Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim1130
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jim1130

Guest
I know that this may sound quite silly, but I am asking it with genuine sincerity.

When Fundamentalists, non-denominational, and non-Catholics say that they have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” what exactly does that mean? My limited understanding interprets “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” as their view of Jesus as their pal and buddy; that they are almost humanizing Christ to earthly limitations, but I know that the phrase has to mean more than that. Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. I just hear that phrase soften that anymore it rings like a marketing slogan.

Thanks.
 
Having spent over 34 years among several n-C churches maybe I can speak to that.

Having “a personal relationship” with the Lord may mean slightly different things depending upon who you speak to, but mostly it has become a phrase synonymous with rebirth and being born again, being “saved” if you will.

It is a catch phrase that is mainly interpretted to mean that the person is a Christian.

I caught a case from some Catholics on here the other day that said that I shouldn’t use the term for what we Catholics have, though knowing what it “translates” as I think it applies to us Catholics as well as we are indeed born again and I can’t imagine having a deeper “realtionship with Our Lord” than what we have in the Holy Eucharist.
Pax tecum,
 
I expect the phrase means different things to different people but I believe it contains an element of truth that we all must hold if we desire our faith to be real.

I envision a person who has a real “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” to be like the disciples who gathered around him on the mountain top or like Mary the sister of Martha who “sat at His feet and listened to his words.”

I get closest to having this “personal relationship” when I read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthews gospel.

peace

Jim
 
Church Militant:
Having spent over 34 years among several n-C churches maybe I can speak to that.

Having “a personal relationship” with the Lord may mean slightly different things depending upon who you speak to, but mostly it has become a phrase synonymous with rebirth and being born again, being “saved” if you will.
Click to expand...
When someone asks me if I’ve been “saved”, I just tell them, “I don’t know, I would never do so foolish as to make that assumption, but I’m sure working on it”.

Philippians, chapter 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
 
I had to fill out some paperwork the other day that, among other things, asked me to describe my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I had to think long and hard to figure out what it was they were wanting to hear and then to figure out how I could put the truth into that same filter.

I ended up taking it to be asking “Are you saved?” and gave the standard Catholic response to that question.
 
40.png
IanS:
When someone asks me if I’ve been “saved”, I just tell them, “I don’t know, I would never do so foolish as to make that assumption, but I’m sure working on it”.

Philippians, chapter 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Click to expand...
Very nice response, Ian! 👍
 
Church Militant wrote:
I caught a case from some Catholics on here the other day that said that I shouldn’t use the term for what we Catholics have, though knowing what it “translates” as I think it applies to us Catholics as well as we are indeed born again and I can’t imagine having a deeper “realtionship with Our Lord” than what we have in the Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
No doubt unintentionally, but you have misrepresented what I and others objected to in your use of that phrase. We didn’t say, and in fact went out of our way not to say, that Catholics do not and should not say we have a personal relationship with Our Lord. As we said then and say again now, of course Catholics have a personal relationship with Our Lord and can express it in those terms. Our objection was, and still is, that you wrote that we are saved by our personal relationship with Our Lord, which is not Catholic teaching, and so is misleading for those who do believe that one must have a personal relationship with Our Lord in order to be saved. 😉
 
Paul had it right “We are a new creation in Christ”, but how is it that he is right. I know that some of you have never attended a Mass, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, but we are going to lead you on the adventure of the Mass anyway. The first part of the Mass is the reading from the New and Old Testaments of the Bible.

The second part starts with the overshadowing of the Gifts of Bread and Wine, and just like the Overshadowing of the womb of Mary brought forth the Real Presence, so does the Priest at the Mass. The angel Gabriel said “The Holy Spirit shall overshadow you, therefore the one born shall be the Son of God”, the Real Presence of God.

Now the congregation is the vary Womb of Christ’s bride, and it is about to receive the Eucharist. This Eucharist may or may not penetrate the members heart. This depends on how harden the heart is do to sin, but the Church has a way of softening harden hearts, it is call confession or reconciliation. Once a heart is soften the Eucharist can enter, and the member will become a New Creation in Christ.

Now I do NOT know how one can have a closer relationship with Christ than this, but I will try and lissen to your answers.
 
40.png
Della:
Church Militant wrote:

No doubt unintentionally, but you have misrepresented what I and others objected to in your use of that phrase. We didn’t say, and in fact went out of our way not to say, that Catholics do not and should not say we have a personal relationship with Our Lord. As we said then and say again now, of course Catholics have a personal relationship with Our Lord and can express it in those terms. Our objection was, and still is, that you wrote that we are saved by
Click to expand...
our personal relationship with Our Lord, which is not Catholic teaching, and so is misleading for those who do believe that one must have a personal relationship with Our Lord in order to be saved. 😉
and I still disagree…
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

So taken in a scriptural context our Eucharistic “relationship with Our Lord” IS necessary for salvation, and we enter into that relationship with Christ & His Church in Baptism.

The only misleading thing is your nitpicking. Let it go…
Pax tecum,
 
Church Militant:
and I still disagree…
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

So taken in a scriptural context our Eucharistic “relationship with Our Lord” IS necessary for salvation, and we enter into that relationship with Christ & His Church in Baptism.

The only misleading thing is your nitpicking. Let it go…
Pax tecum,
Click to expand...
Correcting false teaching is most certainly not “nitpicking.” And you were the one who brought it up by misquoting my position. So, now I’m just supposed to let it go?

You may very well interpret the Eucharist as a “personal relationship with the Lord,” which is your prerogative. But, Evangelicals will not see that nor think that is what you mean in your tract. Your wanting them to get that from your statement doesn’t at all mean that that is what they will get from it, certainly not as you stated it.

I have no idea why you won’t be corrected on this important point, but if I were going to reprint your tract I would correct that sentence precisely so no one, Evangelical or otherwise, would be getting non-Catholic teaching in what is supposed to be a Catholic tract.

Run it by your priest, if you won’t listen to me and see if he doesn’t agree with my position. And that IS my final word on the subject.
 
40.png
Della:
Correcting false teaching is most certainly not “nitpicking.” And you were the one who brought it up by misquoting my position. So, now I’m just supposed to let it go?

You may very well interpret the Eucharist as a “personal relationship with the Lord,” which is your prerogative. But, Evangelicals will not see that nor think that is what you mean in your tract. Your wanting them to get that from your statement doesn’t at all mean that that is what they will get from it, certainly not as you stated it.

I have no idea why you won’t be corrected on this important point, but if I were going to reprint your tract I would correct that sentence precisely so no one, Evangelical or otherwise, would be getting non-Catholic teaching in what is supposed to be a Catholic tract.

Run it by your priest, if you won’t listen to me and see if he doesn’t agree with my position. And that IS my final word on the subject.
Click to expand...
Peace.

Della, I think you helped clarify for me the stance: What do the Evangelicals mean when they say “personal relationship with Jesus”? The way some behave, I envision the Evangelicals wanting Jesus to come over to their home for picnic and Bible study. It seems borderline neighborly and friendly, not reverent.

for me, it is what Church Militant said, but as you added, the Evangelicals will dismiss it because, as I have argued recently on CARM, they say that John 6 is “figurative and about faith; it is not foreshadowing the Eucharist.” And then they add more to it about cannabilism, Christ didn’t mean eat my leg, arm, etc.

Peace.
 
40.png
jim1130:
Peace.

Della, I think you helped clarify for me the stance: What do the Evangelicals mean when they say “personal relationship with Jesus”? The way some behave, I envision the Evangelicals wanting Jesus to come over to their home for picnic and Bible study. It seems borderline neighborly and friendly, not reverent.

for me, it is what Church Militant said, but as you added, the Evangelicals will dismiss it because, as I have argued recently on CARM, they say that John 6 is “figurative and about faith; it is not foreshadowing the Eucharist.” And then they add more to it about cannabilism, Christ didn’t mean eat my leg, arm, etc.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s the point. They wouldn’t see such an expression as anything other than an affirmation of what they believe. And the Eucharist is, to them, either irrelevant at the best or idolatrous at the worst. They’d have to be pretty far along in understanding and accepting of Catholic theology to even want to talk about it without prejudice or their ignorace clouding the whole issue.

Besides, the Catholic Church does not teach that salvation comes through a “personal relationship with Chirst.” So, why use the phrase which will mislead, confuse, and make the job of helping them understand what Catholics do teach about salvation all the harder?
 
40.png
Della:
Yes, that’s the point. They wouldn’t see such an expression as anything other than an affirmation of what they believe. And the Eucharist is, to them, either irrelevant at the best or idolatrous at the worst. They’d have to be pretty far along in understanding and accepting of Catholic theology to even want to talk about it without prejudice or their ignorace clouding the whole issue.

Besides, the Catholic Church does not teach that salvation comes through a “personal relationship with Chirst.” So, why use the phrase which will mislead, confuse, and make the job of helping them understand what Catholics do teach about salvation all the harder?
Click to expand...
That is the point. The Evangelicals, like those characters at CARM, dismiss us because our “personal relationship with Jesus” (BTW, notice how often Catholics say ‘Christ’ and Evangelicals say ‘Jesus’?) is not how THEYwould define it. If we define it in our terms we are scoffed at, snorted at (yes, THAT has happened), ignored, and dismissed.

And don;t bring up the Cahtolic Church because for many the Church does not save, Jesus saves.

AllI am trying to do is really define what they mean because my interpretation really means “we want to be buddies with Jesus.”

Am I way off?

Peace.
 
40.png
trogiah:
I expect the phrase means different things to different people but I believe it contains an element of truth that we all must hold if we desire our faith to be real.

I envision a person who has a real “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” to be like the disciples who gathered around him on the mountain top or like Mary the sister of Martha who “sat at His feet and listened to his words.”

I get closest to having this “personal relationship” when I read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthews gospel.

peace

Jim
Click to expand...
A personal relationship with Jesus is when someone is totally broken by their sins. The Holy Spirit begins to make you feel very unconfortable with yourself. Acts that you commited before and never bothered you are now intolerable for you to do. You feel guilty for having an affair with a married man, etc. You take an honest look inside of yourself and it begins to sink in that you are a big fake and a liar. You finally admit that your true human nature is separate from the front you put on for people. In other words it is the real you… and it isn’t very nice. You realize that you have done things in your past life that you are ashamed of. You have wronged even people who love you. Most of all you know how your sin is an abomination to God and just how much he is offended by your sin. Then your conscious is completly broken down and you ask God to forgive you for every bad thought and deed you have done in your entire life. You will think of some little thing that you did years ago and had forgotten about but the Holy Spirit will also bring that sin back into your mind. Then when you think you cannot bear the thought of another sin you begin to sincerely repent of your sins and promise God that you will turn away from those sins. Then something miraculous happens. At least this is my experience. I felt a feeling of peace throughout my body. I cannot really explain it. It was like I was high on a wonderous drug. My fear of death went away. I knew from that moment on that no matter what happened in the future that Jesus would be with me. So now I have started my life over. With a clean slate. All my past sins have been forgiven and forgotten by God. I started my new life as if I had just been born again like a baby. Now Jesus is personal to me. The Holy Spirit is living in me.
 
40.png
jim1130:
Evangelicals will dismiss it because, as I have argued recently on CARM, they say that John 6 is “figurative and about faith; it is not foreshadowing the Eucharist.” And then they add more to it about cannabilism, Christ didn’t mean eat my leg, arm, etc.

Peace.
Click to expand...
If evangelicals believe John 6 is figurative, by whose authority are they making this interpretation? Don’t they realize that during the time of Jesus to “figuratively” eat someone’s flesh meant to loath, slander, and destroy someone? This is certainly not what Jesus wanted his most beloved apostles to do. Why didn’t Jesus explain to his apostles that it was just a parable like he did other times they questioned a teaching? Why did Jesus just let the crowd walk away without bothering to say it was just figurative? That’s because He did want them to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood , it was just in a way they could not imagine at that time until the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This was the common teaching of all Christians for over 1,500 years starting with the very first Church Fathers. They obviously did not question what Jesus meant.

Who does this passage remind you of because of it being too hard of a teaching?
John 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
 
40.png
IanS:
If evangelicals believe John 6 is figurative, by whose authority are they making this interpretation? Don’t they realize that during the time of Jesus to “figuratively” eat someone’s flesh meant to loath, slander, and destroy someone? This is certainly not what Jesus wanted his most beloved apostles to do. Why didn’t Jesus explain to his apostles that it was just a parable like he did other times they questioned a teaching? Why did Jesus just let the crowd walk away without bothering to say it was just figurative? That’s because He did want them to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood , it was just in a way they could not imagine at that time until the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This was the common teaching of all Christians for over 1,500 years starting with the very first Church Fathers. They obviously did not question what Jesus meant.

Who does this passage remind you of because of it being too hard of a teaching?
John 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Click to expand...
Peace.

You need to try arguing with them! I spent hours of prayer, meditation, and reading defending John 6, but to no avail. Even Pharoah’s heart in Egypt was more pliable.

I am giving up THAT site for Lent and hope not to return (it is 100% poison for Catholics).

Peace.
 
A “personal relationship with Jesus” means to Evangelicals, what Catholics would consider a “conversion” or “circumcision of the heart”, at least according to what I have read in Catholic devotional readings and such. It means that you have started a deeper spiritual relationship with Christ, not just a mental assent to who He is. This is also what Evangelicals consider a “born again experience”. And for most Catholics who leave the Church for Evangelical churches, the reason they do is that they have never had that deeper conversion of the heart experience while in Catholicism. Their first experience with that deeper conversion has come as a result of being told about it by someone other than their own Church. It is a complete shame, because they are then convinced that it was Catholicism’s fault that their conversion didn’t happen. And in a sense, I think really poor Catachesis and a lack of emphasis on conversions of the heart is greatly to blame for the huge exodus of Catholics to the Evangelical world.

I was watching The Journey Home a few weeks ago and Marcus Grodi was talking about this very thing. The problem is that most Catholics don’t make sure they seal the deal with their children, who are then brought to Christ by someone other than the Catholic Church. It has to be more than ritual, it has to be a changed heart.

But, having come from Evangelicalism, I know a lot of people who use the term freely, but don’t show the fruits of such a relationship, so I guess there are people on all sides who don’t really understand the concept of deeper conversion.

I think we all just talk past each other, we’re not speaking the same language at all. That’s part of the battle right there.
 
Jeanette L:
A “personal relationship with Jesus” means to Evangelicals, what Catholics would consider a “conversion” or “circumcision of the heart”, at least according to what I have read in Catholic devotional readings and such. It means that you have started a deeper spiritual relationship with Christ, not just a mental assent to who He is. This is also what Evangelicals consider a “born again experience”. And for most Catholics who leave the Church for Evangelical churches, the reason they do is that they have never had that deeper conversion of the heart experience while in Catholicism. Their first experience with that deeper conversion has come as a result of being told about it by someone other than their own Church. It is a complete shame, because they are then convinced that it was Catholicism’s fault that their conversion didn’t happen. And in a sense, I think really poor Catachesis and a lack of emphasis on conversions of the heart is greatly to blame for the huge exodus of Catholics to the Evangelical world.

I was watching The Journey Home a few weeks ago and Marcus Grodi was talking about this very thing. The problem is that most Catholics don’t make sure they seal the deal with their children, who are then brought to Christ by someone other than the Catholic Church. It has to be more than ritual, it has to be a changed heart.

But, having come from Evangelicalism, I know a lot of people who use the term freely, but don’t show the fruits of such a relationship, so I guess there are people on all sides who don’t really understand the concept of deeper conversion.

I think we all just talk past each other, we’re not speaking the same language at all. That’s part of the battle right there.
Click to expand...
Peace.

Maybe I am way off base here, but in the Catholic Church the Mass is aobut worshipping God and the Sacraments are designed to bring us closer to God, but in many of the Evangelical settings it is about the individual, although it is masked about worship to God. People go to the church because it is about them whereas, as a Catholic, I attend Mass because it is about God. I do not dismiss the power of the moment and the emotion tied in with it, but I do question the overall motives of those involved.

Peace.
 
40.png
jim1130:
I know that this may sound quite silly, but I am asking it with genuine sincerity.

When Fundamentalists, non-denominational, and non-Catholics say that they have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” what exactly does that mean? My limited understanding interprets “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” as their view of Jesus as their pal and buddy; that they are almost humanizing Christ to earthly limitations, but I know that the phrase has to mean more than that. Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. I just hear that phrase soften that anymore it rings like a marketing slogan.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
It means a relationship with God consisting of faith and love, expressed in prayer, obedience, listening for God’s voice within one’s own soul, asking for forgiveness when one has sinned, etc. Just basic Christian-living sort of stuff, really.

It can become a rather superficial catch-phrase, but basically it means a living, internalized religion that genuinely treats God as a loving Father who can be known rather than a distant ruler or an abstract force.

Edwin
 
40.png
Della:
Church Militant wrote:

No doubt unintentionally, but you have misrepresented what I and others objected to in your use of that phrase. We didn’t say, and in fact went out of our way not to say, that Catholics do not and should not say we have a personal relationship with Our Lord. As we said then and say again now, of course Catholics have a personal relationship with Our Lord and can express it in those terms. Our objection was, and still is, that you wrote that we are saved by our personal relationship with Our Lord, which is not Catholic teaching, and so is misleading for those who do believe that one must have a personal relationship with Our Lord in order to be saved. 😉
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by a “personal relationship.” If you mean a certain psychological state in which one can conceive of one’s relationship to God as analogous to a relationship of friendship with another human being, then I would agree. But if “personal relationship” means living faith formed by love, then such a relationship is indeed what saves us (or rather it is that through which Chrsit saves us).

The problem is that many evangelicals confuse the two–they identify the reality of faith and love with a psychological state. But if you push them they will usually admit that the two are distinct. The question is whether you take an adversarial approach–accepting their problematic definition but denying that a “personal relationship” is necessary–or a more conciliatory approach, accepting the necessity of the “personal relationship” but gently correcting their overly psychological understanding of it. I think the latter is better.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top