was not to be used for another purpose.

Reserving it to be eaten by those who could not attend the actual Mass was not using it inappropriately, and not considered an abuse.

Nowadays, there are Anglicans who even practice Adoration, and it is commonly reserved for use on Good Friday. But I don’t know any, even very Low (Protestant) Anglicans, who wouldn’t reserve Sacrament for the sick or house-bound.

Bluegoat,

I really appreciate your clarification regarding reserving the Sacrament. I have been visiting the Episcopal Church since the last week of Jan. 2010–so not all that long. I am still studying and have a long way to go.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Again, you are lumping all non-Catholics together. Remember the Anglican Church was not born out of the Protestant Reformation, though some “Reformed” influences did enter their theology. To be in full communion with the Anglican Church means to be in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some Episcopal Diocese lean much closer to Catholicism than Protestantism.

This is way off topic and I do not want to derail the Thread.

The point for this Thread is that my Episcopal Church does not have alter calls or the Sinner’s Prayer to invite Christ into one’s heart as their personal savior. Infant Baptism and Confirmations are part of the Episcopal Church practices, as are the Sacraments.

Christ is invited into our hearts through the liturgy and the Sacraments, and of, course, personal prayer. This is an ongoing process on the path of salvation.

Anna

I love infant baptism which is a correct view for children born into a household of faith. Confirmation is practiced in other Protestant churches too. Sinners prayers and altar calls is a new novelty and did not come from the Reformers. When I read the 39 articles of faith, it proclaims sola scriptura and sola fide which binds you to Protestantism. I know the Church of England is a blend of both theologies, but it is really Protestant in the important distinctives. You may look Catholic on the outside, but in the essentials … you are Protestant.

 

[wwolverine]

People talk about accepting Jesus as their personal lord and savior, but I haven’t seen that term defined.

How do you define “personal lord”?

What is Personal? Something that is mine alone, is personal, So how can God be Personal? Why can’t He be Personal God?

We Christians believe that God resides in us, ie the Holy Spirit, So if God resides in all of us, that means God is Personal, He guides us and corrects us, only if we are willing to hear Him in faith, and do what pleases Him.

God bless you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I love infant baptism which is a correct view for children born into a household of faith. Confirmation is practiced in other Protestant churches too. Sinners prayers and altar calls is a new novelty and did not come from the Reformers. When I read the 39 articles of faith, it proclaims sola scriptura and sola fide which binds you to Protestantism. I know the Church of England is a blend of both theologies, but it is really Protestant in the important distinctives. You may look Catholic on the outside, but in the essentials … you are Protestant.

One in Christ,

We are way off topic here, and I give my apologies to the OP.

However, you are making false assumptions; and you completely disregarded Bluegoat’s post regarding the fact that the 39 Articles are not really Anglicanism’s essential doctrines. Bluegoat is Anglican.
(Emphasis is mine):

The 39 Articles are not Anglicanism’s essential doctrines. The do show what Anglican thinking was on a number of important issues at a particular time, but there has been development of doctrine since then. And they were also written very much in response to the particular historical situation at the time, so they also need to be read with that clearly in mind.

In order to understand Anglican doctrine, you need to look at the liturgy, which is historically where Anglicans deposit their theology for safe-keeping. They are rather like the Orthodox in this sense.

Anglicans often debate whether they are Protestant or not. On the Protestant side, we take a “faith alone” approach, though I tend to think the difference in doctrine here is one of emphasis . As well, Anglicans assert that the Bible contains all that is required for salvation; so all required doctrines must be able to be supported by Scripture. Other ideas, such as the Assumption of the BVM, are allowed and even encouraged but not required. And Bishops are allowed to marry.

Other than this, most Anglican approaches are similar either to Catholic or Orthodox doctrines.

**
Article VI** states that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; but does not claim “Scripture alone.”

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Article VI does not claim Scripture alone or Scripture only as the source of doctrines and beliefs.

** The Episcopal Church acknowledges 3 basic sources of beliefs:

1. Holy Scripture
2. Reason (gifts of the Holy Spirit)
3. Church Tradition (wisdom of past generations)**

The Authority of the Church is acknowledge, yet nothing is to be ordained that is contrary to God’s written Word.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of
Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s
Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to
another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it
ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

The Episcopal Church acknowledges two Creeds.

VIII. Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought
thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of
Holy Scripture.
The original Article given Royal assent in 1571 and reaffirmed in 1662, was entitled, “Of the Three Creeds”; and began as follows, “The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed . . .”

Again, my apologies to the OP for going off topic. Just wanted to correct One in Christ’s false assumptions.

Anna

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

One in Christ,

We are way off topic here, and I give my apologies to the OP.

However, you are making false assumptions; and you completely disregarded Bluegoat’s post regarding the fact that the 39 Articles are not really Anglicanism’s essential doctrines. Bluegoat is Anglican.
(Emphasis is mine):

**
Article VI** states that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; but does not claim “Scripture alone.”

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Article VI does not claim Scripture alone or Scripture only as the source of doctrines and beliefs.

** The Episcopal Church acknowledges 3 basic sources of beliefs:

1. Holy Scripture
2. Reason (gifts of the Holy Spirit)
3. Church Tradition (wisdom of past generations)**

The Authority of the Church is acknowledge, yet nothing is to be ordained that is contrary to God’s written Word.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of
Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s
Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to
another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it
ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

The Episcopal Church acknowledges two Creeds.

VIII. Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought
thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of
Holy Scripture.
The original Article given Royal assent in 1571 and reaffirmed in 1662, was entitled, “Of the Three Creeds”; and began as follows, “The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed . . .”

Again, my apologies to the OP for going off topic. Just wanted to correct One in Christ’s false assumptions.

Anna

Sola Scriptura never intended to leave out tradition as a source of authority. Bluegoat sealed you into Protestantism with his confirmation of the belief of “faith alone”. Other Protestant denominations have a much higher view of the sacraments than your typical Protestant church. And the creeds are highly valued by other Protestant denominations too, used as sources of authority. Your church has not received the Catholic Magisterium as your final source of authority. How many books do you have in your cannon of Scripture?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sola Scriptura never intended to leave out tradition as a source of authority. Bluegoat sealed you into Protestantism with his confirmation of the belief of “faith alone”. Other Protestant denominations have a much higher view of the sacraments than your typical Protestant church. And the creeds are highly valued by other Protestant denominations too, used as sources of authority. Your church has not received the Catholic Magisterium as your final source of authority. How many books do you have in your cannon of Scripture?

One in Christ,

I said, Article VI states Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; but does not claim “Scripture alone.” I’m aware of the debates re Sola Scriptura & Solo Scriptura & original intentions, etc. Many Threads on this topic.

Agreed, the Episcopal Church does not submit to the Catholic Magisterium. Never said it did. Never said the Episcopal Church is Catholic, as in the “Catholic Church” or the “Roman Catholic Church.” Episcopals do profess the Nicene Creek–believing in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” (Catholic meaning Universal, in all times and all places.)

To answer your question re Episcopal Cannon:

The 1979 U. S. Book of Common Prayer:
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the
name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New
Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
**
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books**
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther, Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job, Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms, Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs, Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater, Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are
these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and
account them Canonical.

**VII. Of the Old Testament.**The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called Moral.

I grew up in Baptist Churches. The Episcopal Church, I am attending, is far more Catholic than Protestant in beliefs and practices. Again, not claiming to be Catholic.

Out of respect for the OP; let’s return to topic: Christians, what do you mean by a “personal” God? People talk about accepting Jesus as their personal lord and savior, but I haven’t seen that term defined. How do you define “personal lord”?

My posts on topic:

. . . . .There are no “alter calls” or “Sinner’s Prayers” designed to accomplish immediate and assured salvation. . . . .The Episcopal Church I attend is very close to Catholic beliefs and practices, and is far less “Reformed” than many Protestant Churches, such as the Baptist Church. . . . .
Anna Scott;6388940:

. . . . .Remember the Anglican Church was not born out of the Protestant Reformation, though some “Reformed” influences did enter their theology. To be in full communion with the Anglican Church means to be in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some Episcopal Diocese lean much closer to Catholicism than Protestantism

. . . . .

. . . .The point for this Thread is that my Episcopal Church does not have alter calls or the Sinner’s Prayer to invite Christ into one’s heart as their personal savior. Infant Baptism and Confirmations are part of the Episcopal Church practices, as are the Sacraments.

Christ is invited into our hearts through the liturgy and the Sacraments, and of, course, personal prayer. This is an ongoing process on the path of salvation.

John7 quoted Galations Chapter 4, which does say, “because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!”

The abiding of Christ’s Spirit in our hearts enables us to experience Christ in a very personal way. . . . .

kalt, My apologies for going so far off topic.

Anna