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

[Anna_Scott]

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”?

kalt,

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!”

**Galatians 4:4-9 (ESV): **
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

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

Romans Chapter 5 tells us, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” So, our personal experience with Christ does not remain purely “personal;” because the “fruit of the Spirit” spills out of us to the other “people of God” and beyond to those who do not know Christ.

Romans 5:
1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

I see “personal experience” and “personal Savior” as two different things. The phrase “personal Savior” can be problematic.

I have recently come to realize that salvation is far more inclusive–as demonstrated in the New Testament accounts of entire households being “saved” and Baptized. It is very likely that not everyone in the household had a “personal experience” with Christ, by asking Him to come into their hearts; and there is no exclusion of infants anywhere in the N.T. All were included in Baptism for the remission of sins and inclusion as God’s people under the New Covenant.

Acts 11:
13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

Acts 16:
30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

Also, see: Acts 11: 13-18; Acts 16:14-15; 1 Corinthians 1:15-17;

The Priest, in the Episcopal Church that I have been visiting, spoke about answering the question, “Are you saved.” He said the best answer would be, “I am part of the people God is saving.” I think this is a very insightful answer.

Ephesians 2:
18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

Interestingly, the phrase “personal Savior” does not exist in the New Testament, at least not in the translations I have searched. I welcome correction, if I am wrong.

Scripture calls Jesus “our Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:18.) It seems the problem arises when the word “personal” is added to “Lord and Savior.”

In Acts Chapter 16 we find “The Macedonian Call.” This is an interesting passage, because it speaks of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus. The intervention of the Spirit was experienced far beyond the personal level.

Romans 16:
6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas.

We must also consider the Eucharist, when talking about accepting Jesus into our hearts. This is a quote from a link posted on the Thread:
How do Catholics hear the Gospel? (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=431277&page=3):
This is a Catholic speaking of Catholics receiving Christ in the Eucharist:

Sunday, January 08, 2006, “How Do Catholics Hear The Gospel?” (Gary Michuta)
Link: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-do-catholics-hear-gospel-gary.html.
. . . .they receive that same Christ who died on the cross on Calvary into their mouth and into their stomachs — body, blood, soul and divinity — and become one with him in an unspeakable way. Now that’s accepting Christ!

I claim Christ as my Lord and Savior, having accepted Him into my heart through prayer, Baptism, and the Eucharist. Taking the Body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ into one’s heart/being is very real and very profound. The Eucharist is celebrated in Communion with other Christians, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the Saints of heaven. So, it is not just a personal experience, but a communal experience.

I pray that, by the grace of God, I will love Him with my whole heart, follow His Commandments, and endure, until the end.

Anna

 

[thirdn6]

This is what I’m trying to say…

A protestant Christian, since he could not claim that the church he belongs to was founded by Christ, by telling that he accepted Christ as his/her PERSONAL Lord and Savior he henceforth become a member of the INVISIBLE universal Church.

In contrast, a practicing catholic, since he can claim that the Church he belongs to was founded by Christ and by the visible participation in the Holy Communion, he knows he is a member of the VISIBLE universal Church and doesn’t have to say that.

At moments of persecutions, it become manifest. The latter desires to be martyred and the former desires to be seen and recognized…(that is, become visible)!

 

[crazzeto]

I think the Catholic Church teaches that there are two churches too. One is visible, and one invisible (Church militant and church triumphant).

No, they don’t teach there are “two churches”, the Church teaches there are 3 states of souls in the Church. These are the Church Militant (us), Church Suffering (Purgatory), Church Triumphant (Heaven). All souls not damned are members of the one Church, established by Jesus Christ, which is his bride and his body.

 

[Dorothy]

I understand a ‘personal God’, and ‘Jesus in my heart’ through this verse:

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

That is a good Scripture quote.

And, for Catholics what can be more personal than receiving Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, (The Risen Christ) in the Eucharist!

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

No, they don’t teach there are “two churches”, the Church teaches there are 3 states of souls in the Church. These are the Church Militant (us), Church Suffering (Purgatory), Church Triumphant (Heaven). All souls not damned are members of the one Church, established by Jesus Christ, which is his bride and his body.

This is what I mean… Will all those who belong to the Church Militant end up being part of the Church Triumphant?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

That is a good Scripture quote.

And, for Catholics what can be more personal than receiving Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, (The Risen Christ) in the Eucharist!

The life of God in the soul of a Man is a title of an old classic Christian book. God dwells us… and the Apostle Paul writes…

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

The Eucharist appears to be the Apex of the Catholic experience by what I have read. I think for the Protestant, we rejoice that God actually dwells in us. I know the Spirit dwells in the Catholic too.

 

[crazzeto]

This is what I mean… Will all those who belong to the Church Militant end up being part of the Church Triumphant?

There is no such thing as so called “aboslute assurance”, while you’re alive you may fall away and be lost. Once you make it at least to the Church Suffering (Purgatory), you know you’ve succeeded and will join those in heaven.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

There is no such thing as so called “aboslute assurance”, while you’re alive you may fall away and be lost. Once you make it at least to the Church Suffering (Purgatory), you know you’ve succeeded and will join those in heaven.

Okay, the Catholic Church believes in a similar view of traditional Protestantism with an actual visible church and those who will be in Heaven (invisible church). For those who are Catholic (visible church) and don’t make it to Heaven (invisible church), they are only members of the visible church in reality.

 

[Dorothy]

The life of God in the soul of a Man is a title of an old classic Christian book. God dwells us… and the Apostle Paul writes…

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

The Eucharist appears to be the Apex of the Catholic experience by what I have read. I think for the Protestant, we rejoice that God actually dwells in us. I know the Spirit dwells in the Catholic too.

The Eucharist is a very important part of Catholic Spirituality, but so is Jesus’ Presence in the Scriptures, and in believers.

I spotlighted the Eucharist because some non-Catholic Christians think we Catholics do not know Jesus personally.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

The Eucharist is a very important part of Catholic Spirituality, but so is Jesus’ Presence in the Scriptures, and in believers.

I spotlighted the Eucharist because some non-Catholic Christians think we Catholics do not know Jesus personally.

Please see posts 8 and 10 in why I think some Protestants have a tendency to do that. It has to do with modern day theology and practices, and a low view of tradition and church history.

 

[Dorothy]

Please see posts 8 and 10 in why I think some Protestants have a tendency to do that. It has to do with modern day theology and practices, and a low view of tradition and church history.

Thank you!

 

[Monica4316]

as someone once said… we receive Jesus physically into ourselves at Mass how much more personal can it get?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Please see posts 8 and 10 in why I think some Protestants have a tendency to do that. It has to do with modern day theology and practices, and a low view of tradition and church history.

When you say “Protestants,” to whom are you referring-specifically?

Anna

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

When you say “Protestants,” to whom are you referring-specifically?

Anna

Everyone who fit into that category including Anglicans with the 39 Articles of Faith. Of course certain Protestant Traditions value tradition and church history much more than other Protestant traditions and denominations.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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

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. Charles Finney was a converted lawyer and non seminary church leader. It’s not a good thing because it was invented by man and cannot be backed by Scripture nor tradition.

If Catholics are starting to model this distinctively modern day Evangelical practice, then I think it’s not a good thing. Is it basically American Catholics who has this sentiment toward accepting Jesus into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior?

My Priest talks about having a “personal” relationship with Jesus all the time. He said many people come to Church, some even faithfully but they never give God another thought outside that one hour. He said it’s as if going to church is checked off their list of must-dos and that’s that. He said while there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, God offers so much more. God wants to be the very center of our life… our Father, our best friend. He said God is always willing to have that sort of relationship with us, but He won’t force Himself on any us. Like all relationships, it’s a two way street.

I don’t think accepting Jesus as my personal Lord & Savior is a bad thing as someone suggested. I don’t care if some guy coined the phrase… I think the concept is very Biblical and therefore Catholic.

I understand a ‘personal God’, and ‘Jesus in my heart’ through this verse:

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

The life of God in the soul of a Man is a title of an old classic Christian book. God dwells us… and the Apostle Paul writes…

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

The Eucharist appears to be the Apex of the Catholic experience by what I have read. I think for the Protestant, we rejoice that God actually dwells in us. I know the Spirit dwells in the Catholic too.

Please see posts 8 and 10 in why I think some Protestants have a tendency to do that. It has to do with modern day theology and practices, and a low view of tradition and church history.

Everyone who fit into that category including Anglicans with the 39 Articles of Faith. Of course certain Protestant Traditions value tradition and church history much more than other Protestant traditions and denominations.

One in Christ,

I think one must be careful in making general assumptions about Protestants, as if all believe and practice Christianity the same way. In reality, this is not the case.

I am a former Baptist attending a Conservative Episcopal Church (in communion with the Anglican Church.) The 39 Articles are not followed to the letter. The services are all centered around the Eucharist; and the liturgy is very similar to a Catholic Mass, with some of the same prayers word-for-word. There are no “alter calls” or “Sinner’s Prayers” designed to accomplish immediate and assured salvation. Infants are Baptized, as in the Catholic Church.

There is a discussion on the similarities in Sacraments and liturgy among Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal/Anglican Churches, on the Thread, entitled:
Non-Catholics - What does the word “Sacrament” mean to you?
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=433344&page=6

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.

Again, not a good idea to lump all Protestants together, when discussing beliefs and practices.
Anna

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

One in Christ,

I think one must be careful in making general assumptions about Protestants, as if all believe and practice Christianity the same way. In reality, this is not the case.

I am a former Baptist attending a Conservative Episcopal Church (in communion with the Anglican Church.) The 39 Articles are not followed to the letter. The services are all centered around the Eucharist; and the liturgy is very similar to a Catholic Mass, with some of the same prayers word-for-word. There are no “alter calls” or “Sinner’s Prayers” designed to accomplish immediate and assured salvation. Infants are Baptized, as in the Catholic Church.

There is a discussion on the similarities in Sacraments and liturgy among Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal/Anglican Churches, on the Thread, entitled:
Non-Catholics - What does the word “Sacrament” mean to you?
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=433344&page=6

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.

Again, not a good idea to lump all Protestants together, when discussing beliefs and practices.
Anna

Yes, I hear what you are saying… but your Episcopal Church in theology is basically Protestant in essential Protestant distinctives. So, if your church does not hold to the 39 articles of faith, does it hold to the essential doctrines in the 39 articles of faith which makes it Protestant in theology? Look into authority and justification as essentials that bind us as Protestant Christians.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, I hear what you are saying… but your Episcopal Church in theology is basically Protestant in essential Protestant distinctives. So, if your church does not hold to the 39 articles of faith, does it hold to the essential doctrines in the 39 articles of faith which makes it Protestant in theology? Look into authority and justification as essentials that bind us as Protestant Christians.

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

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I hear what you are saying… but your Episcopal Church in theology is basically Protestant in essential Protestant distinctives. So, if your church does not hold to the 39 articles of faith, does it hold to the essential doctrines in the 39 articles of faith which makes it Protestant in theology? Look into authority and justification as essentials that bind us as Protestant Christians.

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.

 

[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.

Bluegoat,

I really appreciate your comments.

The Episcopal Church reserves the consecrated bread and wine to administer to the home bound and the sick. They are never discarded. This is actually against the 39 Articles, and leans more toward Catholic practices.

Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

I really appreciate your comments.

The Episcopal Church reserves the consecrated bread and wine to administer to the home bound and the sick. They are never discarded. This is actually against the 39 Articles, and leans more toward Catholic practices.

Anna

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.