Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stewstew03

Guest
What is it? And what is the standard for determining whether one has it?

This is primarily a question for protestant evangelicals - I hear this term “personal relationship with JC” quite a bit, but looking for an operational definition.
 
What is it? And what is the standard for determining whether one has it?

This is primarily a question for protestant evangelicals - I hear this term “personal relationship with JC” quite a bit, but looking for an operational definition.
This question almost always goes along with “Have you been saved?” From my little stint in Prottie circles, I’ve found people are basically asking you if you have “given your life to Jesus” and have a relationship with Him. Some Protties, obviously not all, don’t see a great necessity in attending church, but rather strive for an everyday, intimate relationship with the Lord–“Having a personal relationship.” I think the original intent was that people weren’t Christians only at church, but bring their relationship with the Jesus everywhere they go.

Personal relationship=between you and the Lord–not between you and church and the Lord, but just you and the Lord. You may go to church, or may find it’s easier for you to pray at home, but you acknowledge Him as your savior, and (on a faith-only model) you would be saved.

Any people that are still Protestants, please feel free to correct me! I reverted fairly shortly after being involved with Cru my freshman year of college…
 
Father Larry Richards ( www.thereasonforourhope.com ) in his CD “TRUTH” addresses the question of a our personal relationship with JESUS.

He compares it to “how” we establish personal relationships with others, such as - girl/boy friends, best of friends, wives/husbands etc etc
  1. You spend time with the person you wish to have a personal relationship
  2. You talk to the person you wish to have a personal relationship with
  3. You share “personal” thoughts and experiences with a person you wish to have a relationship with
  4. You grow to trust that person, so that you are comfortable with sharing
  5. You seek that person above others, with whom you have not established a personal relationship
Fr. Richards point being, how much time do we spend with JESUS - in like manner as above - toward building and developing a “personal relationship”.

Do we spend time in the WORD of GOD?
Do we spend time in prayer
Do we spend time, in conversation
Do we share with GOD,
Do we seek HIM out

We/you have to “work at” building and establishing and maintaining personal relationships. You have to invest time, energy resources and your heart and soul and friendship and trust and eventually love.
 
Father Larry Richards ( www.thereasonforourhope.com ) in his CD “TRUTH” addresses the question of a our personal relationship with JESUS.

He compares it to “how” we establish personal relationships with others, such as - girl/boy friends, best of friends, wives/husbands etc etc
  1. You spend time with the person you wish to have a personal relationship
  2. You talk to the person you wish to have a personal relationship with
  3. You share “personal” thoughts and experiences with a person you wish to have a relationship with
  4. You grow to trust that person, so that you are comfortable with sharing
  5. You seek that person above others, with whom you have not established a personal relationship
Fr. Richards point being, how much time do we spend with JESUS - in like manner as above - toward building and developing a “personal relationship”.

Do we spend time in the WORD of GOD?
Do we spend time in prayer
Do we spend time, in conversation
Do we share with GOD,
Do we seek HIM out

We/you have to “work at” building and establishing and maintaining personal relationships. You have to invest time, energy resources and your heart and soul and friendship and trust and eventually love.
I love Fr. Richards. He’s so amazing. 🙂
 
All that is fine, but for folks who aren’t quite comfortable with the Oprah style of Catholicism, and are therefore put into a guilt trip for not feeling in love with Our Lord and chattering away to him all day long, you can always go back to the basics. Faith is not about feelings. You don’t have to “work at a relationship” - you only need to work at being a devout Catholic and the relationship will automatically be there.

We should stop looking for religion to be a personally fulfilling experience, because then if we do not receive that “consolation” we think we aren’t close to God. That is “all about me.” Sure you can read books, go to classes, pray about every tiny decision, but if that is not your style, that’s OK.

Simply attend Mass reverently on Sunday and if possible a bit during the week, go to Confession every month or two, say a rosary or some (any you like) prayers daily, and frequently review Church truths on a good life, such as the beatitudes, the Fruits and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Cardinal Virtues, etc, which you can probably find on some Catholic website in 5 minutes. Watch a bit of EWTN if you want to give yourself little booster shots. Do that consistently, trust that you are indeed pleasing God, and then don’t worry about it.

Our “relationship” with God is NOT like our relationship with others. I’m not disparaging Fr. Richards, he says nothing harmful. It’s just simplistic and not for everyone. A “relationship” with the supremely perfect, ineffable and all-powerful Creator who is infinite Beauty and infinite Truth is not something you are going to control. God is in control. That is why he gave us the Church. Follow the Church and you follow God. If a bit of psychobabble helps you feel good, OK, but keep in mind that is not religion.
 
Margie, you make some very good points. But surely you wouldn’t go to the extreme and contend that in our “personal” relationship with God there are no feelings and there is no personal fulfillment…?
 
Simply attend Mass reverently on Sunday and if possible a bit during the week, go to Confession every month or two, say a rosary or some (any you like) prayers daily, and frequently review Church truths on a good life, such as the beatitudes, the Fruits and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Cardinal Virtues, etc, which you can probably find on some Catholic website in 5 minutes. Watch a bit of EWTN if you want to give yourself little booster shots. Do that consistently, trust that you are indeed pleasing God, and then don’t worry about it.

Our “relationship” with God is NOT like our relationship with others. I’m not disparaging Fr. Richards, he says nothing harmful. It’s just simplistic and not for everyone. A “relationship” with the supremely perfect, ineffable and all-powerful Creator who is infinite Beauty and infinite Truth is not something you are going to control. God is in control. That is why he gave us the Church. Follow the Church and you follow God. If a bit of psychobabble helps you feel good, OK, but keep in mind that is not religion.
I’m just going to mark my place so that I can come back to this:) Insightful:thumbsup:
 
All that is fine, but for folks who aren’t quite comfortable with the Oprah style of Catholicism, and are therefore put into a guilt trip for not feeling in love with Our Lord and chattering away to him all day long, you can always go back to the basics. Faith is not about feelings. You don’t have to “work at a relationship” - you only need to work at being a devout Catholic and the relationship will automatically be there.

We should stop looking for religion to be a personally fulfilling experience, because then if we do not receive that “consolation” we think we aren’t close to God. That is “all about me.” Sure you can read books, go to classes, pray about every tiny decision, but if that is not your style, that’s OK.

Simply attend Mass reverently on Sunday and if possible a bit during the week, go to Confession every month or two, say a rosary or some (any you like) prayers daily, and frequently review Church truths on a good life, such as the beatitudes, the Fruits and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Cardinal Virtues, etc, which you can probably find on some Catholic website in 5 minutes. Watch a bit of EWTN if you want to give yourself little booster shots. Do that consistently, trust that you are indeed pleasing God, and then don’t worry about it.

Our “relationship” with God is NOT like our relationship with others. I’m not disparaging Fr. Richards, he says nothing harmful. It’s just simplistic and not for everyone. A “relationship” with the supremely perfect, ineffable and all-powerful Creator who is infinite Beauty and infinite Truth is not something you are going to control. God is in control. That is why he gave us the Church. Follow the Church and you follow God. If a bit of psychobabble helps you feel good, OK, but keep in mind that is not religion.
Margie9, at least be honest - you are very clearly and intentionally disparaging Fr. Richards as he declares you do have to work at a relationship and you state the opposite and then imply it is “psychobabble” and “Oprah”.
However, you are in effect “working at a relationship” when you perform the activities you describe - attend Mass, watch EWTN, pray the Rosary etc. Fr. Richards explanation hit a sore spot with you, so you reacted - but you are still in your own words working at establishing a personal relationship with GOD - otherwise you are simply going through those activites as a robot and wasting your time.
 
Once protestant, I used to hear this phrase a lot. It usually means have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Are you saved? Now every time I hear it, it reminds me of an old song, Me and Jesus, we got our own thing going. We don’t need anyone to tell us what it’s all about.

As a Catholic I think there is a lot more to it. I like Father Richards and he has good points. I think as a Catholic it would mean being fully obedient to the Catholic church, experiencing the sacraments and more. Doing all you can to experience the Church God gave us.
 
This phrase is Protestant-ese for “We don’t need a priest between us and God.” They feel that Catholics are putting a human being, a man, in the place of God, since we confess to a priest and priests are called, “Father.” They don’t understand how we can say we do have a personal relationship with Jesus, because of the structure of our Church.

I think some of the time, what they have is a personal relationship with themselves and not Jesus, but I don’t know all Protestants. 🤷
 
Your response makes sense because protestants tend to separate the “Church” from “Christ.” And so, when a Catholic speaks of obedience and love for the Catholic Church, which, incidentally, cannot be separated from Christ, this is perceived as a foreign concept to Protestants. In other words, their objection would be something like “I don’t follow a church, I follow God’s Word because I have a personal relationship with him.” In the real of Protestantism, the “Church” refers to an edifice - a brick and mortar structure; in Catholicism, the Church is the Body of Christ. When they see our love for the Church, I think they see it as removed from our relationship with Christ; nothing could be further from the truth…
 
Your response makes sense because protestants tend to separate the “Church” from “Christ.” And so, when a Catholic speaks of obedience and love for the Catholic Church, which, incidentally, cannot be separated from Christ, this is perceived as a foreign concept to Protestants. In other words, their objection would be something like “I don’t follow a church, I follow God’s Word because I have a personal relationship with him.” ** In the real of Protestantism, the “Church” refers to an edifice - a brick and mortar structure; in Catholicism, the Church is the Body of Christ.** When they see our love for the Church, I think they see it as removed from our relationship with Christ; nothing could be further from the truth…
This is exactly true. Since Protestants cannot admit/do not believe that Jesus actually gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and created the Church, they are left with only the Bible and their “personal” relationship to Christ. I feel sorry for them…
 
This is exactly true. Since Protestants cannot admit/do not believe that Jesus actually gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and created the Church, they are left with only the Bible & their “personal” relationship to Christ.

I feel sorry for them… In the real of Protestantism, the “Church” refers to an edifice - a brick and mortar structure; in Catholicism, the Church is the Body of Christ.
I guess I am drawn to my brother STEWSTEW’s post like a bee to a flower! So here I am SS 😉

First: church refering to edifice- brick and mortar being the church for Prostestants. As a child I was taught often & corrected often when I referred to the church as in “we are going to church.” My Sunday School Teachers & mother/grandmother would instantly correct me: “No HP we are going to the CHURCH Building” Now some Protestants (and Catholics to be fair) will use shorthand like “did you go to church on Sunday”. One of my colleagues, devout Catholic, uses this expression frequently: “I went to Mass”, or “or I saw you friend in Church” interchangably.

Most devout Protestants (and I see the perjorative word “Prottie” used above, I don’t take offense, but is that really a Christlike way to refer to other Brethren? Perhaps it is meant in good humor, I don’t take offense, but St. Paul did say "not to give offense if possible)😦 do not think of a church as brick and mortar. I certainly don’t.

I say none of this to be controversial, just to caution all of us (myself mainly) to stop & think before we make general statements(yes in particular there ARE some Protestants who in their ignorance think of the church as brick & mortar just there are RCC who think the same).

With regards to a *Personal Relationship *with Jesus- which Protestant church are you talking about? Not the Presbyterian Church. THey would agree COMPLETELY with the post quoting the Father about discipline & love being Faith + Action. Episcopalians would also agree with the post quoting that priest as well.

In fact until the early 1900 and the advent of Billy Sunday the idea of “easy conversion” say a prayer and come forward was **not **practiced by most Protestants.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sunday

In another Thread I write about the Great Awakening in hthe US & George Whitfield & the Mercy Seat and how that led to the now famous Baptist alter call. But the mercy seat for both Methodists and Baptists, at that time, required the penitant to really search his/her heart, and then confess their sins (publicly!!!) and then after a period of time as a acolyte to be accepted into the full membership of the church. Sound Familiar???:rolleyes: .

The History of the First Baptist Church in Charleston is a great example of non easy Christianity as practiced by Protestants:

The Baptists in London in 1648 publicly disagreed with the Puritan- Led Anglican Church on infant Baptism. They were harassed and run out of their jobs and professions and homes. THey sold ALL of their possesions bought a boat and sailed to the New World landing in Kittering East Bay Mass Colony (now Maine). The Puritan “infant Baptizers” in MAINE then persecuted them for their beliefs so they once again sold their possession bought a new bought sailed to South Carolina. fbcharleston.org/#!history

I am not suggesting that infant Baptism is incorrect or that these believers (who believed in the Nicene Creed) were correct in all things or even in many things-but the particular Protestant believers certainly were not “easy Christians” and they certainly did NOT believe that bricks & mortar were the Church!!!.

A more current example is the Presbyterian Church (US and PCA) in America (not sure about Scotland): there is no EASY church membership. One has to be confirmed the Church elders, agree with written doctrines, complete a course onchurch doctrine & requirements .

But no question easy believism is on the rise- but where did it come from???:confused:

Billy Sunday, then Billy Graham & then a host of Pentecostal and Evangelical Preachers swamped many of the Protestant denominations (mainly Baptist, Assembly of God, Campus Crusade and Intervarsity), with the Roman Road & the Sinner’s Prayer… whammo you have a "once saved always saved Christian,Cheap and Easy Christianity:(

John Calvin & Martin Luther would probably roll in their graves like a Rottisery Chicken on high speed if they had an inkling about this tendancy towards EZ Christianity, the sinners prayer, walking the aisle etc. Take the time to read Calvin’s Institutes or the writings of the very Calvinistic 18th century Jonathan Edwards & the idea of Protestantism being only “easy Christianity” will go away.

Watching some of the televangelists or attending many of the man centered churches could give impression of all Protestants being ez Chrisitans. Unfortunately many churches preach this terrible doctrine of prayer and you are on easy street. It is a man centered and certainly a dire doctrine.

That is I think one attraction (among many) of the RC church for me. The Church is NOT man centered, but Christ Centered and God Centered. It does not scream "here is what I (the Church) can do for YOU…but instead says (I think) “Here is what God wants you to do for HIM and here is What Our Father wants you to do for your BRETHREN, especially the least of these”

Well once again I have posted a gargantuan reply:o…but I will end it with this:

There has been a lot of mis-information thrown about, and name calling , by both sides, both RCC and Protestant in the last 300 years (and I plead guilty to having heard some of these terrible things said & spoken about the RCC church:o. I pray that God will grant me the grace to understand & listen & the mercy that He has shown me.
👍
 
HPM - I enjoy reading your posts.

It should be noted that, because this is a discussion forum (as opposed to a trade publication or peer-reviewed journal or some similar format where there is an exchange of ideas) there’s often limited space to work within. With that in mind, there’s often generalities and labels thrown about without the requisite qualifiers and explication of exceptions. Guilty as charged!

I take your point that are probably many protestants that do not see their churches as merely “brick and mortar,” but at the same time, I don’t often hear Protestants express their affection for their church. I often hear Protestants say “I love Pastor So-and-So (Ed Young, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, etc.)” but I never hear them say “I love my Second Baptist Church.” At the same time, if I were to say, “I am devoted to the Catholic Church and follow her teachings.” A Protestant response, as if to contradict the Catholic, would be “I am devoted to the Living Word, Jesus Christ.” For Catholics, there is no distinction because the Holy Church cannot be separated from Christ’s Word. (Note: I am speaking in generalities and recognize there are always exceptions).

On another note - I was in attendance at a Southern Baptist church this past Sunday and my jaw dropped when I heard the Pastor tell the congregation: “You are not saved simply because you say the sinner’s prayer.” Preceding those remarks he gave a very Catholic description of what it means to be “saved.”
 
HPM - I enjoy reading your posts.

It should be noted that, because this is a discussion forum (as opposed to a trade publication or peer-reviewed journal or some similar format where there is an exchange of ideas) there’s often limited space to work within. With that in mind, there’s often generalities and labels thrown about without the requisite qualifiers and explication of exceptions. Guilty as charged!

I take your point that are probably many protestants that do not see their churches as merely “brick and mortar,” but at the same time, I don’t often hear Protestants express their affection for their church. I often hear Protestants say “I love Pastor So-and-So (Ed Young, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, etc.)” but I never hear them say “I love my Second Baptist Church.” At the same time, if I were to say, “I am devoted to the Catholic Church and follow her teachings.” A Protestant response, as if to contradict the Catholic, would be “I am devoted to the Living Word, Jesus Christ.” For Catholics, there is no distinction because the Holy Church cannot be separated from Christ’s Word. (Note: I am speaking in generalities and recognize there are always exceptions).

On another note - I was in attendance at a Southern Baptist church this past Sunday and my jaw dropped when I heard the Pastor tell the congregation: “You are not saved simply because you say the sinner’s prayer.” Preceding those remarks he gave a very Catholic description of what it means to be “saved.”
Is there a Jesuit in the House?🙂 One thing I do admire about the RCC church is their devotion of learning and logic (whereas some, but not all Evangelicals check their brains when it comes to religion). So let me digress to a discussion logic and arguments (by argument I mean the good kind- gathering facts and data and logic to come to and support a conclusion). This method is, I believe, taught by the Jesuits:

Always argue from Particular to the General never from the General to the particular.

Perhaps a brief example of what can happen when one makes goes from a “General” or broad statement and then moves to a particular- and how such argument constructed can be easily & simply demolished.

If I state that in my view “all apes have brown eyes” & then I support it with a photo of a brown eyed ape and say “and here is my example” you can demolish that conclusion by simply producing one photo (in this case of a Mandrill Baboon) of an Ape with blue eyes.

However if I start with a particular example- here is a photo of Bobo the Ape with Brown Eyes and here are four more photos of apes with brown eyes- therefore MANY apes have brown eyes…that is a much harder argument to attack and destroy. If you produce the photo of a Mandrill Baboon with blue eyes I can say “of course there are SOME apes with blue eyes- very few- can you name more than a couple of types of Apes with blue eyes”

This is what I have noticed on the forum when it comes to comments about Protestants- only many posts won’t even take the time to produce a particular example, say, of how Protestants equate churches with brick and motar.

Now - your point above is a good one- about Joel Olsteen. Ever listen to his sermon- I defy you to tell me the difference between one of his sermons and a speech by the Dalai Lama- both are nice- but they are not Christian. Ever notice anything else about Olsteen’s Background? There is a globe in the background. No cross. You and I can argue about whether a Cross should have Christ Crucified on it (reminding us of His sacrifice) or whether the Cross should be empty (reminding us that He is in Heaven and Ressurected) but we will agree that the symbol of the Cross is crucial to our Faith. Of course I believe that St. Paul wrote the “Cross is foolishness to the World”.

To make your argument I would say that there are particular Evangelical Preachers : Billy Graham, Ed Long, TF Jakes, Joel Olsteen, who appear to be “almost worshipped” and certainly revered by their congregations- who are the symbols of their church and who would inspire people to identify more with the personality than with the Ecclesia or Gathering of Believers. No question. But I don’t think you will find many Congregationalist, Episcopaleans or Presbyterians that fall into that category.

All this explains why I prefer particular examples followed by General Statements and not the reverse!
 
This is what I have noticed on the forum when it comes to comments about Protestants- only many posts won’t even take the time to produce a particular example, say, of how Protestants equate churches with brick and mortar…

To make your argument I would say that there are particular Evangelical Preachers : Billy Graham, Ed Long, TF Jakes, Joel Olsteen, who appear to be “almost worshipped” and certainly revered by their congregations- who are the symbols of their church and who would inspire people to identify more with the personality than with the Ecclesia or Gathering of Believers. No question. But I don’t think you will find many Congregationalist, Episcopaleans or Presbyterians that fall into that category.

All this explains why I prefer particular examples followed by General Statements and not the reverse!
Well-said and I take your point, HPM, but “particular examples” in this forum are often anecdotal and therefore personal. I’m not sure such examples would assuage you, and I don’t have survey or polling data to back up my claim. This lack of hard evidence, of course, leaves it wide open to attack - and that’s perfectly fine. As I’ve said before, this is a forum for the exchange of ideas. I don’t take it personally if someone weakens my argument.
 
It’s basically praying to Jesus often and developing a relationship and friendship with Him like you would with anybody else.

The Catholic Church does teach this. Faith (in the right context) is synonmous with that personal relationship that my protester (;)) friends are always hollerin’ about. But the Church teaches faith and good works. Because if you love Jesus, you want to serve Him by serving others.

Excellant question, btw 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top