Personal relationship with Jesus Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Darryl_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. I think that there is a danger of “cultural Christianity” in all churches.

(grace flows freely to us by outward sign in the hands of a priestly class)…
I guess I have two points. One about the “cultural Christianity.” I grew up in a reformed presbyterian church and then in college went to a non denom evangelical church, and for the last 2 1/2 years I’ve gone to an Anglican church. I used to hear about the dangers of “cultural Christianity” all the time and to put it bluntly, I hated it. What Christian doesn’t want a culture full of Christianity? I understand what they meant but the fact is some people aren’t going to be as devoted as others–that doesn’t mean we can’t call them Christians (there still Christians! just not as pious). It really bothered me because I’d continue to hear statements about other people like “they call themselves a Christian but they really aren’t” all the time. It truly bothers me b/c as Christian parents, it’s our job to create a culture of Christianity. Sure, it can cause some complacency, but that can easily be fixed. So I’m all for Cultural Christianity. Hell, its a lot better than Cultural Secularization! Imagine that for a hot second. It won’t be too long before it’s here either.

Second Point: I wouldn’t phrase the sacraments as “grace flows freely…in the hands of a priestly class.” As an Anglican I have very similar views about the eucharist and baptism as Catholics. Yes, the priest performs the sacraments and is given grace to perform them, but it still comes from Christ. Without Christ’s grace it’s nothing. The “priestly class” is truly meaningless without the grace of God, so I wouldn’t phrase it the way you did.
 
And this shows the difference in thinking; we believe to be a part of the body of Christ we have to faith on Jesus, ours is a step-wise way of stating it (first come to Christ, the result is becoming a part of the body). Grace by faith puts us into the Body. I don’t think Catholics and Evangelicals are as different on this point as many believe, but the way it is described is put in different language.

Now, the biggest difference is indeed how the two groups see sacraments. Evangelicals would see them as placing “something” betwixt the believer and Jesus (believing that grace flows freely through faith from Jesus to us), whereas Catholics see them as a channel between the believer and Jesus (grace flows freely to us by outward sign in the hands of a priestly class). Honestly the best article I’ve seen that would help explain the Catholic POV to an evangelical is Jimmy Akin’s article on justification through faith. I wouldn’t expect an evangelical to agree with it 100%, but it approaches it in terms that are more amenable to the evangelical POV.
The only misunderstanding I see with this view is that Catholics ‘seemingly’ oppose “grace flowing freely through faith from Jesus to us”

Along with many doctrines, Catholics try to use a both/and aproach to the faith. So Jesus comes to us, speaks to us, compels us, teaches us, by the Holy Spirit from the Father, personally with and through other members and Sacramental devotion.

To be fair, I believe Evangelicals acknowledge a nurturing aspect to Communion…somehow. I dont know how that is claimed without grace within the sacrament?

It would be like saying Evangelicals dont need the bible, because the Holy Spirit accomplishes all that is necessary for their salvation.

Then we have to recognize the many disagreements and divisions which these communities holding to this theology produce. They all believe they are receiving the personal guidence of Jesus while comming to many different communions…???

Yes, Jimmy Akin is great at explaining the Catholic faith!

Thanks
Michael
 
I guess I have two points. One about the “cultural Christianity.” I grew up in a reformed presbyterian church and then in college went to a non denom evangelical church, and for the last 2 1/2 years I’ve gone to an Anglican church. I used to hear about the dangers of “cultural Christianity” all the time and to put it bluntly, I hated it. What Christian doesn’t want a culture full of Christianity? I understand what they meant but the fact is some people aren’t going to be as devoted as others–that doesn’t mean we can’t call them Christians (there still Christians! just not as pious). It really bothered me because I’d continue to hear statements about other people like “they call themselves a Christian but they really aren’t” all the time. It truly bothers me b/c as Christian parents, it’s our job to create a culture of Christianity. Sure, it can cause some complacency, but that can easily be fixed. So I’m all for Cultural Christianity. Hell, its a lot better than Cultural Secularization! Imagine that for a hot second. It won’t be too long before it’s here either.
But, in any Christian belief, the individual must make a decision at some point. I know many kids growing up in Protestant homes, going to Sunday School, going to church every week, and in college they make a blatant statement of atheism… it’s not even that they have become atheist, it is that they never were actually taught about sin, salvation, sanctification, etc… and hence, never believed it, including the actuality of God. You can have a culture, and that’s great, as long as the individuals actually believe the thing the culture is based on. This same thing happens with more liturgical churches all the time. It usually isn’t the fault of the church, but rather the parents.
Second Point: I wouldn’t phrase the sacraments as “grace flows freely…in the hands of a priestly class.” As an Anglican I have very similar views about the eucharist and baptism as Catholics. Yes, the priest performs the sacraments and is given grace to perform them, but it still comes from Christ. Without Christ’s grace it’s nothing. The “priestly class” is truly meaningless without the grace of God, so I wouldn’t phrase it the way you did.
It can be phrased any way a denomination wishes, but it is still the way it is perceived. I understand what you are trying to clarify, but the fact still remains that it takes a special priestly class that is ordained in a way the laity is not, in order for the certain sacraments to be validly administered. Except, for example, baptism in Catholicism, and marriage. As I said, it is from Christ, but it is not direct to the believer him or herself, it (grace) is through something physical in the hands of another human. Evangelicals don’t see anything between us and God, and grace only flows through faith, and can be had in a more direct manner from God to us via that faith.
 
Every Catholic should have a personal relationship with Christ. God is a person. Our faith is exactly that - a profound encounter with God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Surely this encounter takes place in the sacraments, most especially in the Eucharist and and confession, but it should also occur daily, hourly, minute by minute.

We meet the person of Jesus Christ in the scriptures which we should read daily. We should practice recollection of God - consciousness of his presence throughout the day. We should strive to pray constantly - to be in intimate and personal conversation with our beloved.

These are a personal relationship with Christ. Evangelicals should be imitated, not dismissed for this.

-Tim-
 
The only misunderstanding I see with this view is that Catholics ‘seemingly’ oppose “grace flowing freely through faith from Jesus to us”

Along with many doctrines, Catholics try to use a both/and aproach to the faith. So Jesus comes to us, speaks to us, compels us, teaches us, by the Holy Spirit from the Father, personally with and through other members and Sacramental devotion.
Yes, this is very true, and I see this belief among truly practicing and knowledgeable Catholics. I believe that many evangelicals don’t get to see this amongst Catholic believers, but it is indeed there!
To be fair, I believe Evangelicals acknowledge a nurturing aspect to Communion…somehow. I dont know how that is claimed without grace within the sacrament?
Some do and some don’t. It is indeed a very strange state in many of the churches. For me personally, it is indeed an “efficacious” ordnance, like baptism. Those that believe like me tend to place the emphasis on the inward reality that lines up with the external elements and actions. So, it is faith that taps into the grace and is evidenced externally by the ordinance. By participating in the Lord’s supper, we are showing forth Christ and bringing Him and His sacrifice present (obviously not believed the exact same as transubstantiation), and that we are to recognize the Body of Christ in the congregation around us and be united in the message we are proclaiming in the Supper, and that it all has a very real internal effect on us.
It would be like saying Evangelicals dont need the bible, because the Holy Spirit accomplishes all that is necessary for their salvation.
Some would agree with that, some wouldn’t.
Then we have to recognize the many disagreements and divisions which these communities holding to this theology produce. They all believe they are receiving the personal guidence of Jesus while comming to many different communions…???
As CS Lewis used to say in regard to morality; there are differences, but not a total difference. Which is why he, and those like him, can teach a Mere Christianity that we can all agree on.
Yes, Jimmy Akin is great at explaining the Catholic faith!
Thanks
Michael
Grace and Peace to you!
 
Every Catholic should have a personal relationship with Christ. God is a person. Our faith is exactly that - a profound encounter with God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Surely this encounter takes place in the sacraments, most especially in the Eucharist and and confession, but it should also occur daily, hourly, minute by minute.

We meet the person of Jesus Christ in the scriptures which we should read daily. We should practice recollection of God - consciousness of his presence throughout the day. We should strive to pray constantly - to be in intimate and personal conversation with our beloved.

These are a personal relationship with Christ. Evangelicals should be imitated, not dismissed for this.

-Tim-
And I think the outpouring of this relationship with Christ, that inward change that moves us more and more in the direction of being conformed to the image of the Son is something that Catholics are better at expressing and holding to that many of us evangelicals. We have a lot we can learn from each other, I know I’ve changed for the better, and grown in understanding, reading and studying Catholic teachings.
 
I have been trying to get my head around exactly what the Evangelical movement refers to as having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I read one such statement from an ex-Catholic converted to Evangelical where they described themselves as once being Catholic, but now they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, with no real explanation of what that relationship is.

I am not entirely sure what this personal relationship entails. Many times I hear people speak about this personal relationship along the lines of providing a personal body-guard (I have Jesus), sometimes I hear this relationship as Jesus is going to be the one to do my bidding (though of course not put that way but it is what it boils down to), and when I look at books in the Christian book shops, many appear to be focused on unleashing a power within us to do amazing things, get out the the boat sort of thing, become bigger stronger faster more powerful.

Can someone please explain the “relationship” part of the “personal relationship with Jesus” phrase.

I would like to know from anyone as to what our relationship to Jesus Christ is, and what it entails, and how that relationship functions.
So here is my 2¢: I never had a personal relationship with Jesus. I couldn’t manage it, though not for a lack of trying. I do have a personal relationship with Loki and Thor and several other Gods and Goddesses. That is a huge factor in my leaving Catholicism.

I don’t think a relationship with a god means a body guard. Thor is a protector that’s His thing, but thats not what makes our relationship. It certainly isn’t about bail. I’ve asked for that before even though I shouldn’t. THat is a selfish, foolish habit of mine I’m trying to break.

I actually find the getting out of the boat more like a relationship with Gods. Pagan Gods certainly push you to be better.

Most important though is talking to your God/dess/e/s and every once in a while getting a response. Not an answered prayer but a sort of “talking back” though there are some people who can’t seem to pick up such things so this is just what a relationship with a God/dess is to me.
 
In regards to the Protestant/Catholic differences expressed above,

It seems that Catholicism relies on an incarnation principle. That is, Just as Jesus took a real body of flesh and bones and redeemed us by shedding real blood, Jesus uses real material things to continue his real material incarnation.

In much of the protestant view, it is exclusively “spiritual” as opposed to physical. This is why some people have pointed out its Anti-Incarnation presuppositions. In this view, the only real access God has to us is through our intellect or emotions which remain independent of anything physical.

That doesn’t exist in every form of Protestantism(Not much of that in Pentecostalism or Lutheranism), but it is sufficient to be noted.
 
In regards to the Protestant/Catholic differences expressed above,

It seems that Catholicism relies on an incarnation principle. That is, Just as Jesus took a real body of flesh and bones and redeemed us by shedding real blood, Jesus uses real material things to continue his real material incarnation.

In much of the protestant view, it is exclusively “spiritual” as opposed to physical. This is why some people have pointed out its Anti-Incarnation presuppositions. In this view, the only real access God has to us is through our intellect or emotions which remain independent of anything physical.

That doesn’t exist in every form of Protestantism(Not much of that in Pentecostalism or Lutheranism), but it is sufficient to be noted.
I would say the view would be a bit different; the human body and the human being IS the response to the incarnation in Evangelicalism (and this does overlap with Catholicism, and all of Christianity actually). The human body becomes the temple, the human becomes the heir, the king, the priest, etc… and the collection of humans is the church and the body of Christ, and the focus is witnessing to other humans, serving other humans, etc… So, there’s not a lack of impact of the incarnation, it is, rather, human-centered in Evangelicalism, and non-human components are reduced to symbol, powerful symbols, but symbols none-the-less. So, the water symbolizes something, oil, cross, church building, and on and on.
 
Having a relationship with Jesus Christ is not sign of holiness since even the Devil has a relationship with Christ; one as an enemy of Christ. The question is does one have a right relationship with Christ? If one is not part of His Church through one’s own fault, then the answer is clearly, NO! If one does not have a relationship with the Church one does not have a right relationship with Christ, since the Church is His mystical Body. This Church is not invisible either. It is a visible organization, with apostles, bishops, priests, and deacons. An invisible Church would have no need for such offices within it.

Our priest this Sunday talked about this very thing in the conversion of Saint Paul. Saul was knocked of his horse by God and was asked why He was persecuting Him? Paul asked who and how, and Jesus replied that Saul was persecuting Him by persecuting members of His Church. Christ equated the Church with Himself. To say you can have a right personal relationship with Christ, without the Church is an oxymoron. Yet something else is shown in the conversion of Saint Paul and that is after Christ had appeared to Saul for the initial part of His conversion; He no longer appeared to Saul publically. In fact Christ instructed Saul to find Ananias and receive baptism and later instruction. Instruction which would come via Christ’s Church; His mystical Body. Saint Paul knew that one would have to have a relationship with the Church; His body, to have a relationship with Him; Christ, who is the head of the Body.
 
Having a relationship with Jesus Christ is not sign of holiness since even the Devil has a relationship with Christ; one as an enemy of Christ. The question is does one have a right relationship with Christ? If one is not part of His Church through one’s own fault, then the answer is clearly, NO! If one does not have a relationship with the Church one does not have a right relationship with Christ, since the Church is His mystical Body. This Church is not invisible either. It is a visible organization, with apostles, bishops, priests, and deacons. An invisible Church would have no need for such offices within it.
I’m pretty sure we can assume “relationship” means here a positive social relation based on numerous interactions, not just somehow connected. I really don’t think this is about where you stand morally speaking as defined by the Catechism.
 
I’m pretty sure we can assume “relationship” means here a positive social relation based on numerous interactions, not just somehow connected. I really don’t think this is about where you stand morally speaking as defined by the Catechism.
You are right, but the point is not to have a mere relationship with Him, but one that is obedient in all things. This should mean keeping the commandments of Christ in our hearts and in our deeds, striving to build up the Church of God…giving our devotion to Her ministry in submission to apostolic authority, prayer and constant conversion of self to the life of Christ, examination of conscience in reception of Holy Communion for the glory of God our creator and saviour.

Having a personal relationship with Jesus based faith cannot contradict the Catholic faith.

Michael
 
So here is my 2¢: I never had a personal relationship with Jesus. I couldn’t manage it, though not for a lack of trying. I do have a personal relationship with Loki and Thor and several other Gods and Goddesses. That is a huge factor in my leaving Catholicism.

I don’t think a relationship with a god means a body guard. Thor is a protector that’s His thing, but thats not what makes our relationship. It certainly isn’t about bail. I’ve asked for that before even though I shouldn’t. THat is a selfish, foolish habit of mine I’m trying to break.

I actually find the getting out of the boat more like a relationship with Gods. Pagan Gods certainly push you to be better.

Most important though is talking to your God/dess/e/s and every once in a while getting a response. Not an answered prayer but a sort of “talking back” though there are some people who can’t seem to pick up such things so this is just what a relationship with a God/dess is to me.
Maybe believing God shows up every week for mass to actually give himself to us is the best relationship possible but the hardest to believe
 
=Darryl B;11635689]I have been trying to get my head around exactly what the Evangelical movement refers to as having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I read one such statement from an ex-Catholic converted to Evangelical where they described themselves as once being Catholic, but now they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, with no real explanation of what that relationship is.
I am not entirely sure what this personal relationship entails. Many times I hear people speak about this personal relationship along the lines of providing a personal body-guard (I have Jesus), sometimes I hear this relationship as Jesus is going to be the one to do my bidding (though of course not put that way but it is what it boils down to), and when I look at books in the Christian book shops, many appear to be focused on unleashing a power within us to do amazing things, get out the the boat sort of thing, become bigger stronger faster more powerful.
Can someone please explain the “relationship” part of the “personal relationship with Jesus” phrase.
I would like to know from anyone as to what our relationship to Jesus Christ is, and what it entails, and how that relationship functions.
I have studied and researched this. **It seems to ME, **that it is a term of affirmation tied to certain faith beliefs. Once Saved always Saved; where if one makes an “altar call” publically Acknowledging Christ as LORD; ones salvation is assured; period. I’m led to understand that their beliefs claims no matter what future sins happen; their PERSONAL salvation has now been guaranteed,🤷

God Bless you and them,
Patrick
 
I have studied and researched this. **It seems to ME, **that it is a term of affirmation tied to certain faith beliefs. Once Saved always Saved; where if one makes an “altar call” publically Acknowledging Christ as LORD; ones salvation is assured; period. I’m led to understand that their beliefs claims no matter what future sins happen; their PERSONAL salvation has now been guaranteed,🤷

God Bless you and them,
Patrick
No this is not what personal relationship means. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

When we love Christ, it is because we know that he first loved us, and it is humbling and awe inspiring. Out of love for him, we obey him. We give whatever he asks of us away, even our very lives. We love him, so we tell others about him. We love him, so we love others. We help the poor. We regard the aged. We show kindness to the orphan. We love him, so we turn from our sins, seeking only satisfaction in him. We read the Scriptures because we are hungry for his words because his words are better than life. We worship him in everything we do and we seek his glory in everything we go through because after encountering his love, we know why we were made.

This Bible says that nothing will ever separate us from the love of God. It’s his love that comforts the weary and the broken. It sets the captive free. It turns our mourning into dancing, and softens hearts of stone into hearts of flesh capable of love and life. His love raises the dead.

I frankly don’t understand how anyone can have a “non-personal” relationship with the Jesus Christ and yet claim him as Savior and Lord who loved them more than life itself and was willing to die on a cross so that they might be washed clean of their sins and that through him they would have everlasting life.

Yeah, that guy sounds way to busy to know me personally. :rolleyes:
 
=ltwin;11689219]No this is not what personal relationship means. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)
When we love Christ, it is because we know that he first loved us, and it is humbling and awe inspiring. Out of love for him, we obey him. We give whatever he asks of us away, even our very lives. We love him, so we tell others about him. We love him, so we love others. We help the poor. We regard the aged. We show kindness to the orphan. We love him, so we turn from our sins, seeking only satisfaction in him. We read the Scriptures because we are hungry for his words because his words are better than life. We worship him in everything we do and we seek his glory in everything we go through because after encountering his love, we know why we were made.
This Bible says that nothing will ever separate us from the love of God. It’s his love that comforts the weary and the broken. It sets the captive free. It turns our mourning into dancing, and softens hearts of stone into hearts of flesh capable of love and life. His love raises the dead.
I frankly don’t understand how anyone can have a “non-personal” relationship with the Jesus Christ and yet claim him as Savior and Lord who loved them more than life itself and was willing to die on a cross so that they might be washed clean of their sins and that through him they would have everlasting life.
Yeah, that guy sounds way to busy to know me personally. :rolleyes:
Thank you,
Patrick
 
the scripture seems to indicate that to have a personal relationship-- with God -Jesus the Holy Spirit-- then you will be prophetic-

Even Saint Paul said “be filled with the Holy Spirit” and even simple prophecy in 1 cor 12-- edification- exhortation- and comfort – is easily proclaimed–

as Saint Paul said in acts 19-- have you received the h.S. sence you believed?

a lot of churchie- religious people – quote scripture – to demonstrate their dominance–

but when they pray for some one – they don’t have the desired- answers for the person prayed for --missing is the prophetic answers for the Holy Spirit

New International Version num:11;29

But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!”

What’s going on with Saul and the prophets?

After Samuel anointed Saul, he sent him home with a few signs that will be fulfilled in 1st Samuel 10:9-13 (NJPS):
Code:
As [Saul] turned around to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart; and all those signs were fulfilled that same day. And when they came there, to the Hill, he saw a band of prophets coming toward him. Thereupon the spirit of God gripped him, and he spoke in ecstasy among them. When all who knew him previously saw him speaking in ecstasy together with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What’s happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul too among the prophets?” But another person there spoke up and said, “And who are their fathers?” Thus the proverb arose: “Is Saul too among the prophets?” And when he stopped speaking in ecstasy, he entered the shrine.
It sounds like the people didn’t think Saul was the sort of man would would be caught up in prophetic ecstasy, which is why they asked if he were among the prophets. He was acting out of character. But why do they ask “And who are their fathers?” about the other prophets? Were they assuming Saul hired these fellows to “make a good show”? What’s going on here?

And what is the meaning of the proverb: “Is Saul too among the prophets?” Is it along the same lines as Jeremiah 13:23 (NJPS):
Code:
Can the Ethiopian change his skin,
Or the leopard his spots?
Just as much can you do good,
Who are practiced in doing evil!
1-samuel samuel
shareimprove this question

edited Feb 21 '12 at 18:42

asked Feb 16 '12 at 18:35
Jon Ericson♦
12.4k234115
add comment
3 Answers
active oldest votes
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Note that the people wondering at Saul’s prophecy called him “the son of Kish”; i.e., they were wondering, “how can it be that the son of such an ordinary man is suddenly ‘among the prophets’?”

The answer to their question is simple: Look at the other prophets; did they inherit this position from their fathers? Some, perhaps—but where did their fathers get this gift from? (Rashi is characteristically pithy and explains, “Is prophecy then a legacy?”)

The basic lesson, which became the proverb “Is Saul, too, among the prophets?”, is to look at the person himself for his spiritual value, not at his ancestry.
shareimprove this answer

edited Feb 16 '12 at 21:00

answered Feb 16 '12 at 20:21
J. C. Salomon
1,414217

1

Let me rephrase so that I can be sure I understand: One group saw Saul and, because Kish was not a prophet, wondered that he was prophesying. Then someone else pointed out that not all prophets are sons of prophets. Therefore, the proverb speaks against a sort of caste or inherited social class system. Ironically, Saul himself was the first step in the establishment of the dynastic monarchy that David began. Is that a good summary? – Jon Ericson♦ Feb 16 '12 at 21:01
3

Close enough, except it is specifically prophecy that is excluded from inheritance; purely social rankings such as kingship — and priesthood — are inherited. Prophecy, being related to personal righteousness, cannot be inherited, although it is likely that a prophet would raise his children to be worthy of this gift. (Which is why the impression that it was inherited might have grown up.) – J. C. Salomon Feb 16 '12 at 21:04
add comment
up vote 3 down vote

In the books of Kings, there is a group of prophets called “the sons of the prophets.” They are mentioned in 9 verses (1 Kin 20:35; 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1). We don’t know much about them except that Elisha and Elijah both interacted with them and never condemned them as false prophets.
Code:
Now fifty men of the sons of the prophets went and stood opposite them at a distance, while the two of them [Elisha and Elijah] stood by the Jordan (2 Kin 2:7, NASB).
Note this is all speculation as so little is known about the sons of the prophets. It’s possible that these men were part of the group that became the “sons of the prophets” a couple of centuries later. It’s also possible that this group is the first gathering of the sons of the prophets. I wonder if the group even took the name because of the question at this event.

As to the proverb “is Saul too among the prophets?” I would interpret that as a question to be asked when someone does something unexpected in their nature. It doesn’t mean that they will never do so again but it also doesn’t imply that it will become a habit. So, it would be similar to the proverb about the leopard.
shareimprove this answer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top